Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I admit it was quite several years ago that I studied it ...
    
    ...but I seem to recall that it was presented as Law rather than
    Theory.
    
    Negatively charged particles and positively charged particles exert
    forces of attraction upon one another.  Large masses exert stronger
    pull than do small ones.
    
    It works for me.  That is to say that I've yet to see anything to
    gainsay it and I've no reason to seek other answers.
    
      Annie

    Re: -1
    
    Thanks, Annie, but I kinda had attraction as it applies to human
    relationships in mind.
    
    Richard

    gravity works on an inverse square law - that is, as objects move
    closer, the exert exponentially more pull on one another.
    
    love, on the other hand (for me) work on a square law - that is, the
    further and object of my affections is from me, the more attracted I am
    to hir.
    
    Which means that I fall in love with movie stars, get huge crushes on
    straight women, am attracted to women in relationships or who live far
    away or who are nowhere close to my age or who aren't  interested in
    me, and have almost no interest in in the ones who are truly available.
    
    At least, that's how it's been lately...
    
    (If strains of "Attainable Love" by Christine Lavin are running through
    your head, you have the right idea.)
    
    This is my current theory - it is a tragic and unavoidable as gravity.
    
    D!

    Re: .3
    The game you play is called "Kick Me" and it was very well described by
    Eric Berne in several books.

    Fall not in love --
    
    it will stick to your face.

    re.2
    
    Oh, OK.
    
    My theory, based upon personal experience and of observation of close
    friends and family members, is that who/what attracts is directly
    correlated to ones feelings for oneself.
    
    Hence those in a fragile state may _want_ someone healthy, but find
    that the "right" sort just never seem attractive -- they are irrestibly
    drawn to those that feed their neuroses.
    
    Which is why is seems to way totally unfair that those who 'have
    everything' seem to always attract the sane, the wonderful, and the
    integrated.
    
      Annie

    
    
    "Love is like a snowmobile, racing across the frozen tundra,
    but it flips over, pinning you underneath.  At night, the ice weasels
    come."  (Neitzsche (sp?), via Matt Groening)
    
    I have just recently discovered (after 10 years, no less) that I tend
    to go for a certain "type".  Having relationships with this "type"
    seems to some degree unhealthy for me, so I'm trying to change my
    "type".  I discovered I was falling for wistfully handsome, dark,
    broken, brooding, brilliant, self-absorbed younger men.  This did not
    lead to a healthy relationship for the most part.  
    
    The question is, can you CHANGE who you are attracted to?  That's my
    question.
    
    I'm convinced, type or not, it's still all a matter of "chemistry".  If
    it's there, I *KNOW IT*.  Within minutes, hours, or days.  If it's not
    there it's not there and I don't believe it ever will be.
    
    -Jody
    

    Unquestionably, the chemistry of attraction can change.  I suspect that
    its changes are not often, if ever, made wilfully; but I know with a
    zero probability of error that while I love my wife, I would not today
    be attracted to her if we were both single.  She is simply not the
    "type" I am attracted to at my present age and station in life.
    
    -d

>I discovered I was falling for wistfully handsome, dark,
>    broken, brooding, brilliant, self-absorbed younger men.  

Have I got a deal for YOU!  A certain person who I wish didn't like this 
sort of person attracts them in droves! :-) :-)  [not me - I was always
attracted but they were never interested.]

>    The question is, can you CHANGE who you are attracted to?  That's my
>    question.

Yes, but not through force of will - only by changing yourself.

My theory is that we look for people who have the traits we wish we had.
If we want to be exciting, brilliant and creative, but we feel we aren't (it
doesn't matter if we actually are, just whether we feel like we are) we will
seek out the sort of partners who will fill the need in us.

This never works because we discover time after time that having a lover
who is exciting, brilliant and creative does not feel the hole we percieve
in ourselves.  A lover can't make you happier, healthier or a better person,
as much as we would like to believe otherwise.

We are also attracted to those who share our nueroses, because it is 
threatening to be with people healthier than ourselves - they might figure
out that we are "sick" and leave us.  And because that "click" when we
discover we are both struggling with the same (or analagous) diseases
is bonding.

