Attraction (Blog)

[Angela]

Originally Posted by response to deleted post

Do you get a prize for that?

No, she just gets to be PRESIDENT. Of the gorgeous, sensuous, voluptuous, intelligent, independent women club.

[cylon]

Ok I'm about to list all my FABULOUS qualities everyone, get ready.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by cylon

Ok I'm about to list all my FABULOUS qualities everyone, get ready.

It has been almost 3 hours.... are you still listing?

[cylon]

This is harder than I thought.

So far I have:

1. Chews with mouth closed.
2. Reads without moving lips (seems to be related somehow to 1).
3.
4. Walking upright most of the time, rarely using feet for utensils.
5. I say please and thank you pretty often.

[Holistic Star]

Lol - now why don't you say that about yourself more often!

btw what happened to point 3?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

btw what happened to point 3?

Whoahhhhh.... guess you're not so smart, after all, or you'd know that, wouldn't you.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

Lol - now why don't you say that about yourself more often!

btw what happened to point 3?

that's the place holder just in case I come up with something else.

[Angela]

3. Making room for contingencies?

[Holistic Star]

Cylon - I can think of lots of faboulous qualities that are attractive.

"can think and chew gum at the same time."
"washes hands after using the toilet"
"doesn't wear the same pair of underwear twice without turning them inside out for the second wear."

They're definitely pluses that women find irresistable!

[Holistic Star]

Lol - well we have completely derailed this thread.


So - Attraction. Where were we?

I said earlier that we attract the parts we need to heal in ourselves, and we are often fascinated by people that embody aspects that we would like to be.

So I get drawn to very confident opinionated people, because I needed to heal the part of me that was comfortable expressing her own opinions.

However I was often fooled by what appeared to be confidence and strong opinions, that when you dug into it was actually insecurity covered up by a mask. My lesson has been to identify and express authentic power rather than arrogance.

[Angela]

I've noticed, too, that people with complementary old pain beliefs will tend to find each other like magnets. And likewise, when you begin to deliberately believe inspiring thoughts, you'll tend to attract people who believe the complementary inspiring thoughts. Like magic!

[Holistic Star]

I think the word complimentary is right there. Rather than 'like attracts like' I think it's more 'north magnet end, attracts complimentary south magnet end'. Similar, but fit together.

E.g. someone who has a victim mindset, will attract someone who has a victimiser mindset.

But yes, when you change it to something more empowering it seems more a case of 'like attracts like'.

[st33med]

3 ???
4 Profit!!!$$$

[Angela]

I think it's actually possible to re-magnetize your mate, too, by adjusting your own beliefs. Like when you move part of Mr. Magnet's beard, and the other magnets sort of move around, readjust, reevaluate to accommodate the movement.

[James81]

3 is to "steal underpants" amirite?

[rose A]

I got some completely different understanding from Steve's post. I think the type of attraction Steve is talking about is the one that throws you for a loop. The kind of strong magnetic, warm fuzzy feeling of being attracted to someone who doesn't match up to your usual list of what you think is attractive. Or someone you wouldn't pick out of from a lists of available females or males from a dating data base.

The kind of attraction you can't let go of. It slowly forces you to be pulled in to see more about what this person is all about. To be such a force that the most beautiful of people can come into your life and your attraction to that other person keeps you wondering and wanting to go deeper into the attraction.

To overlook that gee, ya, so she has a bit bigger hips then what I normally go for. Gee, she really isn't the type I usually go for. Everyone is attracted to beauty. That is a no brainer. Its that inner attraction that only comes along once in awhile. It comes along when you might least expect it. Not from finding someone on a dating web site and taking them out on a couple of dates. It might happen to you while you are standing in line at the supermarket. It might come from the person who is helping you with your school work. It might come from the person you struck up a conversation with while waiting for the bus.

And what I got out of his post was, when this attraction hits you. Pay attention and listen to it. Don't fight it. (just answered my own problem) Play on it. Don't logic your way out of it by saying that that person isn't my type.

[lacinato]

Originally Posted by cylon

Is someone going to answer my question why women feel the need to list all of their qualities like this?

Why do you say "women", as if all women do that sort of thing? Many (most) do not.

As for why some do, I would guess their identity is overly attached to how they look--which will probably cause some pain as they age, since looks always fall away. They have probably been taught that they will be valued based on their looks--which I would blame on the type of man who gives preferential treatment to conventionally attractive women.

