have you ever entered into a relationship without being certain that you are sufficiently attracted to the other person?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

(and hoped that this would soon change?)

― questionable motives, Sunday, 27 February 2005 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I have. It didn't change. It became insufferable for both parties.

― kate/baby loves headrub (papa november), Sunday, 27 February 2005 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

now don't say that.

― q.m., Sunday, 27 February 2005 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

it's a mystery to me how someone can be intimate with someone they're not attracted to.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:02 (twenty-one years ago)

am i having deja vu? i totally remember this exact question

― ken c (ken c), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe the anonymous poster is trying to become a star by covering Ken C's Greatest Hits

― caitlin (caitlin), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Are you nearly attracted to them or barely attracted to them? If you find them a bit attractive, then the attraction may grow and it may work out. Any attraction level below that is a non-starter.

― supercub, Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

That's because it is the age-old question, Ken ;)

Amateurist, "not attracted to" and "not sufficiently attracted to" are different things, I think. Not sufficiently attracted to implies a sort of "pleasant enough" judgement, a failure to understand WHY you don't fancy this person more, because objectively they're great. Maybe even a sense of guilt that you aren't more attracted to this person, that its your fault for having a stupid unattainable yardstick or something.

I used to get this a lot and its probably harmed me in the long run... I suppose you have to ask yourself why you don't fancy them more. Is it solely their appearance? Do your personalities just not click for some reason? Do you still have feelings for someone else? Is it just plain old fear of commitment?

My advice would be to just go for it, but take things slowly, don't let it get too serious or intense. I mean, it could go wrong, but you could be missing out on something great. I dunno - relationships of any kind where you feel that there's an unequal balance of attachment can feel like the worst thing in the world, but if no one ever entered into a relationship for fear of hurting the other person then we'd never get anywhere, would we?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess what I'm saying is 'take a change you stupid ho'.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh yeah, I certainly wasn't suggesting you not take a chance because of my personal experience. If you try it and it doesn't work out, you end it and move on right?

― kate/baby loves headrub (papa november), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:30 (twenty-one years ago)

If on the other hand you are someone I know and you are fucking around with one of my friends then I will personally hunt you down and kill you with a felt-tip pen.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

it's a mystery to me how someone can be intimate with someone they're not attracted to.

But, believe it or not, you don't have to get intimate with someone right at the start of entering into a relationship with them. But if everything else is right (you like each other, you get on well, you enjoy each other's company), you can give it a go, I guess.

It does work sometimes - I have been happily married for over three years to someone I wasn't sure if I was attracted to at first. But I gave it a go, I was honest with him, we took things slowly, and it worked out just perfectly.

― ailsa (ailsa), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

it's amazing how wise the "take it slow" advice is--and how difficult to follow

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Sunday, 27 February 2005 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

thanks Matt (and others), that really is pretty helpful. i don't know even one of the definite answers to yr set of Important Questions, which is troubling. of particular concern is the commitment fear, which i always assume is fucking things up at some level.

for the first time in my life there seem to be multiple romantic possibilities afoot. and in one of the other cases i'm experiencing something like the reverse of this problem (if this problem is indeed what i think it is), where there's a definite physical attraction, but almost zero personality crossover (which does make is hard to even maintain the physical attraction bit). i'm hoping now that nurturing some kind of intellectual/emotional connection with this other person will engender physical attraction. though again, i don't know just how much of this even has to do with physical attraction.

― qm, Sunday, 27 February 2005 12:04 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost, i dunno Amateurist, i'm pretty good at taking things glacially. i spose though in this case my need for clarity might lead to rashness.

― qm, Sunday, 27 February 2005 12:06 (twenty-one years ago)

There is a great Woody Allen short story about a man who is starting to get involved with two women. One of them, he thinks her personality is fantastic, but doesn't fancy her; the other he lusts after wildly, but loathes her personality. Being a brilliant brain surgeon, the solution is obvious: he drugs both and swaps their brains over. Then he falls in love with the horrible woman in the unattractive body.

