Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I generally develop relationships which aren't based on physical
    attraction (at least consciously) initially.  However, I've had
    a few occasions where a relationship has developed as we got to
    know each other to the point where I found a very strong physical
    attraction - kinda like the old adage "you'll grow to love her".
    
    I've often wondered why I can be so attracted to someone who initially
    I did not think of as physically alluring.  I've decided that it
    probably is a mental turn-on (I know, they are *ALL* mental turn-ons
    ...) which is rooted in the fact that I am thrilled with being able
    to relate and communicate with that person on a pretty deep level.
    
    In any event, I feel that the reaction is every bit as valid as
    a purely physical reaction.  To me, that person *IS* beautiful or
    sexy or whatever you want to call it.  Obviously a case of "Mind
    Over Matter".  Can this be a new word - "soul-lust"?  Being turned
    on by the inside person?
    
    To balance things, I must confess that the physical reaction doesn't
    happen if the person is someone who I find to be not physically
    attractive at all.  So I guess there must be a physical component
    to it, although it's not a prime mover.
    
    Doesn't answer your question, Al, but tis related to the topic I
    think.  Anyone else related to it?
    
    Steve

    Just the other day, I had this same conversation with another woman
    friend of mine.  We both agreed that there has to be "chemistry",
    or if you will, physical attraction first.  The attraction, is, of
    course, **MY** attraction to a man, he may not be the most handsome,
    but SOMETHING about him, sensuality, smile, eyes, whatever, is what
    tends to get me at first.
    
    There are two sides of the coin, though, 'cuz he may be the most
    good looking, attractive, or whatever, man, but  after a few hours
    of conversation, I may find him to be a total zero, then all of
    his "chemistry" that I *thought* he had, is nil.
    
    But, Al, I am like you I go for the physical attraction first, then
    I look at the rest of the man.  I don't suppose that is the way
    to go, but it seems to be the norm for me.  I am trying, as you
    said, with this notes file to meet people and communicate with them
    *before* I see them, but sometimes when we meet it is disappointing,
    'cuz I may really like the man, but I am not *physically* attracted
    to him, and I may just want a friendship, and he may want more,
    and that's where the relationship usually fails, unfortunately for
    me, because not only have I lost a potential lover, but I lost a
    really nice person who could have been a good friend. 
                                                        
    Oh well, no one said it would be easy :-)
    
                               
                                         
    

    
    Elizabeth Barret conversed with Mr. Browning via letter for years 
    before they met..  through a mutual respect for one another's poetry 
    and prose they fell in love long before they met.. in fact their
    meeting was but a mere formality in the love with which they had already
    established..  I think that sometimes two minds can meld so perfectly
    that it will surpass physical attraction..  I am sure it is not
    the norm but I do think it is a very real and very powerful attraction.
                                                           
    later, gailann
    
                                            

    I've certainly experienced both:  a) physical chemistry first, and b)
    physical attraction only after establishing a relationship.  However,
    the only relationships I've ever had that lasted any appreciable amount
    of time were of the second type.  That is, little or no physical
    attraction at all till I got to know the person, then more and more
    "chemistry" as I got to know him better and better.  That seems
    to be the only way for me...
    
    							Pat

    I've a theory I'd like your comments on.  It seems to me that relations
    based on primal attraction (physical appearance/chemistry) would
    likely be most fulfilling in primal ways (sexual/parenting/caring)
    and that relations based on non-primal attraction (beliefs/esthetics)
    would be most fulfilling in non-primal ways (personal growth/fun).
    If you have had relationships based on both types of attractions,
    did it work out like this?

        It's been ages since I was really in the market as it were, but
        my experience is that there's a lot of variables to the thing
        called chemistry, and I do find it to be important. Most of the
        girls I dated were cases of chemistry early on, if not
        immediately, although there were instances where a girl just
        sorta grew on me. 
        