It sounds cliche, and I hate to say it, but I really believe that until we
heal ourselves, we will seek lovers we hope to fill the empty spaces in our
souls; and we will attract people who are not healing themselves and who are
also looking to be healed and nourished by their lovers.  And it can't work
that way.  When you are happy and healed, and provide your own love and
nourishment, that's when happy, healthy people who can love themselves, and
therefore really love instead of *need* us, will appear attractive.

This is rather depressing news for me, since I have so LONG to go before I
reach that place.

D!

    According to that book I've been virtually hawking here and elsewhere,
    the answer is:  no, you can't change who you are attracted to because
    who you are attracted to is grounded on subconscious responses to
    childhood experiences (which, of course, you can't change).  You can,
    at least, become more aware of why you are attracted to certain types.
    
    					- Vick

>This is rather depressing news for me, since I have so LONG to go before I
>reach that place.

>D!
    
    I don't think someone needs to be perfect before they deserve or
    can find real love and a good relationship.  Just because I'm not
    perfect doesn't mean I can't look for, ask for, and *get* real love.
    
    D!, I know you didn't say this, but it got close enough to trigger me.
    

    I don't think someone needs to be perfect before they deserve or
    can find real love and a good relationship.  

Not perfect, Ellen, just "healthy".

And it isn't a matter of "deserving" it - any more than you "deserve"to
be born with the body, the mind and the family you were  born with.

D!

    I just finished reading "Women Who Love Too Much." gack.
    
    I can walk into *any* room *any*where and within 10 minutes
    find the sickest, most twisted person in the bunch.  yup.  
    It's true %-).  It may be my one sure gift %-).  My friends
    and I affectionately call it playing "Spot The Looney." %-).
    
    The trick is now... I don't respond to the sparks that fly
    out of their eyes.  
    
    with love,
    cheyenne    

I had a problem with "Women Who Love to Much"...at first I loved it:
finally someone who understands and can put a name to my problem!  I
described me to a T...

then, as the years went by, I realized - alright, now I have a name
for it. But it is just as bad as ever...

D!

    Re: .10
    
    You have summarized my current line of thinking.  The subconscious
    ingeniously seeks out the person with the positive *and* negative traits
    you need in order to be healed of childhood wounds.
    
    Believe me, it took me a long time to swallow this, but now I'm
    convinced of the truth of it.
    
    Richard

I believe that we change our list of "MUST HAVES" as we grown and change
in our lives.  As the list changes, so do the men/women to whom we are
attracted.  I used to find the "difficult" man irresistable...you know the
guy...the one who cannot express his inner feelings, afraid of committment,
wounded by some "terrible woman" in his past.  Well, now, I find these guys
mildly amusing, sometimes worth my compassion and concern, but they do NOT
get my juices runnin at all.  Instead, I find a man with a great sense of
humor, a slightly skewed viewpoint about everyday life, lover of small
animals and great vegetable dishes, not afraid to knit if that's what he wants
to do with his hands, MY AGE (and that even means receding hair lines and
pot bellies are not terribly important), and a depth of compassion REALLY
exciting.

I ALSO believe, however, that one reason we have such silly/painful "lusts"
has much to do with the romantic images that are stuffed down our throats
since childhood thru books, movies and T.V..  Sometimes, very healthy women
get involved with really squirrelly men because "it's so romantic!"....(I
am assuming that sane gay men get involved with squirrelly gay men, and sane
gay women get involved with squirrelly gay women, and bi-sexuals get involved
with squirrelly men/women too, but I don't have the experience to KNOW this
so I did not venture to state it as observed fact).  These unbalanced
relationships don't last long before the balanced one notices the flaws...
but they do happen.

Perhaps we need a new language of romance in our society as well as healthier 
self-images to really correct this problem?

    Squirrely???
    
    D!

>    Squirrely???


	Maybe 'cause they have a nice tail?



	*A*

    Squirrelly means (to me) eponymously excitable, liable to jump in odd
    directions, possibly unreliable.
    
    Bicycles are said to be squirrelly when their steering is extremely
    sensitive, because a small stimulus can cause a large reaction.
    
    -d

    I don't believe we can change who we're attracted to. I've met many
    nice guys. Great disposistions, good senses of humor but if "it" isn't
    there, it's impossible to fake it for long. 
    