That is not a suggested resolution for you, by the way.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 27 February 2005 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a drinking game in this somewhere.

― Deerninja B4rim4, Plus-Tech Whizz Kid (Barima), Sunday, 27 February 2005 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

i've read that story actually, Martin! also, the groucho marx quote from annie hall comes to mind.

― questionable hans metterling, Sunday, 27 February 2005 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I think this generally tends to work more for women than for men. One can grow to be attracted to someone because one likes them so much, but it often takes quite some time and some perseverance. I've done it, but both times it worked in the medium term but not in the long term. As opposed to the "great looks but no intellectual compatibility" which works in the short term but never in the long or even medium term.

I'd say don't particularly make a move on either until you've made up your mind more. Just keep getting to know each of them quite steadily and the answer will become obvious to you in time.

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Sunday, 27 February 2005 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I have dated someone (very briefly, although), that I wasn't really attracted to. Not that he wasn't attractive, he was - quite. He just wasn't my type. And I couldn't be intimate with him at all.

I'll never do this again, I don't think.

― jill schoelen is the queen of my dreams! (Homosexual II), Sunday, 27 February 2005 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

this was the thread i was thinking of

People and their different approaches to choosing significant others...

― ken c (ken c), Sunday, 27 February 2005 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

yea, we parted ways.

― lukey (Lukey G), Monday, 28 February 2005 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

In all seriousness, I've been wondering recently if I am gonna end up in this situation since an old friend has recently been making a couple of overtures towards me.

― Deerninja B4rim4, Plus-Tech Whizz Kid (Barima), Monday, 28 February 2005 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

you're friends with william tell?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 28 February 2005 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

No, his wife.

― Deerninja B4rim4, Plus-Tech Whizz Kid (Barima), Monday, 28 February 2005 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

this is generally my question too. i mean there are the really attractive guys who are way out of my league (oh, they know it and i do too) and then there are the ones i have chances with who are, well, i suppose all right. maybe it's a better idea to stay single forever.

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 28 February 2005 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I still don't understand this "sufficient" concept. Seems sort of a weird thing to apply to people as opposed to, say, filling your gastank or eating a meal or whether there's enough spackle on the window, etc.

― hstencil (hstencil), Monday, 28 February 2005 23:31 (twenty-one years ago)

My answer to the question: Yes, and it is a bad idea.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 28 February 2005 23:38 (twenty-one years ago)

yes, i have.
"sufficient" here means liking them to the point where you think about them all the time, you want to be around them all the time, you want to do things for them, you really care about them, no?

― ()ops (()()ps), Monday, 28 February 2005 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

it's a mystery to me how someone can be intimate with someone they're not attracted to.

-- Amateur(ist) (amateurist@gmail.com) (webmail), February 27th, 2005 6:02 AM

You don't drink?

― Richard K (Richard K), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:18 (twenty-one years ago)

not to that extent. anyway drinking makes me maudlin, not randy.

i mean, abstractly i know why it happens. i just have a hard time projecting myself into such a scenario.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:37 (twenty-one years ago)

congrats

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I usually think I'm totally attracted to the object-of-affection, but also notice one or two small things about the person (like incredibly ugly tiny hands! this happened w. my last relationship!) that annoy me more and more until I finally realize I hate the person for no real reason, but based on some weird body or personality tick.

― Remy (null) (x Jeremy), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:41 (twenty-one years ago)

RJG?

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know what to say.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:55 (twenty-one years ago)

to jeremy: yeah, it's weird how when you are interesting in someone, or start dating them, you sort of have this 'central narrative' of how great and fabulous they are all these doubts and reservations and little annoyances that you sort of push to the side, or don't allow to surface unless you have a lot of time to yourself.... and then after it's over those things start to creep back to the center of the story.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I think most people want things to be OK.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 02:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"sufficient" = "at some point (other than when we're having sex) i'm able to look at this person and see them as beautiful".

also maria OTM about being attracted to people out of your league. men get the rap for being shallow but i know so many women who are holding out for brad pitt or johnny depp or ornaldo bloomps or etcetera, dropping terrific guys because they're not 9s/10s in the looks dept. i don't think they'll realize what a fantasy world they're living in until they turn thirty-five and forty and it dawns on them that they wasted their youth holding out for physical perfection. then they'll marry the first halfway decent guy who comes along, end up unhappy, and you know the rest.