        With my wife it was a funny thing. (Warning: repeat of material
        from sexcetera.) When we first met it was in the afternoon in
        the student union at college. I wasn't the slightest bit
        interested in her. She was a frumpy looking colorless person in
        dumpy clothes. She, I am told, immediately recognized me as "the
        guy". 
        
        We next met that evening at the campus theater where I was
        helping to hang the heavy asbestos curtains for a play. One look
        at her and I literally fell out of a ladder and then deftly put
        my foot through the seat of a chair. She was an absolute
        knockout! I was a babbling idiot. I didn't recognize her as the
        same girl for several minutes. 
        
        In part the transformation was physical. In the afternoon she
        was wearing an ugly, bulky, cordoroy coat, with her hair in a
        careless braid, and basically colorless clothing. In the evening
        she was wearing a bright colored satiny blouse. Her hair was
        long, straight and shiny, and she had a long pink scarf as a
        head-band. In part the transformation was a question of poise.
        Earlier she had been dull and quiet, with lousy posture and no
        evident pride. In the evening she was dolled up and full of
        energy. In part it was attitude and intention. She had decided I
        was "the one", and the interest showed.
        
        There was a definite chemistry between us, and with only a
        couple of exceptions we've been together ever since (17 years
        this month, 13+ of them married). On the other hand, my
        appreciation for her has definitely developed a lot over the
        years. It wasn't until about 5 or 6 years ago that I really came
        to realize that she is my "ideal woman", that as she changes, so
        does my standard, that it really isn't possible for me to find
        anyone better because she is a closer match for her (my ideal)
        than anyone else ever could be. I'm not saying that I haven't
        loved her all along, just that what I feel for her is both
        based on chemistry and a bond that grew over time.
        
        JimB. 

    Re note .7
    That is so incredibly beautiful.  Congratulations to you both. 
    You are so lucky.
    mary

    
    When I first meet a person for the first time, I usually base my
    opinion on physical attraction, chemistry.  I am usually a pretty
    good judge of character.
    
    There are things that turn me off about starting a relationship
    and that for one is obesity.  I am a very weight conscious person
    and watch my weight continuously.  So therefore, it is important
    to me that the person that I am dating (now this is an ongoing
    relationship that I am talking about) is also in control of his
    body.  Another thing that turns me off is an unkempt person.  I
    once had a blind date show up with a soiled shirt, torn jeans from
    his pocket down to his knees and his sole flapping on his sneakers.
    When he asked me out again, I politely told him that I expected
    to be as proud of my date as I would have him be of me and that
    I was shocked at his appearance.  If he really wanted to see me
    again, I am assuming that he probably would have appoligized and
    showed up the next time properly dressed.  He was a nice enough
    person to talk to, but it was significant enough to me that he think
    enough about himself to show up for the date dressed neatly.  Maybe
    I am just being biased.  Now that I think back, it was kind of funny.
    
    I guess what I am trying to say is that if on first meeting a person,
    usually there is some spark of interest.  I think that when starting
    a relationship, you first begin with the primal ways and then the
    non-primal attractions come into focus.  The  physical attractions
    are not that dominant and they become secondary to the non-primal
    ways.     
    
    Referencing 137.6
    
    Bob, is esthetics a non-primal attraction?  I thought that it meant
    having a love of beauty.  I would classify that as a primal trait.
    Please correct me if I am wrong.  I just might have misconstrued
    what you were saying. 
                                                                         
    Corey
    *<:-)
    
    

    rep 139.9	Esthetics as a primal/non-primal mode
    
    Esthetics like seeing another person as handsome/pretty seems
    primal, while liking sunsets/jazz/philosophy seems non-primal.
    I was wondering how relationships with an essentially primal
    basis (or, at least, origin) tend to differ from relationships
    with non-primal origins.  In other words, does an initially dynamite
    sexual relationship suggest anything about the long term potential
    for the relationship in other dimensions?