    I've met nice men who seemed perfect in every way until the first kiss.
    the body chemistry just wasn't right.
    
     *Generally I am attracted to free thinkers. I do not like people who
      take life too seriously because I do. I wanted a person who would like
      to do things and party.
    
    
    * Notice the above mentioned traits are traits of lazy, shiftless, 
      wanderers who drink and refuse responsibility.
    
    Kate 

re: squirrelly - sorry about that, word from my childhood drag racing
background slipped in...as said, this is a difficult, unreliable, and
possibly dangerous man/woman/car/bike/bycycle/dragster/sled/dog/cat....well, 
you get the idea...flakey, flakey, flakey.

re: instant chemistry....

I have discovered that the "instant chemistry" so many of us in this notes
conference seem to be relying on to find our mates is intensly wonderful...
for a short while.  After the "magic" wears off, the relationship often
wears down both players very fast.  There is another kind of chemistry
that does not happen immediately, nor can most subjects actually tell you
EXACTLY when it does happen, but it grows between two people with like
values and mutual respect...it generally starts as a strong, very
pleasant friendship, something that nurtures both parties' self-esteem
and tolerates a great deal of laughter.  It gradually grows into an
awareness of the absolute "wonderfulness" of the other and a deepening
desire for not just a sexual bonding, but a true intimacy in which both
partners can relax and be their true selves.  This is my definition of
love.  I have seen this grow from an "instant lust" relationship only
once in my 44 years on this planet.  I have seen real, mature love like
this grow from friendship many times.  I think the odds of finding
such a love relationship are much better if I focus on growing healthy 
friendships between myself and men, rather than continually searching
for that "magic lust" moment with someone....I really believe that
the magic is much better when it is unexpected and comes from a friend.. 

of course, finding such a friend is dependent on finding myself worthy
of such a friendship and that means I really have to like myself JUST
AS I AM.....you knew there was a trick to it, didn't you?

        Recently (this past year) I have learned that *often* (and
    this word is stressed) people rush to each other immediately because
    they are both "shame-based."  That is, people that are "shamed"
    will often recognize that shame in others (whether consciously or
    sub-consciously.)  People who are shamed will either dump their
    shame or will pass it on (this is why so many people have shame in
    their lives...passed on from their parents...)  In any case, the 
    shame-based person will be strongly attracted to another shame-based person
    because to them it represents an easy target for passing their shame
    on.
         In other words, great relationships usually grow over time,
    are not made overnight, and are great because of depth.  Instant
    atttractions are often adolescent reactions, often shame-based
    recognitions and are too superficial and shallow to warrant serious
    contention as "meaningful."
         
         Please note...this is a generalization which has validity...it
    does not necessarily apply in all cases.  Further, even these 
    situations can be transcended.
    
    Frederick
    

I believe there is validity to the "chemistry" theory. I think it applies to
friends as well as lovers. There are some people with whom I've felt a certain
affinity quite quickly. It's kindred spirit feeling rather than lust. I've felt
that too but generally can recognise it for what it is. As a friend of mine is
fond of saying the bit is either on or off in personal relationships. 

When it comes to lovers the physical attraction is a valid part of the whole
relationship. It's not enough to base a relationship on but it's a vital part of
the whole experience. Luckily, we all have a different vision of what is
desirable. liesl

    re .23, I agree.  Physical attraction, or chemistry, in itself is not
    enough to base a long term relationship on, but I think it's an
    important part of a long term relationship.  Without it, why even
    bother?  It doesn't matter how wonderful a person is, if I don't find
    them physically attractive, I'm not going to want to have an SO type
    relationship with them.  (Not as long as most people both expect and
    want to have sex as part of their SO relationships anyway....)
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, I can't find another topic better suited, although this piece
    goes beyond 'attraction" and into philosophy...enjoy!  (Try to picture
    my friend with about 7 ear piercings, a nose ring, short cropped black
    hair and a bumpersticker that reads "Feminism Spoken Here" on her car
    playing the part of God)
    
