| Throw away your "must have" list
Posted: 4/11/2009 6:29:29 AM | Here is a site worth checking out.
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/35980-science-of-sex-appeal-sexy-voices-video.htm
Each clip explains how voice and scent and the shape of a person's face factor into attraction. For example, nature devised it so people are sexually turned off by the scent of a close relative so as to prevent mating and the resultant DNA problems.
Chemistry, sex appeal, that "I want you!" feeling which so many people claim is not a good way to find a partner is, in fact, the best way to find a partner. It's the product of thousands of years of trial and error and testing.
While everyone states they know what they want and who the best partner is for them do they really believe they have more wisdom than nature?
Considering this is a "Dating and Love Advice" thread it's probably worth ones while to check out the links and adjust their thinking accordingly. Perhaps it's time to remember what romantic relationships are all about. It's the passion, the "I want you!" feeling and not whether you both agree on the type of movie to watch.  | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 6:42:34 AM | OP, I essentially agree with you, with a caveat that life experience will have given most mature adults some "guidelines" to apply in initially approaching the "universe" of the opposite sex. I have some "hard wired" preferences that always apply.
That being said, I could ( and have) constructed my "dream girl" in my imagination, only to meet someone who "fits" almost perfectly, and discover that in person, there's no "there" there. On the other hand, I have been strongly attracted a time or two to someone who is far different from what I imagined to be the "ideal".
For me, at least, I think it's wise to keep the "must haves" and "must nots" to the bare minimum, and to let "life happen", rather than to impose too much "control" over serendipity, or Providence as I like to view it. | |
|
| |
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 8:27:33 AM | I almost bought into what you were saying, but the example that you give doesn't seem to bear up!
For example, nature devised it so people are sexually turned off by the scent of a close relative so as to prevent mating and the resultant DNA problems.
If this is true, why has incest been so rampant throughout human history? So rampant, in fact, that the Egyptians very often married brothers and sisters to keep the inheritance in the family, and the Jews made holy laws forbidding incestuous relationships--they wouldn't have had the need if it hadn't been a problem. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 8:32:44 AM | I don't have a "must have" list.
It seems pointless because most of the time, men will alter who they are to fit that list. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 8:35:44 AM | OP This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while; so we are all the same person and all are attracted to the same thing? whatever. I'm so sick of these things coming out.
It's just like the Atkins diet; what a joke; they have now done long term studies that show what most of us in medicine knew; a calorie is a calorie is a calorie; heart disease was the #5 killer in women, but after 10 years of the Atkins it was #1 and people are as fat as ever.
This is the same crap; the U.S. has become a mindless internet zombies that haven't a clue how to act in a public setting and hide behind computers and chats and texts instead of getting out there and meeting people.
What relationships are all about are different things to different people. Some want sex, some want fun, some want money, some want companionship; it's different to all.
This is a ridiculous thread and I think the DC's show is full of crap. People are different and are attracted to different things. Get out from behind your computer and go see for yourself. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 9:04:11 AM |
Chemistry, sex appeal, that "I want you!" feeling which so many people claim is not a good way to find a partner is, in fact, the best way to find a partner. It's the product of thousands of years of trial and error and testing.
There's a great book that addresses this exact subject, called, "The Secret Psychology of How We Fall in Love," by Dr. Paul Dobransky. It's Attraction, then Friendship, then Committment, in that order because it correlates to our three brains, the "reptilian" brain for attraction, the "mammalian" brain for friendship, and the "higher" brain for committment. All three must be activated in a successful ltr according to the author. It's a fascinating read and I highly recommend it. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 9:37:24 AM |
(Msg 4) If this is true, why has incest been so rampant throughout human history? So rampant, in fact, that the Egyptians very often married brothers and sisters to keep the inheritance in the family, and the Jews made holy laws forbidding incestuous relationships--they wouldn't have had the need if it hadn't been a problem.
You just explained inheritance was a reason. The same happens today in certain Royal families. Regarding religions some people don't like it if one marries outside of their religion and we have to bear in mind the Jewish population was relatively small. Probably given the few choices available ones sister/brother didn't look too bad.
(Msg 6) This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while; so we are all the same person and all are attracted to the same thing?
I don't know where you got that idea. Right near the top I wrote, "For example, nature devised it so people are sexually turned off by the scent of a close relative so as to prevent mating and the resultant DNA problems." That means people are attracted to different things and one of those is scent. We all have different relatives so we are all turned off by different scents.
The same applies to facial structure. That's why there's truth in the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." The link I gave explains why we are attracted to different facial structures.