That's why I don't feel bad for a lot of the supposedly "nice" guys who can't get a date with a conventionally attractive woman--I think they might find more success if their criteria were a little less vapid. They're going after the stereotypically attractive woman because the whole thing is about ego, not genuine attraction and connection. (Of course there are also nice guys with normal taste who need to develop social skills; I'm not talking about them).

[StellaBlue]

Interesting blog, Steve. I was just thinking about attraction yesterday and what a funny thing it is, and I'm still not completely clear on the different types I feel.

I feel like the way attraction works out for me is when it is the type of attraction that I build in to. When I feel initially, biologically attracted to someone (especially physically), I get too nervous to be myself so forming a connection is just so exhausting. I feel like all the sudden expectations and pressure are being created (even if they are not).

More often, I end up with an emotional attraction to people who I am not initially physically attracted to because I feel less nervous and more able to be myself. Actually, this only works if they do not show an initial attraction to me either. I open up space for a deep connection because I feel no pressure. After there is deep connection of friendship established, then the physical attraction follows close behind. I am experiencing that right now, and I have mixed feelings about the situation. Hah, this blog feels a bit like a message to me on that...

So my thoughts are, can we maybe find anyone attractive if we open up room for that deep connection? Or maybe the nervous/self conscious issue blocks me from experiencing the amazing potential of true biological attraction. Reading back it looks like I have some issues here. I guess the ideal situation would be to be confident and comfortable enough to form that deep connection with those we are initially attracted to.

[StellaBlue]

Btw,

Erin does a lot of things I feel are borderline ADD like leaving lights on all over the house when there’s no one in those rooms or sometimes leaving cabinet doors and drawers open after she’s retrieved something from them. Often when I go to the kitchen after she’s been there, it looks like a small tornado swept through it.

That part made me laugh. Erin sounds just like me. It REALLY bothers me when other people are like that, but I just can't seem to get it together myself. Sometimes I wake up and go into the kitchen, and just about every single cabinet door is open. I don't even remember doing it!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by cylon

Whatever it is, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Let's just agree to call it "pain".

It looks to me like it has everything to do with what you were talking about.

You said it's silly for women to think they know what a man feels when he experiences rejection, and I think you're right -- no one person knows how it feels to be another person. But the experience of "rejection" a woman experiences when a man stops being interested when he realizes she's not gonna put out is in the same family as the "rejection" a man feels when he approaches a woman who may shoot him down, and I don't think it's silly to recognize the similarity.

The big similarity I see is one of personal power. A person who views the risk of "rejection" as "the burden we bear" or something one gender will never understand about the other or that it's hurtful that men who don't want to participate in a sexless courtship are all about sex, not authentic connection...... people who believe thoughts like that ("Rejection is Real!") all have one big thing in common, and that's that they give away their personal power -- they put other people in charge of their state.

If you believe that another person's thoughts, behavior or words are a burden to bear, not understandable, or hurtful (unless they're slapping you across the face, of course -- that would be hurtful in a "real" way), you are effectively telling the world that you have no personal power.

And that affects how people relate to you, of course, so believing these thoughts actually keeps those hurtful, burdensome thoughts and behaviors in place. You create them powerfully (you can't give away your power to unconsciously create!) by believing your thoughts are The Truth.

It may be easier for you to see how the woman who believes men are all about sex, not connection, gives away her power by believing those thoughts than it is to see how you yourself do it by believing that rejection is a burden men bear, and vice-versa -- you've noticed it's easier to see the log in the other person's eye and I think that's especially true of limiting beliefs.

What would be possible in your life if you weren't believing thoughts that rejection is real?

Just as Edison saw his hundreds of early experiments not as "failure" but as successful ways to NOT make a lightbulb, what if men and women CELEBRATED each time they passed on a potential match, or were passed on, because it was a successful experiment in who NOT to mate with? Wouldn't that be a fun way to approach romance and sex?

[Bliss Sage]

Originally Posted by Angela

Just as Edison saw his hundreds of early experiments not as "failure" but as successful ways to NOT make a lightbulb, what if men and women CELEBRATED each time they passed on a potential match, or were passed on, because it was a successful experiment in who NOT to mate with? Wouldn't that be a fun way to approach romance and sex?

Yes
And that's where I am now, more or less at least
So...from Edison's point of view, my life, above all my love life, has been a roaring success .

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Bliss Sage

Yes
And that's where I am now, more or less at least
So...from Edison's point of view, my life, above all my love life, has been a roaring success .