    selection from "LAUGHING WILD" by Christopher Durang
    
    *reprinted w/o permission* 
    
[Affirmation]  I let go of my need for longing.  I let go of sexual interest.  
I become like Buddha, and want nothing. [Abruptly stops, to audience] Do these 
affirmations sound right to you?  They sound off to me.  And I've certainly 
never successfully acted them out. 'Cause as soon as sexual attraction kicks 
in, the zen in one's nature flies out the window.  You meet someone, sometimes 
they are really terrific, other times they're just awful but nonetheless you 
find yourself attracted to them anyway, knowing you're an utter fool and will 
be very sorry later on.  And then the pursuit begins.  All these opening weeks 
of interesting conversation, with the eyes more lively than usual, and each 
party finding the other's comments and insights more than usually charming and 
delightful.  And then if you've been in therapy like me, there are the 
flirtatious exchanges of childhood traumas - all my family were borderline 
schizophrenic, they beat me, they had terrible taste in furniture - and after 
a while one's mind starts to reverberate with, when will I have an orgasm with 
this person?

If there is a God, his design about sex is certainly humiliating.  It's 
humiliating to want things.  And sex itself people say is beautiful - but is 
it?  Maybe you think it is.  Terrible viscous discharges erupting in various 
openings may strike you as the equivalent of the Sistine Chapel ceiling for 
all I know.  It doesn't strike me that way. [He stops.  He realizes how 
extreme and cranklike his comments have begun to sound.  He smiles at the 
audience, wanting to reestablish his rapport and his reasonability with them.]

But I am being negative again.  And clearly sex isn't just disgusting.  I know 
that, and you know that.  And when I'm lucky enough to go off with someone to 
his or her apartment, I certainly anticipate a pleasant time. [Now he stops 
dead.  He had no intention of going into this area of his life with his 
audience, and he's suddenly uncertain how he even got into it.  Or, more to 
the point, how he can get out of it.  He thinks, can't come up with a way to 
camouflage or take back what he's just said.  For better or for worse, he 
decides just to speak honestly.]

As the "his or her" comment suggests, I am attracted to women and to men.  
Tough more frequently to other guys, which I find rather embarrassing to admit 
publically.  Why do I bring it up publically then , you may well ask? Well... 
I don't know.  Why not?  All my relatives are dead, and those that aren't I'm 
not willing to talk to.

And things like the recent Supreme Court ruling that sex between consenting 
adult homosexuals *not* be included in what's considered the rights of privacy 
-- this makes me think it's now important to be open about this.  Look, I've 
even brought pictures of myself in bed with people! [pats his inside jacket 
pocket] At intermission the ushers will let you look at them!...Although I 
suppose the Meese Commission will run in here and take them away from you and 
then force you to buy milk at a Seven-Eleven store.  God, I took some Valium 
before I came out here, but it hasn't calmed me down a bit.

Anyway, I didn't mean to get into this...[puts his note cards away in his 
jacket] but I find the Supreme Court's ruling on this issue deeply disturbing. 
I mean, so much of the evil that men do to one another has at its core the 
inability of people to *empathize* with another person's position.  Say, when 
you're seven, you find yourself slightly more drawn to Johnny than you are to 
Jane. This is not a conscious decision on your part, it just happens, it's an 
instinct like...liking the color blue.

Now in less tolerant times, you were put to death for this attraction.  As 
time went on, this punishment was sometimes reduced to mere castration, or 
just imprisonment.  Until recently this attraction was considered so horrific 
that society pretty much expected you to lie to yourself about your sexual and 
emotional feelings, and if you couldn't do that, certainly expected you to 
*shut up* about it and go live your life bottled up and terrified; and if you 
would be so kind as to never have any physical clseness with anyone *ever*, 
when you were buried you could know that society would feel you had handled 
your disgraceful situation with tact and willpower.  That was one *cheery* 
option - nothing, and then the grave.

Or, you might make a false marriage with some woman who wouldn't know what was 
going on with you, and you could *both* be miserable and unfulfilled.  that 
was *another* respectable option.  Or you might kill yourself.  There's not a 
lot of empathy evident in the people who prefer these options. [he takes out 
his note cards again, starts to look at them, but then his mind isn't ready to 
leave this topic yet]

I mean, *I* certainly realize how insane it would be to ask a heterosexual to 
deny his or her natural sexual feelings and perform homosexual act that went 
against *their* nature.  If I can have that empathy, why can't others have the 
same empathy in reverse?  I want some empathy here! [Goes into an affirmation] 
I am the predominant source of...well, fuck that. [throws his note cards over 
his shoulder, drives on ahead.]