Again, I don't know where you got the idea we are all attracted to the same thing. The link explains why we are not all attracted to the same thing. 
What relationships are all about are different things to different people. Some want sex, some want fun, some want money, some want companionship; it's different to all.
Of course some people have different expectations. That's precisely why romantic relationships seldom last today and that's the purpose of the thread. People ignore the "attraction" and focus on money, compatibility in activities, similar beliefs, etc. and then wonder why romantic relationship do not endure.
All relationships have certain qualities or factors we look for. A friendship type relationship would most likely require compatibility in activities, for example. A relationship with an interior designer would require compatibility in "tastes". A relationship with our business partner would require compatibility where money is concerned and a successful, romantic relationship requires attraction.
(Msg 7) It's Attraction, then Friendship, then Committment, in that order...
I completely agree and I think that's one of the pitfalls of computer dating. People seek friendship before attraction. Even commitment, to a certain extent, in some cases. I've read about folks emailing a potential partner for months before meeting and all that time being "faithful". Then the meeting ends up being a crushing blow. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 9:48:59 AM |
You just explained inheritance was a reason.
No, that is one reason. If you read the newspapers today or talk to social workers, you will find the world is full of incestuous "happenings." And not only that, they often occur between an adult in power and a helpless child.
Of course, this is not the same as looking for a partner or a mate, but I still question the validity of a statement that claims humans avoid sexual contact with relatives. And if the aversion does exist, then obviously, it is easily overcome.
Every generation is bombarded with pseudo-scientific theories to explain why humans do what they do and how we SHOULD do it. Then, the next generation "disproves" the theories. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 10:05:48 AM |
I still question the validity of a statement that claims humans avoid sexual contact with relatives.
With all due respect, Gwendolyn2009, I think you are picking at nits. You are one of my favorite posters, but in this instance, I think you're looking at a few isolated trees, and missing the forest.
The OP was just using that as one small part of illustrating the point about the importance of physical attraction in a relationship, as opposed to having similar hobbies. Yes, incest happens, but it's rare. When we isolate it to mature adults, it's a statistically insignificant event, although out of 360 million people in the U.S. and Canada, almost everything under the sun happens.
The larger point of the OP, though, is not about incest. It's what is "usually" true in terms of forming a relationship, and that attraction is somewhat unpredictable. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 10:08:11 AM | OP This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while; so we are all the same person and all are attracted to the same thing? whatever. I'm so sick of these things coming out.
It's just like the Atkins diet; what a joke; they have now done long term studies that show what most of us in medicine knew; a calorie is a calorie is a calorie; heart disease was the #5 killer in women, but after 10 years of the Atkins it was #1 and people are as fat as ever.
This is the same crap; the U.S. has become a mindless internet zombies that haven't a clue how to act in a public setting and hide behind computers and chats and texts instead of getting out there and meeting people.
What relationships are all about are different things to different people. Some want sex, some want fun, some want money, some want companionship; it's different to all.
This is a ridiculous thread and I think the DC's show is full of crap. People are different and are attracted to different things. Get out from behind your computer and go see for yourself. Excellent post! Completely agree. 
Does it occur to anyone at all that most if not all of the women who do telephone sex chat lines (or used to--do they still exist?) don't look anything like the pictures, and yet they have very 'sexy' voices? | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 10:50:49 AM |
OP This is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while; so we are all the same person and all are attracted to the same thing? whatever. I'm so sick of these things coming out.
There is an actual "discussable topic", and the OP was not inflammatory or polarizing. What does the "Atkins diet", or (re:post #11) women working on sex chat lines have to do with the actual topic?
The OP emphasizes the importance of physical attraction in forming a relationship, and the relative unimportance of limiting one's "dating universe" based on similar hobbies.
What's difficult to grasp, in terms of what the topic is meant to be?
I happen to agree, that without physical attraction, no relationship is possible, no matter how many hobbies one has in common. On the other hand, if the attraction is strong enough, hobbies and interests will develop in common, because you want to be with each other. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 10:59:34 AM |
With all due respect, Gwendolyn2009, I think you are picking at nits. You are one of my favorite posters, but in this instance, I think you're looking at a few isolated trees, and missing the forest.
RenMan, I love to pick at nits--I stop itching when they are all removed. (Evil grin.)
I pick at nits for a reason: when one part of the research is flawed or doesn't take into all scenarios, how can I trust the rest of the research?