Funny! I find that very attractive.

[straysweeper]

When I got to the part about 'change something in yourself to be worthy of attracting a mate' really pointed to something I felt but never really put into words.

While in may ways, I'm currently unsuccessful and yet I still believe I have a lot to offer someone. I also know that if I were to find someone, it would be a catalyst to bringing out my best. Though, when I ask the question what I'd have to be in order to attract the woman I'd want, it raises my awareness of whom I'd like to become.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by lacinato

Why do you say "women", as if all women do that sort of thing? Many (most) do not.

I can't qualify everything I say. And how could you personally know that most DON'T? I doubt you've come into contact with "most women". In your circle, fair enough. I was talking about the ladies here, having this compulsion to point out that they were beautiful, attractive, smart, etc.

Originally Posted by lacinato

As for why some do, I would guess their identity is overly attached to how they look--which will probably cause some pain as they age, since looks always fall away.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by lacinato

They're going after the stereotypically attractive woman because the whole thing is about ego, not genuine attraction and connection. (Of course there are also nice guys with normal taste who need to develop social skills; I'm not talking about them).

I'm not sure if you're a man or not, but guys go after any girl because she is attractive. We don't think about it in intellectual ways. If our eyes like what we see, we will be attracted to it and probably even build it up later and act like she has all these other "fabulous" qualities. Although there are several things an attractive woman can do to make herself less attractive, bad personality etc. But that doesn't make her any less physically desirable. Which like it or not, is what men respond to first.

Don't get mad at men, get mad at nature, our DNA, our biological heritage. Like James said earlier, attraction is not a choice.

BTW the same can be said for nice guys who complain that women only like bad boys or jerks. That is how they are wired, and that's how it is and you must adjust.

[Angela]

Lacinato mentioned conventional or stereotypical attraction, not physical desirability. She/he said she/he doesn't feel bad for the "supposedly "nice" guys who can't get a date with a conventionally attractive woman--I think they might find more success if their criteria were a little less vapid," I agree with her/him.

Men may be hardwired to be attracted to women they find physically desirable, but the men who buy into a convention of what is and what isn't physically desirable, rather than tuning in to their own natural desire, are SOL. They start believing they *should* (or *shouldn't*) be with a woman who looks a certain way, that he *deserves* it (or doesn't), or that being with a woman who looks a certain way raises or lowers his perceived value among other men and other potential mates. The "nice" guys who believe those thoughts and complain that they can't get a date seem a little pathetic to me, because they don't realize it's their own thoughts that keep them from being present to authentic desire. There's little quite as sad as being the victim of your own beliefs.

And women do the same thing, too, just not always with looks -- I think more often with money or status.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Angela

Lacinato mentioned conventional or stereotypical attraction, not physical desirability. She/he said she/he doesn't feel bad for the "supposedly "nice" guys who can't get a date with a conventionally attractive woman--I think they might find more success if their criteria were a little less vapid," I agree with her/him.

Men may be hardwired to be attracted to women they find physically desirable, but the men who buy into a convention of what is and what isn't physically desirable, rather than tuning in to their own natural desire, are SOL. They start believing they *should* (or *shouldn't*) be with a woman who looks a certain way, that he *deserves* it (or doesn't), or that being with a woman who looks a certain way raises or lowers his perceived value among other men and other potential mates. The "nice" guys who believe those thoughts and complain that they can't get a date seem a little pathetic to me, because they don't realize it's their own thoughts that keep them from being present to authentic desire. There's little quite as sad as being the victim of your own beliefs.

And women do the same thing, too, just not always with looks -- I think more often with money or status.

I don't think the problem for the "nice guys" has much to do with who they are attracted to.

The problem with the nice guys (remember, when I say "nice guy" here I mean the overcompensating type, not "good men"....just to be clear about that) is that they believe they can "win" attraction. That they aren't being TRULY nice. They are being nice thinking that by being nice they will get what they want...which, ultimately, makes them manipulative.

They also are insecure in that they fear risk. Instead of making their desires known upfront within the first interactions, they hide their sexuality (out of either fear of shame) and try to live up to some disney princess fantasy of what a man should be (you know, the kind of men that women SAY they want, but don't actually want).

Essentially, then, the "nice guy" isn't nice at all. He is manipulative, controlling, and insecure. And women can sniff that out from a mile away, which is why they aren't attracted to them.

[Fullcrum]

Good stuff.