― other motives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:16 (twenty-one years ago)

sometimes i think most relationships are like the title question.

and that we all spend our days trying to convince ourselves that we're into the person we're with, when really deep down we're like "i wish s/he were better looking" and every time we see someone really hot we feel like our relationship is a lie, because THAT'S what we really want, but we know we're really nothing special ourselves so what can you do?

― other motives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:21 (twenty-one years ago)

grow up?

― ()ops (()()ps), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

(that wasn't meant to be snarky)

― ()ops (()()ps), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:24 (twenty-one years ago)

there's a fine line or a gray area between "growing up" and "settling for something that doesn't really excite you because you don't think you can do any better". i would like to understand that gray area better.

― other motives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:31 (twenty-one years ago)

i would think growing up erases that gray area.

― ()ops (()()ps), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

You're better off alone than settling.

― kate/baby loves headrub (papa november), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

but like, i'm not grown up, so who knows

― ()ops (()()ps), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:33 (twenty-one years ago)

maybe, but i think "realistic expectations" is the real issue. trouble is it's really hard to define those.

(xpost)

― other motives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno. Depends on how slow you take it and how serious you are, not just about that person, but about everything (grown up?). I used to have a "bad kisser" rule. If a girl was a bad kisser, it was a sign of sure trouble. Now of course "bad" is purely subjective when it comes to kissing, but if we had different styles (I guess you'd say), I took it as a sign that we would be incompatible in bed and probably in life. This was absolutely true... for a while. Then I met more than one someone who was not the world's greatest kisser, but was otherwise wonderful, and -- guess what? -- they got better. Or I did. Or, more to the point, we learned to kiss *each other*, and not according to some highly abstract rules that I had made up.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:37 (twenty-one years ago)

(this also makes me think of people i know who are attractive but have a "flaw" that puts them outside the norm, maybe they have bad skin or are overweight or are just unorthodox looking, who complain "why can't i find anyone who'll like me the way i am?" but then someone does come along and it becomes clear that the lament is really "why can't i find anyone REALLY HOT who'll like me the way i am and who will make me feel good about myself by association?")

(i just wish people would be honest with themselves about what they want, i guess.)

― mother otives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 07:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I think (hope?) that growing up means that you stop looking so much for a specific Type that you have decided you are attracted to, and start accepting people for their own individual attractiveness, whether this conforms to some kind of "type" or expectation regardless. That's not the same thing as "settling" - not by a long shot.

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Does this mean curtains for dirty dronerock boys?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

By no means.

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't consider myself "grown up" by any measure, but it boggles my mind that this isn't the accepted norm. Having a "type" is about the lamest thing I can think of.

― hstencil (hstencil), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I've dated women before when I wasn't sure if I was really attracted enough to them to be in a relationship - usually I either find that I am attracted to them once I get to know them better, or else I find that I'm not and we stop dating. I think "Take it slow" is probably good advice.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that some people unintentionally have a "type," ie, they are repeatedly attracted to the same set of personality traits (complete with corresponding neuroses and flaws). I think this is what people usually mean when they say they have a "type." That's not so unreasonable - you like what you like, you know? But when it comes down to a set of fashion rules and strict obsession on body types, that's when it gets lame and shallow. The people who get really selfconcious about this stuff seem to lack openness and imagination, but it can work for some people.