For example, a friend of mine sent a book about religion to me; he highly recommended it. I have a background in studying myth and religion. I began to read the book, and one of the first things I saw was that the author had glossed over aspects of religion in Sumerian. He discussed the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and its negative portrayal of the goddess Ishtar, but totally ignored the Sumerian version with Ishtar's counterpart, Inanna, wherein she is portrayed positively. He also is a Christian and made negative remarks sexual practices in Sumerian that they considered holy, i.e. the sacred temple prostitutes.
I read the rest of the book, but I didn't know if I could trust what he said about religions with which I am not familiar based on his inaccurate discussion of a religion/mythos that I know well.
The trees make up the forest; if one is infected with a disease and is not isolated, it will infect other trees.
And I am not isolating incest to mature adults; I am talking about it across the board. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 11:23:53 AM |
I am not isolating incest to mature adults; I am talking about it across the board.
The point being that this thread is about forming relationships between mature adults, and whether one should emphasize "shared activities" over physical attraction. Incest was only a minor, side note, in the OP, which was not presented as a "definitive work" on physical attraction. I'm not sure why, but people seem to want to take this thread and derail it onto all sorts of other topics.
To support the OP's original point. I know a couple, both of whom would be "unattractive" to most people by conventional standards, yet, they see the "sun, moon, and stars" in each other. Neither had ever had much success with the opposite sex, when they met, and had either emphasized some shared interest, never would have met.
They've been married for nearly 20 years, are still blissfully in love, and have since developed many shared activities, because they want to be together. Interests that neither had, prior to meeting.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and they find beauty in each other. They do stuff together, cuz they want to be together.
I know that I've never had a good relationship, because we both share a hobby, but have had several long term relationships, that all began with mutual attraction. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 11:51:24 AM | The biggest turn on to me is an intelligent mind that's capable of independent and critical thoughts.
And I'm sorry but a critical mind doesn't fall for the latest best-seller or the latest "scientifically proven" data or study.
A critical mind KNOWS the difference between science and pseudo-science (commonly called psycho babble) - it also knows how to interpret (and dismiss) most data, statistics and studies.
And lastly, it knows how to discern between fact vs opinion vs theory vs fallacy vs propaganda etc.
None of which has any scent as far as I know...anything else is easily dismissed by me, but whatever floats your (general you) boat.
JMO
| |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 11:57:55 AM |
The biggest turn on to me is an intelligent mind that's capable of independent and critical thoughts.
And I'm sorry but a critical mind doesn't fall for the latest best-seller or the latest "scientifically proven" data or study.
A critical mind KNOWS the difference between science and pseudo-science (commonly called psycho babble) - it also knows how to interpret (and dismiss) most data, statistics and studies.
And lastly, it knows how to discern between fact vs opinion vs theory vs fallacy vs propaganda etc.
None of which has any scent as far as I know...anything else is easily dismissed by me, but whatever floats your (general you) boat.
| |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 2:00:04 PM | Off the top of my head, I wonder how many times people have based their ideal partner, not on "who" they are, but "what" they would do (make my life better, impress the ex, be hard to win over, etc).
I could see how that would really screw with any impact of hormones, phermones, etc.
attractiom, friendship, commitment. Sure messes with the whole "friendzone" idea, eh? :) | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 2:32:54 PM |
(Msg 9) If you read the newspapers today or talk to social workers, you will find the world is full of incestuous "happenings." And not only that, they often occur between an adult in power and a helpless child.
Of course, this is not the same as looking for a partner or a mate, but I still question the validity of a statement that claims humans avoid sexual contact with relatives.
I think the message is being missed here. The link is referring to a loving, romantic relationship; selecting a partner.
As you correctly mentioned the Jews were warned against incest but they were also warned against bestiality. In other words it wasn't a case of attraction. I don't think one chose a sheep as a partner even though they may have been having sex with it although I can't personally vouch for the person's feelings as even I have an affinity for a good wool sweater.
(Msg 11) Does it occur to anyone at all that most if not all of the women who do telephone sex chat lines (or used to--do they still exist?) don't look anything like the pictures, and yet they have very 'sexy' voices?
And that's also explained on one of the videos. Just as testosterone will cause a man to have a deep voice an abundance of estrogen causes a lady to have what men consider to be a "sexy" voice.
One may ask why a voice would attract someone but nature knows what the voice is attributed to and that's a high degree of female hormone and a man seeking a lady surely wants as much lady as he can get.
Again, it comes down to choosing a romantic partner. All too often people choose a romantic partner using criteria one would use for a different type of relationship. Money, prestige, common interests, compatible beliefs such as political that have absolutely nothing to do with romance.
Once every four years we vote. That's it. If someone wants a partner who will attend political demonstrations every weekend they're not seeking a romantic partner. They want a political buddy. A pal. A friend.
Coming back to the different things people look for in a romantic relationship I think many have forgotten how it all started. Your first crush. Your first boyfriend/girlfriend.
As Percy Sledge sings…..
“When a man loves a woman….
She can do no wrong
Turn his back on his best friend
If he put her down”
Today, it’s
“When a woman loves a man
He can do no right
Turn her back on him
If he put her friend down”
OK. OK, an exaggeration but I’ve frequently seen women write that guys are temporary and friends are for life. Was it that way in the beginning? I don’t think so. It’s certainly not that way with any guys I know or have known.
The attraction is not simply about good looks. When they talk about the scent of a person it’s like walking past a bakery shop and smelling the fresh bread. We don’t know if the bread is in the shape of a loaf or round or whether it’s a number of buns baking but it smells good.
I believe too many people think of attraction as the guy looking at a woman and sizing up her breasts and a$$. If her teeth are black and she has a wart on the end of her nose no shape of a$$ is going to compensate for that!
I often wonder if people feel that “first boyfriend/girlfriend feeling” any more or if they simply discount it or they feel it just slightly……maybe some folks here can enlighten me. Do you think that having that feeling is important? If not, is it because you don’t trust that feeling or is it because that feeling never occurs?
What I mean by that is remember being scared when you were young while being told a ghost story? Today, as adults, we’re just not able to capture that feeling. Or when you believed in Santa. Remember those feelings you had believing Santa actually brought you presents?
While we look forward to what gift our sweety will give us the feeling is not the same as when we were waiting for Santa. We’re not capable of feeling that feeling no matter what gift we may be hoping for or expecting.
Or the first car you got. Remember how excited you were? Just driving to the store, the same store you went to for years, and how it was a thrill. Now a car is just a car. Sure, a new car is great but unless it’s a Ferrari or a Bentley convertible we won’t lose much sleep over it.
Is that what has happened to so many here regarding feelings of attraction/chemistry? Is it now just a case of a-car-is-a-car? Have folks traded or given up or just not able to experience that feeling so they seek what would be considered a modified version of a roommate or a FWB? Is it something in the drinking water? | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 3:05:17 PM |
I think the message is being missed here. The link is referring to a loving, romantic relationship; selecting a partner.
As you correctly mentioned the Jews were warned against incest but they were also warned against bestiality. In other words it wasn't a case of attraction.
And I think my point is being missed! | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 3:33:03 PM | | what about all the perfumes, deodorants, soaps and other ways we cover up our natural body smells? how does that figure in the theory? | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/11/2009 6:18:08 PM |
(Msg 20) what about all the perfumes, deodorants, soaps and other ways we cover up our natural body smells? how does that figure in the theory?
Perfumes are tested to see if a lot of people like the scent. Not everyone will but a large number of the opposite sex will be attracted. While a few may be more attracted to your natural scent they will still be attracted plus others will be attracted, as well.
It's the same principal as the smell of baking bread and how it increases ones appetite whether we walk into a fine Italian restaurant or a "greasy spoon". | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/12/2009 9:28:57 AM | I can't bring myself to throw away my list, but I do have experience with trying. My last girlfriend had no good reason to think we would be compatible in a long term relationship. There were several long-term dealbreakers.
But when we met in person, a mutual attraction based on voice, scent, and facial bone structure made the attraction we felt for one another very powerful. Notably, it was the first relationship I have been in where I felt our sex drives were perfectly compatible. The reason they were was due to the above factors. As expected, reality eventually set in. I tried to hold the relationship together and make it work, but several deal breakers broke the ice pretty fast. I knew in the long run that I could have been happy with her and all her flaws, but I wouldn't end up with a happy life overall based on my goals.
In my experience this approach can lead to a great fit, but you truly have to throw away the must have list. You can't just put the list on a back burner and have it resurface a few months later. You actually have to burn it and throw it away. I haven't been able to do that yet. | |
|
| Throw away your must have list
Posted: 4/12/2009 11:48:14 AM | | As we grow older and smarter I would hope that we only look at the simple deal breaker. We are living life, lived life, formed personalities, likes and dislikes. Now it is fun to color outside the lines. Look out side of the box, learn new things, experiment, explore and keep moving forward. Only look at the things that you find is an actual deal breaker and you just may find someone you would have passed over ... that one person could have been your one true soul mate. Who knows. | |
|
|
Home
login 