Interestingly I, too, am classified as INTJ by the MBTI. I, too, have developed my extroverted tendencies through effort. I find the MBTI theories extremely useful but not an ultimate truth. It's more like a model to me.

I still think you are fundamentally an INTJ. Why?

INTJ's top two functions are:

1. Introverted Intuition - In Lenore Thomson's words: "...most cerebral of the perceiving functions...liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating new options for perception itself [as opposed to unifying sense perceptions into a larger context]..." Instead of
2. Extroverted Thinking - "...notice sense impressions that regularly, so we can define them and focus on them as distinct objects and events...impersonal standards of [external] order...make our knowledge systematic, so we have a basis for concentrating our attention."

The issue is not as simple as how talkative you are at a party or if you'll strike up a conversation with random people in the street like a personality test would have you believe (hence I'm not a fan of them and had to read about all the types before confirming INTJ, which in itself is a very INTJ thing to do).

Your need to discern the ultimate context of personal development, your penchant for "liberating" concepts from different fields (like game development) and putting them to use in your own writing, your trust of inner perceptions as having ultimate authority over external logic, your LOVE of switching perspectives around to gain new insight (rather than worrying about ultimately correct ones): these point to an INTJ.

INTJ because your dominant function, what you live your life by, how you make sense of the world, is primarily through Introverted Intuition, and your extroverted thinking is used in service of this rather than establishing dominance.

Why not ENTJ? I'll illustrate with one example from Thomson: "ENTJs want to create a better mousetrap: they don't question whether mice should, in fact, be caught." ENTJs are like INTJs in that they always have the urge to make things better, and will sacrifice stability in order to make this so, and although ENTJs are often gifted with the use of their imagination and internal perceptions, they are more often used in service of systematizing and streamlining "systems" than in acknowledging the system's inherent arbitrary nature and coming at it from different perspectives as a means to more fully understand its inherent nature. Even your concept of Subjective Reality employs Introverted Intuition as its primary mode of operation. Everything depends on perspective.

The MBTI is a complex and well-developed system of understanding personality. It is necessarily incomplete but ultimately useful in understanding how others make sense of the world. This helps all of us do many things, including understanding other learning styles and interests.

By the way: If anyone is interested in Myers Briggs, the ULTIMATE best book I've ever read on it is Lenore Thomson's Personality Type: An Owner's Manual. It uses type not as a limiting factor in people's lives but as a means to achieve personal growth and development. It's ridiculous. Every page is super insightful. Super super super.

I can analyze this stuff for hours, probably days. It's dude-crack.

[Savage]

@Fullcrum: I'm surely borderline on the I/E dimension. I think ENTJ is accurate though, especially due to my preference for learning through direct experimentation. The "better mousetrap" I'm always working is my own life. I quite often sacrifice stability to make gains. Just ask Erin what it's like to live with me when I'm in experimental mode.

Earlier this month, for example, I re-adapted myself back to polyphasic sleep again. I did for a week, realized I still didn't like it enough to continue, and went back to monophasic once again. I decided not to blog about it because I really didn't want to get hundreds more emails with questions from people wanting to try it.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by James81

Instead of making their desires known upfront within the first interactions, they hide their sexuality (out of either fear of shame) and try to live up to some disney princess fantasy of what a man should be (you know, the kind of men that women SAY they want, but don't actually want).

Because men have grown up to be ashamed of their sex drive and to be made to feel foolish for desiring beauty by women, so they pretend they don't have those desires, or they try to convince themselves they aren't so "shallow" as to be male human beings, the way nature made them. A guy who likes what he sees, likes what he sees.

I assume for women the same could be true, they are told to hide their desires as well because "nice girls" are expected to be without sexual desire.

I don't know of any guy who deceives himself into being physically attracted to a woman he isn't attracted to because he's "supposed to like that type". I can't imagine how that would work. It just happens. It's not something you think about. It's deep, primal, instant.

Really messed up puritanical system we have, where both men and women are raised to be ashamed of their natural impulses.

[James81]

Well, just remember that the "I" and "E" are measures of introversion vs. extroversion. And, according to most modern psychologists, introversion and extroversion are mainly measures of how you gain energy.

Introverts, for example, gain their energy (i.e. recharge their "batteries") through introspection and isolation. Extroverts, on the other hand, gain their energy through interactions with other people.

On the most basic level, that's all it really means to be introverted or extroverted. When you get further into it, you discover introverted people prefer to discuss ideas and extroverted people like to discuss things and other people.