And then, of course, there are all the religious teachings about 
homosexuality.  The Book of Leviticus, for example, says that homosexuals 
should basically be put to death.  It also tells you how to sacrifice rams and 
bullocks and instructs you not to sit on a chair sat in by any woman who's had 
her period in the last seven days or something. To me, this is not a book to 
be turned to for much modern wisdom.[If the audience laughs, he may smile at 
them]

People's concepts of God are so odd.  For instance, take the Christians - 
"take them, please" - who seem to believe that God is so disgusted by the 
sexual activities of homosexuals that he created AIDS to punish them, 
apparently waiting until 1978 or so to do this, even though homosexual acts 
have been going on for considerably longer than that, at least since...1956.

I mean, what do they think? God sits around in a lounge chair chatting with 
Gabriel, planning the fall foliage in Vermont - "I think a lot of orange this 
year" - when suddenly he says: "Boy oh boy, do I find homosexuals disgusting.  
I'm going to give them a really horrifying disease!"

And Gabriel says: "Oh yes?"

GOD: Yes! And drug addicts and...and...hemophiliacs! [Gabriel looks fairly 
appalled]

GABRIEL:  But why hemophiliacs?

GOD: Oh, no reason.  I want the disease to go through the bloodstream and even 
though I'm all-powerful and can do everything 'cause I'm God, I'm too tired 
today to figure out to connect the disease to the bloodstream and *not* affect 
hemophiliacs.  Besides, the suffering will be good for them.

GABRIEL: Really? In what way?

GOD:  Oh, I don't know.  I'll explain it at the end of the world.

GABRIEL:  I see. Tell me, what about the children of drug addicts?  Will they 
get the disease through their mother's owmbs?

GOD:  Oh, I hadn't thought of that. Well - why not?  Serve the hophead mothers 
right.  Boy oh boy, do I hate women drug addicts!

GABRIEL: Yes, but why punish their babies?

GOD:  And I hate homosexuals!

GABRIEL:  Yes, yes, we got that you hate homosexuals...

GOD: Except for Noel Coward; he was droll.

GABRIEL:  Yes, he was droll.

GOD:  And I hate Haitians.  Anything beginning with the letter "h."

GABRIEL:  Yes, but isn't unfair to infect innocent babies in the womb with 
this dreadful disease?

GOD:  Look, homosexuals and drug addicts are very, very bad people; and if 
babies get it, well, don't forgeet I'm God, so you better just assume I have 
some secret reason why it's good they get it too.

GABRIEL:  Yes, but what *is* this secret reason?

GOD: Stop asking so many questions.

GABRIEL: Yes, but...

GOD: There you go again, trying to horn in on the Tree of Knowledge just like 
Adam and Eve did.  Boy oh boy, does that make me wrathful!  Okay, Gabriel, you 
asked for it: I hereby sentence you to become man; I give you suffering and 
death; I give you psychological pain; I give you AIDS, your immune system will 
shut dow totally, you'll die from brain tumors and diarrheaand horrible random 
infections.  I give you bone cancer, lymph cancer, breast cancer - lots of 
cancer!

[A good idea, whimsical] Oh! ... And I hereby revoke penicillin.  Anyone who 
has ever been exposed to syphilis will suffer and die just like they used to - 
as a side issue, I love to connect sex and death, I don't know why I invented 
sex to begin with, it's a revolting idea, but as long as I have, I want it 
done *properly*, in the *missionary* position, with *one* person for life, and 
I want those who disobey me to die a horrible death from AIDS and syphilis and 
God knows what else.  Is that clear???

Initial attraction ?

It's all in the smile for me....

doesn't matter what he looks like, if he's got a gorgeous smile, then I can't
help myself, I'm interested...


I usually manage to control myself though :-)

CJA

    It's when someone both makes me think and makes me incapable of
    thinking clearly.  Your basic Irish Coffee kind of reaction. 
    
