posted
dabbler, intellect taken alone is the same way. I would feel it was nice to say I loved someone's devastating intelligence, but not nice to say that I'm only interested in intelligent men, for example.
Taking that from the other perspective, if I thought someone wanted to date me because they were looking for a girl with an very high IQ, I would find that quite off-putting.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would feel it was nice to say I loved someone's devastating intelligence, but not nice to say that I'm only interested in intelligent men, for example.
Isn't it different to say "I'm attracted to intelligence" and "I only like intelligent men"?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. After breaking off a relationship with someone that it was just too hard to have a conversation with I did once say “I will never again date a man who whose ACT or SAT score wasn’t at least half of mine.”
I may not have stuck to it (moot point now) but I did say it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs> This post is to try and answer the Brando question.
<Pandy I really only like because of his junk in the trunk. I can admit that privately here to you. Just don't let him know that, okay?>
I don't like actors either until I get to know them as people, or rather until I get to know their characters as people. I remember long ago when Mel Gibson was much admired, I couldn't see why at all from stills. I am usually rather delayed in my exposure to pop culture. Then I saw Hamlet and really fell for his Hamlet. I'd read the play several times before, yet Mel Gibson's Hamlet was very attractive as a person. Then later I saw the first Lethal Weapon it was the same guy. Still very interesting and attractive, at least to the extent we could know him.
Brando's looks are not at all what made him a star. Looks don't make people stars in general, I don't think. Many are fairly ugly until you get to know them through their work.
Again, it feels to me to be fine to say "Brando was very attractive because of that certain animal luxury he had, that powerful but languid air of masculinity." Not so nice, though, to turn it around and say "I love guys with big pecs."
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, it feels to me to be fine to say "Brando was very attractive because of that certain animal luxury he had, that powerful but languid air of masculinity." Not so nice, though, to turn it around and say "I love guys with big pecs."
Okay, sounds good.
*ahem*
Tall guys are attractive because they are tall. How's that?
And I agree. Pandy's got it goin' on. I saw the picture of his cyber hug. It was the cutest thing I had ever seen. I almost died of cuteness.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't it different to say "I'm attracted to intelligence" and "I only like intelligent men"?
Sveta, yes, it's somewhat nicer that way. And I sure am not saying that I never say anything vulgar. Things I say myself don't ever seem to strike me as being so bad, I guess.
I guess the parent/child test is the best way I've found to tell. If I said something that I wouldn't much like to hear my mother say, or my nieces, for instance, then that ought to tell me something.
That and turning it around, I guess. Whenever I've heard a guy say "I like xyz in a woman" it makes me feel objectified, regardless of whether or not I have the quality in question, or even whether or not the person speaking is someone I would ever consider dating. Even if they were married or something. It just feels offensive.
[ July 23, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs> Pandy does indeed have it going on. Part zen mystic, part uber-hunk-amid-the-bamboo. All the chicks dig his foundation!
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, <pause to wrestle with feelings of severe pandy-jealousy>, but of course Ro-Pandy bestows his affections however he may choose. I merely pay him my obeisances and profound respect and gratitude as is natural for all thinking feeling beings. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: But for a romantic relationship, which is at least in part built upon chemistry, it would seem that there needs to be some physical attraction.
The wacky thing about me is, if I am attracted to the persons insides, I pretty much always become attracted to their outsides, no matter what their flaws. There does seem to be a stereotype that women in general are better at doing this than men; That men can do it to some extent too, but not to the same extent. I don't know how true it is or what, and I would be interested in the input of the minds of Hatrack.
I have said this before, but I have had the experience in my life of being *powerfully* attracted to men that women considered ugly. Ugly enough to deter them from having romantic feelings for them. While I was still aware of their physical flaws, they were really able to "get my motor running" so to speak.
I think men have a harder time with that because their sex drives are more visually based than that of women. Does this bother me? Yes, yes it does. 'Tis the way of things.
That does not, however, mean that I do not have a physical ideal. My physical ideal happens to be tall, slender, dark hair, and striking, even exaggerated, facial features, like: expressive eyes, strong eyebrows, large nose, etc.
Glasses also are a turn on.
Basically, I think nerds are hawt.
Oh, and the "ugly men" in the above example did not fit the above description very well.
But of course! Ro-Pandy is his own master. Whatsoever he deemeth meet, then that shall be done.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, I am the same way about liking the looks for the person. I think the real truth is that everyone is that way. A corpse is not attractive to anyone. Nor are store manniquins. The reasons bodies are attractive at all (think about it, they are animated piles of what will eventually be rotting garbage) is because of the people who inhabit them. I've noticed that when I like someone, I start liking more and more everything around them, in proportion to how close it is to their essence.
Like their shirt that they'd worn a lot might be fairly attractive, while their favorite book from childhood would rate even higher. A drawing they made once and didn't put much thought into might be only moderately interesting. A lock of their hair, now you are talking highly fascinating. And so on. Their hands, wow. Every time I like a guy I really start liking the particular way his hands look.