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"type" does not have to be a set of physical characteristics that are "hot" or a set of behavioral traits or any of that. Sometimes "type" can be situational, e.g. for a long time my "type" was any girl who was already involved in a committed relationship of some sort, because I was an insecure, brain damaged individual. Since the surgery to restore my chest hair and limbic system, I have come to realize that "type" is actually all about how you like your coffee.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

mother otives's last post has me very worried (about myself, that is). knowing that i'm the type that seeks validation from others and knowing that i have intimacy problems has me cycling through "oh, you're drawing up all these barriers between yourself and this person because its a real, happening chance for a relationship and you're afraid of that", "oh, you're an asshole, you're looking for someone you'll look good with rather than interacting with them on some real human level", and "oh, there really *isn't* any spark here and all this psychobabble is just a way to convince yourself that entering into a relationship based on having someone, anyone, isn't fundamentally a bad idea." oh, one more: "take a chance you stupid oh".

― questionable motives, Tuesday, 1 March 2005 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

oh dear don't fret too much about it. look, everyone's got a range of people they can be attracted to. at one edge of that range are people who you'd think were hot even if they were neo-naz!s. at the other end you've got people who are just physically appealing enough that, with the right personality, it works for you.

what you want to do is to expand the lower end of that range as much as you can, but to do it honestly, not going through the motions (and hurting people along the way). for you, i think that the truest part of the cycle you described is probably #1 and #4. you're thinking about these questions, i don't think you want to hurt anybody. but be careful.

the stuff about "Types" is all well and good but it may be a red herring here. it's easy to construct the strawman of "the person who is only attracted to one type" but in the real world there's a lot more of "the person who's attracted to lots of different kinds of people, so long as they're hot". maybe you could argue that conventional standards of "hot" are a Type, but other than being skinny (especially for women) i think it's hard to pin that down.

(where do we draw the line for what's reasonable? when is it ok to say "i don't date people who look like X" or "have physical characteristic Y"? is it ever ok to not be attracted to someone because they're overweight? how overweight do they have to be before it is ok? how far should we expect ourselves to "accept people for their own individual attractiveness"? is it ever ok to reject someone for the way they look? do we judge people more harshly for doing so when we think they're overrating themselves? how much of this is really about status? so many questions.)

― mother otives, Wednesday, 2 March 2005 03:50 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that Matthew and Tom are more OTM than Hstencil for once...

The weird and amazing thing about human sexuality is the ability to objectify. The pattern-forming thing with regards to preferences.

The grown-up thing comes into play when... well, I recently met someone who was physically not at all what I would call my "type". But I found him just so amazing and dazzling in every other way that I found myself intensely attracted to him. It wasn't at all a question of settling. I found him physically beautiful *because* he was so amazing and I liked him so much. Which was backwards from my usual thing of liking someone *because* they were physically beautiful in a certain standard way.

― Masonic Cathedral (kate), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe this was phrased by the stand-up philosopher Judy Tenuta as "have you ever started dating someone instead of committing suicide?"

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Tried that. Didn't work.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway drinking makes me maudlin, not randy

HELLO DERE!

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

hrm kate well that was sort of trying to say, though didn't really articulate it well.

HI DERE ~~RANDOS~~MARCELLO.

― hstencil (hstencil), Wednesday, 2 March 2005 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

I think Judy Tenuta's description would be better formulated as "have you ever started dating someone instead of confronting your issues?"

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 3 March 2005 03:30 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think there's anything wrong with having a "type" (even though i definitely don't have one myself). i mean sometimes people are just consistently attracted to people who look a certain way, everyone has their own standards of beauty and there's not much you can do about that. i don't think it's shallow.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 3 March 2005 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

(neccessarily)

― s1ocki (slutsky), Thursday, 3 March 2005 03:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Death is an issue for everyone. For most people, considering suicide amounts to considering death.

― youn, Thursday, 3 March 2005 03:37 (twenty-one years ago)

My response to her was vague - I was not recasting her statement; I was proposing a more-applicable (to this thread) alternative.