    Ray

    Re. .25
    You're a great writer, keep it up. I don't endorse homosexuality but I
    can recognize writing ability.
    Now, about attraction: I vaguely believe that the initial (childhood)
    input may have something to do with it, but it's not the whole thing. I
    find blondes with hairy thighs and a river of tiny blonde hairs down
    the backbone absolutely irresistible and I am sure I never saw anyone
    like that in my childhood. I've also noticed that I tend to be
    physically attracted to women who have body attributes directly
    opposite to mine: lots of hair, slender, delicate fingers, long toes,
    etc. I could give other details but I am sure you get the idea.
    
    All of that is physique, of course. Personality is also very important
    but the physical platform must be there already.
    
    The other case, when the "hardware" is great but there are a lot of
    problems with the "software", makes for short-lived relationships. Later,
    we have troubles remembering why we left such a beautiful girl/woman. I
    was insanely attracted once to a beautiful brunette I had known since
    she was twelve. At 18 she was the moll of some well known South
    American gangster. For years I've tried to remember if I left her to
    make sure I could continue to live or whether her choice of life style
    repelled me. Maybe both, who knows!?

    You don't "endorse homosexuality"?  What is that supposed to mean?!?
    
    D! who didn't think homosexuality required *endorsement*

>                                    I don't endorse homosexuality but I
>    can recognize writing ability.

Too bad. No spiffy lavendar running shoes for you!

Kathy

    
     re -1
    
    Kathy, what would it take to convince you to spend lots of time
    sitting next to me making funny wise cracks?
    
    Like maybe we could watch dumb TV together, and I could just listen to you
    talk back to the screen :-)
    
    an admirer,
    
    Justine

>    Kathy, what would it take to convince you to spend lots of time
>    sitting next to me making funny wise cracks?

;-) How about a spiffy pair of lavender running shoes? 

Kathy

P.S. I'd love to sit around and watch dumb tv with you.  

    RE. .29
    
    Endorse: To give approval of; to support
    You're right: homosexuality doesn't need either of the above!

    in re .33
    
    are you deliberately being offensive?
    
    BJ

    re -1
    no

    
    
    Then, perhaps you'll explain your previous note?  I, for one, find it
    incredibly offensive.
    
    Thank you.
    
       Greg

    re .28, .33, .35: But .25 (which you were reacting to .28) asked you to
    simply feel empathy and apply the Golden Rule.
    
    If I understood it, your response to that was:
    .28>I don't endorse homosexuality but I can recognize writing ability.
    
    Somehow I wish it was the other way round.

    re -1
    How come?

    Re. .36
    Why?

    >>Somehow I wish it was the other way round.
    >How come?
    Because valuing and empathizing with homosexuality is harder to find
    than valuing writing ability.  Because .25 asked you to do so, and you
    refused.
    

    It occurs that less flame might be apparent in this running battle with
    Jorge if you (collectively, those who are offended by .33) would choose
    to read his response as saying, simply, that whether he approves or
    supports homosexuality is irrelevant.  Homosexuality is a fact of this
    world, and I don't think it requires approval, Jorge's or anyone
    else's, to continue being a fact.  Whether this is really what Jorge
    meant to say or not, it seems appropriate to impute good (or at least
    neutral) motives whenever possible instead of looking for the
    opportunity to be offended.
    
    Approval and support are important to *individuals* who happen to be
    homosexual, as to people who happen to be heterosexual.  Let us support
    them as people, not as homosexuals or whatever else they happen to be.
    
    -d

    re. .41
    That's certainly on target. One of my favorite writers is Oscar Wilde
    even though he suppossedly "corrupted the morals" of some youth. I
    endorse or "support" talent, not a certain sexual orientation. His
    personal life was none of my business.

    in re .42
    
    okay, do you mean your notes to imply that a homosexual sexual
    oreintation is a bad thing...
    
    BJ

    Bonnie,
    
    I think it could be left at not being a value judgement at all.  
    
    E Grace

    Okay, E, I just felt there was a  value judgement in the original
    remarks and was asking for clarification.
    
    Perhaps I'm just too sensitive.
    
    Bonnie