    
    Hmmm...all my previous relations were carefully crafted around
    the other's ideas, feelings, personality, etc. We both spent a
    lot of time caring for one another, yet in the end we had "washed
    out" those feelings and given up because so much was invested in
    how we felt, what we were (being in college didn't help)....
                                                            
    Then I met Irene. All passion at the start, almost mindless. I 
    followed her around for 2 days (called into work sick, ignored
    another date, missed appointments, etc.), hoping she wouldn't
    lose interest. She was amused by this, I think. In the meantime
    (unbeknownst to me at the time) she called 3 other boyfriends & 
    told them to drop dead. Everyone told me that my affair with the
    "redhead" would end in sorrow for me; her friends decried me as
    hopelessly inept & counted the days.
                                        
    Year 7. 2nd child. Still following her around. Still hungry for
    the passion. We have other levels -- friend, collegue, partner,
    and yes, adversaries -- but they developed over time, & in ways
    the other relationships never did in spite of their own forms of
    passion. With our family, our apartment, our responsibilities,
    and our future, we are a typical couple but --- ah, that meeting
    & that time when we met, that sets us apart, and we know it. Even
    at 90 we will snicker in our rocking chairs.
    
    In most things I am very rational, but with people there is nothing
    like flying by the seat of your pants. Based on my experience, I would
    conclude that the when the mind's desires are satisfied the mind thinks
    things are going great, and what problems there may be are small
    in comparison to how you feel. If the US and Russia made love tonight,
    we'd have an arms agreement by noon, just before the afternoon picnic.
    
    Tom_who_is_eternally_optimistic_after_meeting_her
    
    
    
    
    
    

    re: .11 You guys are definitely restoring my faith in men.

    Appearance is often what initially attracts me to a woman, but if
    conversation does not evolve that interest quickly fades (though
    I will continue to find the woman attractive).  The increasing use
    of electronic communication has presented another another way of
    becoming interested in a person - through the persona that they
    present in that communication.  In this case the friendship often
    evolves before we meet face to face.
    
    Rich

    I think that when we meet someone in person, we draw/create an
    impression of that person based on what they say,how they say(body
    language) and by their appearance(clothes/physical appearance. It
    is a combination of all or some of the above that tell us we like
    this person, we don't like them or we are turned on by them.
    
    Use of notes,vaxmail,and Ma bell can mask any of the above. For
    example a woman can come on strong via the above media that she
    is a living doll and is interested in a physical relationship. Now
    that would be enough to turn on most red blooded males. However
    on meeting in person the woman turns out to be very docile and a
    little more on the side of homely then a doll. The above is an extreme
    example but I have encountered it several times. Now if I had met
    that same woman for the first time face to face and talked with
    her I would have gotten a bettter impression and a more accurate
    one.
    
    I guess my point is that although notes /electronic mail etc might
    be a good media to meet people it has it limitations. Whereas face
    to face meetings are where the chemistry will develop if it is going
    to.
    
    Since we can't put these things into writing as it is the use of
    all senses that creates the chemistry, then how do we truly develop
    the sixth sense through an impersonal media?
    
    al
    

    
    Re .4, .15, Suzanne, you have such a *good* attitude towards life!!
    
    Re .11, oh come on, just because the U.S. and Russia made love at
    midnight doesn't mean they'd be talking the next day.  You'll wind
    up getting hurt someday with a naive attitude like that!
    
    Re .1, I believe in "soul-lust".  It does exist!  I've been more
    turned on by personalities than by looks.  
    
    
    Lorna
    

    	Beards, like so many other items in life, are great props.
    Many people smoke because cigarettes, cigars and pipes are *great*
    toys when used properly.  A beard is made for stroking and tugging.
    
    	Some of us grow them for the warmth they bring in winter too...
    
    
    --Doug_who's_on_his_ninth_annual_winter_beard

        One of the hard lessons about "chemistry" is that you don't have
        to act on it, that in and of itself it is something special. In
        reply .7 I talked about the chemistry that attracted me to my
        wife, and about how my appreciation of her grew not only from
        it, but beyond it. Well, she isn't the only or the last woman in
        whom I found the chemistry to be right. She *is* the one I
        married, and the one I mean to stay with for all my life. 
        
