No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help
View Responses


Grex Glb Item 16: The Nature of Attraction (as affected by gender)
Entered by arianna on Thu Sep 4 21:40:47 UTC 1997:

        At void's request/suggestion, I bring you resp. #68 from item 1 of
this cf:

#68 Zig-zagged(birdlady) on Fri Aug 29 01:36:09 1997:
 Wow, Kristi...that's great!  I've been feeling more and more sexual 
 feelings for women lately, but I guess I haven't found the "right one" 
 to experiment with.  I've always found women sexy (who wouldn't?)  ;-)  
 I just never really thought of it that deeply until recently.  I love 
 men a lot, and can only picture myself dating a man for reasons that 
 simply deal with my nature, but that's nothing against women.  I think 
 it has to do with being attracted to women and men for *different* 
 reasons.  What do the rest of you think?  Do you have the same feelings?

61 responses total.



#1 of 61 by arianna on Thu Sep 4 21:46:34 1997:

For me, I'm attracted to individuals, personalities, etc. -- gender isn't
all that important in the light of someone's thoughts and feelings.



#2 of 61 by mta on Fri Sep 5 00:26:57 1997:

I too am attracted to very different things in men and women.  The women 
I fall for tend to have strong personalities and rounded bodies.  The 
men I fall for tend to be slender and cerebral.  Both tend to be very 
sensitive emotionally, though.

I worried about it for a while, but after a time I decided that it 
was OK that thin women and fat men don't appeal to me physically.  I 
don't appeal to everyone, either.  


#3 of 61 by mta on Fri Sep 5 00:26:58 1997:

This response has been erased.



#4 of 61 by void on Fri Sep 5 16:10:27 1997:

   thanks, arianna. :)

   from what my bi friends have told me, they are attracted to men and
women for different reasons. there's nothing wrong with some
experimentation to find out, either. one thing i have noticed is that
bi's tend to get flak from both the straight and gay communities, which
is something i've never been able to understand. i've always thought
that if bi's could have the best of both worlds, then more power to
'em. :)


#5 of 61 by jazz on Sat Sep 6 12:07:21 1997:

        I'm of the opinion that all people are inherently potentially bisexual.
Not to say that this is, or can be, a conscious choice, any more than any of
the things that we are inherently posessed of the potential for - all of us
are potential artists, for instance, but it takes a lifetime of work to become
a good artist.

        I'd even extend that to say that people are inherently potentially
capable of holding a relationship with both genders, though most of my
bisexual friends aren't, really, capable of holding a relationship with both
genders.

        I don't know how much of this is what I call "Chasing Amy syndrome"
in honour of the Kevin Smith film, to where a person  defines themselves as
straight, gay, or bi-, because their community and support defines them so,
and to change their orientation would be hazardous to their role in that
community.


#6 of 61 by orinoco on Sat Sep 6 15:06:07 1997:

I'd agree with you, arianna, that thoughts and feelings are more important,
but so is gender.  It's just that for some people it's the primary
consideration, and for some it's just another factor.


#7 of 61 by babozita on Wed Oct 1 23:11:27 1997:

Personality is a wonderful thing, but a pair of great tits is a pair of great
tits...
  
(This comment can either be taken as extremely juvenile or entirely
self-actualized... take it as you please.)


#8 of 61 by faile on Fri Oct 3 03:57:44 1997:

(I hate to hear myeself say this, but...)  The man does have a point


#9 of 61 by omni on Sun Oct 5 18:21:29 1997:

 Amen!


#10 of 61 by orinoco on Mon Oct 6 02:00:21 1997:

Well, yes, but so is a set of great pecs a set of great pecs.


#11 of 61 by babozita on Mon Oct 6 02:20:54 1997:

agreed. My point was only that, as much as it's the noble thing to discuss
attraction to personality rather than physicality, physical beauty plays
amajor role in sexual and romantic attraction. Hopefully, not the only role
-- I'd be hard-pressed to have a long term relationship with the most
beautiful person in the world if there was no personality click -- but at the
same time, I'd be hard-pressed to have a long-term relationship with someone
who had the best personality in the world, but whom I found physically
repulsive.



#12 of 61 by i on Mon Oct 6 11:38:15 1997:

The "uglier" a person is, the more they improve as you get to know them.


#13 of 61 by babozita on Mon Oct 6 20:08:16 1997:

I'vehad that happen, and I've had the opposite happen.