I believe myself to be in complete equanimity in denying any immediate personal relevance of death.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 3 March 2005 03:43 (twenty-one years ago)

dating and death are intimately linked i think

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 3 March 2005 05:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Especially if you're dating Ted Bundy.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 3 March 2005 05:14 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, that was probably cryptic. i'm loathe to get into it here, but for me dating (or whatever euphemism you choose to apply) is really sort of a way of making myself forget about death or to imagine that it's not important, or very far away (temporally and emotionally).

Mais qu'y a-t-il derrière la porte
Et qui m'attend déjà
Ange ou démon qu'importe
Au devant de la porte il y a toi

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:04 (twenty-one years ago)

i.e. when i tend to think of one thing i automatically think of the other.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:05 (twenty-one years ago)

aren't all of life's pursuits--music, cinema, the arts, love--just a massive attempt at denying what awaits us?

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:11 (twenty-one years ago)

not denying perhaps, but forgetting.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:12 (twenty-one years ago)

but for me dating and death are really closely linked in my mind, when i contemplate death (usually just an involuntary set of thoughts, not a real philosophical contemplation) i often (also involuntarily) hold an image of my girlfriend (or whomever i'm fantasizing about or agonizing over) in my mind at the same time.

i'm just a ball of fun!!

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:13 (twenty-one years ago)

this thread really makes me want to get drunk and score a pair of hookers.

― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:17 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost Just don't ever tell her that you do this.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, not too aoon anyway.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Hookers are boring.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"i love you so much, you make me think of death!"

(that's from george bataille's 'valley of the dolls'

xxpost

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Thursday, 3 March 2005 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

there's going to have to be some kind of confirmation of *something* this evening, or she'll start to suspect that things are iffy. ppl are telling me to "go for it" (which annoys, somewhat). i don't really disagree that maybe i actually do need it (alt. question: is it ever possible for someone to *need* a "relationship", almost regardless of who it's with? barring crazy ppl and republicans obv). problem is: still no spark. like, nothing. still not entirely sure why, but these things don't always have steady, easily-defined reasons, i suppose.

― anon (jnoble), Saturday, 5 March 2005 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

haha not only did i forget to log out, but i completely forgot that i posted this thread anonymously! i'd kinda like some moderator to slightly edit my name 'n mail above, but that's just cos i'm crazy paranoid..

― yeah, it's me.., Saturday, 5 March 2005 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

My 2 cents:

In the 2 major relationships I've been in, I was uncertain whether I was physically attracted to the person at first, but over time it really grew and grew into something that I never would have expected.

― Michael F Gill (Michael F Gill), Saturday, 5 March 2005 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't try to discourage someone who was not certain, but this sounds closer to certain not, which makes me doubtful that it's a good idea. If the idea of kissing or having sex with her holds no appeal at all, this seems very unpromising.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 5 March 2005 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

well, irrevocable moves were made. i felt i needed to know. and still, i'm not feeling it. no magnetism. which is kind of awful. especially now that things are going so "well". i feel bad. loved and bad. and i always thought the two were so inverse. i dont yet want to write things off, but its going to be a difficult week or two or fifty.

― qm, Sunday, 6 March 2005 01:38 (twenty-one years ago)

What counts as an irrevocable move for me is sleeping with the other person, or at least doing this more than once. I'm thinking about this a lot because I've met someone recently who may want very much to be in a relationship with me and though I have kissed her, nothing has really happened especially because I'm busy right now. I've arranged to see her next week to see if things progress, but I'm still not sure I want a progression. There's something quite faltering and teenage about the situation, which has left me a little confused.

I think I should just get drunk and score a couple of hookers.

― Lock Thread (Barima), Sunday, 6 March 2005 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

What if you've already "confronted your issues" (God, likely the worst pop-psych phrase of the last generation), realize that most 'relationships' simply aren't worth the effort, but still want to bag someone regularly? That's how I think Judy Tenuta would expand the discussion.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 7 March 2005 14:39 (twenty-one years ago)

four weeks pass...

this *can* work, it seems. (imagined) levels of attachment are delicate things indeed.

― questionable motives, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.