        But, I have a couple of female friends with whom I detect the
        same spark. They are people whom I love very deeply. They are
        people who, had we met when we were both single, could have been
        the love of my life. It took a long time to realize that that
        didn't mean I had to or ought to do anything about it, and that
        it didn't mean there was anything wrong between me and my wife.
        It took even longer to realize that I didn't want to act on the
        chemistry, and that that didn't mean there wasn't any chemistry
        or anything wrong with either of us.
        
        JimB. 

    Thanks, JimB.  I really appreciated your insight on chemistry. 
    
    We *don't* have to act just because that chemistry is there, but
    it sure is nice when we can and when it's "proper" (imflamatory
    word).  It sure reminds us that we are alive.  And it is a nice
    feeling!
    
    Steve (who's not trying to talk plural like eagles, it just keeps
    coming out that way ...)

        You're welcome.
        
        And for my money it can be exciting and wonderful even when we
        can't do something about it. Doesn't quite curl your toes, but
        it can send shivers up your spine or fly a butterfly or two
        around your stomach. 
        
        JimB.

My experience with chemistry is that it's not solely physical..

An attraction can be instantaneous, and yet be in mannerisms, or poise, which
speaks more about what that person is like of the inside, then how they are on
the outside.

It can be in movement, a keen grasp of the obvious, humor, ...

I have to agree that the 'chemistry' is a personal thing that varies from person
to person, and is a measure of how well our *perception* of that person meets
our wants and desires. 

Jim.

I'm way behind in this notes file, so I just saw this note for this
    evening for the first time. I found it quite interesting, 'cause
    I just had a conversation with my brother about this very topic.
    
    It seems that for both of us, it's very hard to get romantically
    involved with someone who does not attract us physically. It's kind
    of a bummer, since I've met lots of women who I'd probably get along
    with real well as an SO, but if the attraction's not there, it never
    quite works.
    
    Not that beauty is all that counts. The mental/emotional/soulmate
    part has to be there, too, or it won't work. As you might guess,
    I'm still single.
        
    I have had a couple of relationships where I did experience the
    phenomenon of the other person becoming attractive as I got to know
    them, so I guess that proves it's possible. It's just hard to *start*
    dating someone when the attraction isn't there initially, because
    I get the feeling that I'm settling for something less than I want.
    
    Using Notes and Mail to meet someone is interesting, and it holds
    promise, but I can definitely relate to what Al said in .14.  You
    get to like someone on a more mental level, but when you meet them,
    if the spark isn't there, it's like starting all over.
    
    I think it would be better if looks didn't count, but so far, for
    me, they do.  I'm not giving up, though!
    --
    							Seth

    I have the same experience that many of you share, that of not wanting
    to start dating if there is no spark, even tho I think the person
    is really a sweetheart ... 
    
    The elusive spark comes for me with only a few, and handsomeness
    doesn't seem to be a primary criteria.  My most *electric* experience
    was with someone that my first impression was "what a wimp", but
    the first time we had eye contact I felt an energy flowing up from
    my heart thru my eyes into his eyes and into his heart -- and vice
    verse.  It was real nice and happened everytime we looked at each
    other (to varying degrees).  
    
    We had a wonderful time together for three months, then he had to
    go to China for a year on business -- we wrote quite a bit at first,
    and I cried for him almost everynight I missed him so bad.  By the
    time the year was up though, he was writing less and less and I
    finally heard through a friend that he was seeing an old girlfriend.
    "the doity rat" -- I haven't felt anything as strong before or since
    and sometimes wonder if we would have been together now if he hadn't
    had to go to the other side of the earth ... "the little two-timer"
    
    oil well (as they say in Texas) -- I hope that I'll find that kind
    of energy flow again sometime .. it was very stimulating and
    enlivening.
    
    Here's to love.
    
    Janice