#14 of 61 by faile on Mon Oct 6 20:18:10 1997:

I agree with 12...


#15 of 61 by mta on Mon Oct 6 23:03:13 1997:

It's always amazing to me how beautiful we as a species are.  The only 
things I find consistently repulsive are hatefulnesss and spite in the 
soul and poor grooming of the body.  Beyond that, I think I've found 
just about every sort of person or looks attractive in its own way.


#16 of 61 by i on Mon Oct 6 23:22:39 1997:

Re: #13 - Yes, a physically attractive but personality repulsive person
will go the other way.


#17 of 61 by orinoco on Wed Oct 8 00:35:44 1997:

Well, there's a difference between not being _beautiful_ and being
_repulsive_.  I agree that I'd be hard-pressed to be attracted to even the
most fascinating person if I found them truly repulsive, but there's really
nobody I can think of who I'd apply that word to.  The fact is, I tend to find
'imperfections' just as attractive, in their own way, as traditional good
looks.


#18 of 61 by i on Wed Oct 8 02:09:48 1997:

Repulsive personality is far more common than repulsive physical appearance.


#19 of 61 by brown on Wed Oct 8 06:01:46 1997:

o.k. so I haven't been in bbs for a while :)
but upon reading this it is nice to know taht others share, and have
voiced the opinion that I have... i do beleive that ever person is
somewhat bi-sexual.. most tend to be on the extreme ends thogh... i
think of ender more-or-less as  "one of those things" but actually i
find myself attracted to the same things in persons of either
gender... guess it is those qualities i look for and unlike most of
the north-woods hicks around here have dismissed gender to less of a
priority.
i also agree that people in my ( our in some cases ) situation  get
hit from both sides. yes, staight people give me shit, and although
I'm in a small town where pretty much evert GLB person that
socalizes know each other i get ribbing from my freinds on that side
to( i'm just glad it is nothing serious)
my boyfriend is a horrible straight -basher,  kinna makes it hard to
mention a -ahem' better than average looking female, like most
freinds don't wanna hear about the guys :)
hehe later


#20 of 61 by birdlady on Thu Oct 9 04:36:51 1997:

My friend David sums it up quite nicely...

"My kind of female is one that isn't repulsive and has a voice I'd be able
to love even at six a.m."

<g>  Those are his standards...well, intelligence is in there too.


#21 of 61 by brown on Thu Oct 9 05:54:20 1997:

if ya can love *anything* @ 6am// hang onto it ;)


#22 of 61 by orinoco on Thu Oct 9 21:13:52 1997:

I dunno, brown, my girlfriend and I both point out cute guys to each other
and neither of us objects :)


#23 of 61 by brown on Wed Oct 15 03:51:31 1997:

well of course tis always fun... course ya can double the fun too.
Denise ( just a friend) and I guy/girl shop all the tyme ;)


#24 of 61 by lumen on Fri Jan 9 03:33:55 1998:

My idea?  It depends.  So much of feminity and masculinity is prescribed, and
then you see it mixed in the g/l/b community.  I suppose there has got to be
a physical element of attraction-- I'm sure that's really what defines gay,
straight, and bisexual.  Even then, a lot of signs of affection aren't seen
as sexually charged in other countries, i.e. guy friends may hold hands, hug,
kiss, without being bi or gay.  So what's left?  I suppose the question is
what is the difference of attraction to our friends from the attraction to
our lovers?


#25 of 61 by brown on Fri Jan 9 04:11:24 1998:

and what happens when the lines between loving a friend and 'love'
fade. where does a friedshp become MORE (forgetting a physical
relationship for now)...
and hell what of "friends with benefits????


#26 of 61 by orinoco on Fri Jan 9 05:14:40 1998:

Well, I can't define it for you, but I still maintain that there _is_ such
a difference.  There's a vibe between people who are in love that's different
than the vibe between close friends, and even an outsider can sense that.


#27 of 61 by jazz on Fri Jan 9 16:51:58 1998:

        Is there, now?  I've had some remarkably good experiences dating close
friends - if nothing else, the "friendship survival rate" after the dating
stops is *much* higher.


#28 of 61 by lumen on Sat Jan 10 00:25:46 1998:

Your experiences seem a little uncommon, Jazz-- sounds like you've dated
mature people who are capable of maintaining friendships after the
relationships are over.  *shrug*  I dunno..