Once (and this is really weird) I allowed myself to fancifully imagine a guy I was crazy about online was actually a computer program, a secret AI project. After about a week of that idle fancy, I had to stop it because I found myself becoming attracted to sheet metal sprayed with gray epoxy paint. Seriously!
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would have to see the guys I am talking about. I doubt anyone would find them attractive, strictly physically speaking.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ak, a man can be a lot more powerfully attracted to a nameless pile of flesh than a woman can, IMHO. As long as that nameless pile of flesh is sexy. Why else are men more likely to oogle photos of women than women are to oogle photos of men?
But that is totally different than being in love with someone, though.
On being attracted to a visualization of hardware, isn't the human imagination amazing?
posted
There's a Hindu story about a beautiful and wise young girl who was pressured by a man who wanted to marry her because of her beauty. He was very powerful and she found it harder and harder to put off his increasingly demanding and coercive attentions. Finally she agreed she would meet him in 2 weeks time at a certain place. During that 2 weeks she took strong purgatives, and did not eat or sleep. She kept all the vomit and stool that she produced from this in jars. At the appointed time she appeared, haggard, gaunt, and sunken eyed, at the place arranged. She was so ugly that the man didn't recognize her. He asked her if she'd seen the girl for whom he was waiting, and was shocked when she told him it was she. He asked her what had happened to her beauty, and she pointed him to the jars. He looked inside and was repulsed. But then he finally understood, because of her great wisdom in showing him, and was enlightened.
I think the story ends happily. The enlightened man now fell in love with the girl for her own self, her strength and wisdom, and understood his unfitness for her as a mate. He was humbled, but then she genuinely grew fond of him and they married and lived happily ever after. Sort of a Pride and Prejudice story, now that I come to think of it. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
<laughs> On the human imagination, I feel certain that the same process is the only reason blobs of carbon compounds in certain configurations can take on such an appeal.
And many guys do seem to say visual cues matter a lot to them. Yet I feel positive the same principle must apply in every case. Otherwise no guy would prefer a real wife over an Inflatible Girlfriend (tm).
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
[tongueincheek/] It is true that an overwhelming number of men marry imperfect, flesh-and-blood women over Inflatable Girlfriend (tm) [tongueincheek/]
But of course, men are also far more than a sex drive and their sex drive is far more than just visual cues. I still stand by my belief that for men *in general* the visual cues are more a part of the sex drive than for women. (Accepting exceptions)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I've yet to see the inflatable doll capable of scratching my back.
Which, while isn't strictly sexual, feels pretty good nonetheless.
And I'm sorry, if all I wanted was a physical release, masturbation does wonders. But there is something to be said for an interactive sexual experience.
And we haven't touched on the cuddling factor which, since nobody here knows me, I'm not ashamed to admit I enjoyed..
-Trevor
Edit: I think it's more or less commonly accepted that men are visual while women prefer more emotional or mental stimulation. Exceptions abound, of course.
posted
And even guys who objectify women greatly, for instance guys who hang out in strip joints and habitually pick up girls for brief liasons. They still know the difference. (I've noticed this from things I've happened to read or hear.) They will say things like, "this was NICE girl p_____, not stripper p_____". They are just very confused about where the value lies, where it originates. It's certainly not in particular shapes or visual images or even in particular sensory input.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree that the feeling of cuddling or having your back scratched is pleasing, apart from the person with whom these things are shared. If you had a slave to do these things, or else paid someone to do them, they would become of low value to you. If someone you loathed did them, you'd cringe in distaste.
[ July 23, 2004, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it's more or less commonly accepted that men are visual while women prefer more emotional or mental stimulation.
I thought so too. But whenever I suggest this, people seem to disagree with me. Some people get mad. I think it's because people think this is a negative thing and therefore don't like to openly acknowledge it in mixed company.
It doesn't mean that all men are predisposed to picking up hot chickies for one-night-stands. It effects every man in an individual way and they choose how they deal with their own sex drive.
posted
Ak - if you pay someone to cuddle with you, it's not cuddling. If it's someone you loathe, it borders on a criminal offense.
Cuddling requires a certain emotional context - otherwise it's not the same.
As for scratching my back - paid or slave, I'd probably still enjoy it. That's not nearly as intimate, but enjoyable nonetheless.
Bev - everything I have read about the differences in arousal suggests or outright states that men prefer visual, like porn. Women, by comparison, find porn a little dull but enjoy a good romance novel because it stimulates the imagination.
Standard disclaimer - there are always exceptions to every generalization.
posted
A good man will not let the visual aspect of arousal rule him. He will take into account the whole person. But the power and influence of that visual arousal still exists. They choose how they deal with it after the initial impact is made.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
PSI![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