#29 of 61 by orinoco on Sat Jan 10 03:14:41 1998:

Yes, but even with a friendship that passes to love and back again, it's
possible to sense a change in that vibe. There are a lot of my friends who
date within this same group of friends, and usually I can tell when it is that
their relationship is switching from one to the other without needing to be
told.


#30 of 61 by brown on Sat Jan 10 17:45:38 1998:

odd, that how many times we are the last to know we are in love


#31 of 61 by mta on Sat Jan 10 21:46:44 1998:

I'm not so sure it's odd, actually.  Love and infatuation feel very similar.
But they look different from the outside pretty early on.

It's the nature of infatuation to blind you all the things that will drive
you crazy soon and I think most of us become cautious after we've been round
the block a couple of times.

Our friends can the deeper compatibility sooner just because they are on the
outside looking in.


#32 of 61 by brown on Sat Jan 10 22:12:26 1998:

;)


#33 of 61 by jazz on Sun Jan 11 21:10:57 1998:

        I don't know if I'd characterize all of the people who I've dated as
exceptionally mature or emotionally stable (one of the friend-turned-
relationships I immediately think of is mature, the other one stable :)) -
maybe I'm just slick. :)


#34 of 61 by font on Tue Feb 3 10:00:16 1998:

huh...let me add yet another experiance to the pot...
I say rather staunchly that there *is* a difference between close friends and
lovers.  I dont' know what it is...it's a lack of physical *zing*...but
I can't describe it.  This is why I maintain this belief:
I honestly used to believe that there was little difference.  I dated men,
loved them, and was disturbed, nervous and unhappy.  Yet I swear to this day
that I loved them...absolutely convinced.  Even when the friendship part of
it (of paramount importance!) was solid, everybody happy, except me.
I couldn't see the reason for it.  Though in my deepest hearts I wanted to
make them happy beyond measure, there was something missing.  I kept thinking
it was the wrong guy...untill I made love to Helen.  (she'd been my friend
for quite some time...somewhere between 6months to a year)  That's when it
all clicked.  I couldn't give any man, no matter how much I loved them, what
I felt I wanted to.  If I stayed with any of those men, I'd always be unhappy,
unfaithful, and in the end, resentful and abusive.  It was a very hard lesson.
Breaking up with Marcus was the hardest thing I have ever had to do.  And yet,
you can hardly tell the difference between before and after the breakup.
(I mean, if you bump into us on the street...nothing sexual happens anymore)
It's so strange...I can make and keep very close friendships with males and
it's almost effortless.  With women, it's so difficult for me to even relate
in most cases.  I feel at a loss...after all, I am so used to having this
relationship lover thing come together pretty easily  (I could easily have
7 different offers if it weren't for my non-guy thang, and I am not trying
to boast...it's really sad to me. )
I'll get around to looking at this from the angle of #20, as well...
<font is testing the waters here>


#35 of 61 by brighn on Tue Feb 3 17:40:54 1998:

I have a friend on another bbs... I'd have to say she's one of my best
friends, if not *the* best friend (except for val and sel, who don't count)
(yes kids, this IS 1998 and you DID read that right) (LONG and irrelevant
story) (enough tangential parentheses)... and I netsex a lot, but it
absolutely threw me for a loop when she hit on me for netsex a week or so ago.
I flirt with her constantly, always have, but had come to think of her as so
utterly devoid of sexual zing for me that it surprised me to realize that she
*did* have a sexual persona.
We did have netsex, and it was not only intersting and pleasant, it was
startlingly devoid of emotional attachments or commitments...and now we're
back to our friendly-flirting state, as if nothing ever happened.

There's just different kinds of chemistry in different kinds of relationships.
*shrug*


#36 of 61 by orinoco on Wed Feb 4 02:55:51 1998:

But there's a world of difference between flirting, or even sex, and actual
love.  There is a sort of physical spark, yes, but I'd say its of a different
sort than the emotional spark that makes the difference between friendhsip
and love.


#37 of 61 by brighn on Wed Feb 4 07:02:26 1998:

My point, actually, Ori... I had sex with a friend I love. I don't love her
as a romantic partner (at lest, not right now).


#38 of 61 by orinoco on Wed Feb 4 19:40:22 1998:

Oh, I see.  


#39 of 61 by font on Fri Feb 6 23:29:30 1998:

yep, <knods>


Last 22 Responses and Response Form.
No Next Item No Next Conference Can't Favor Can't Forget Item List Conference Home Entrance    Help

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss