Attraction and Potential
While physical attraction is based solely off looks, romantic attraction is based off of potential. First I’d like to talk about the old standard “women are emotionally attracted and men are physically attracted”. I think that is far too simplistic. I don’t think that every married man out there today married his wife solely based off of her physical appearance. At some point his physical attraction to her must have morphed into a deeper longing. Women may hit this curb more quickly, causing the stereotype, but both men and women eventually get to the place where they want both the body and the potential for deeper relationship.
I think one of the things that causes the stigma against homosexuals is the thought that homosexual men are somehow solely physically attracted and stimulated. Thus heterosexual men feel odd about the thought that homosexual men may be physically appraising them. I find it a little humorous that the same fear of physical attraction doesn’t create a stigma against single heterosexual women, who likely also feel an initial physical attraction to a man who is physically attractive.
No one can help feeling appreciation of an attractive person. That rush of endorphins does not mean that one suddenly feels an urge to have sex with someone, especially when one has the knowledge that there is no potential for any fulfillment. I have, at times, noticed the physical attractiveness of married men who are not my husband. That initial attraction never developed into a crush or any desire. Before I was married I would be attracted to men, but yet all of that attraction never developed beyond an acknowledgment that they were attractive. Why? Because there was no desire on my part to develop a relationship.
Gay men don’t want to steal heterosexual husbands and fathers away from their families. Sure, maybe there are a handful of gay men out there who would do that, just as there are heterosexual women who would like to steal husbands- but is it the norm? As a gay friend of mine famously said to our congregation, “gay men don’t want to have sex with you. You aren’t their type.” He joked about young fathers with potato chip bellies and burp rags on their shoulders. Sure, they may be attractive, especially to their wives, but gay men are looking for more than a bump in the coat closet. Most of them would like there to be some mutuality beyond sex- and they aren’t going to find that with a heterosexual.
I have more I could say but I’m starting to get tired, so I’ll stop it there. Thoughts, comments, additions?
SSA Relationships « Gay Catholics replied:
[...] over at *! [emphatic asterisk] has written an interesting piece today on Attraction and Potential. Her point is that while physical attraction may play a part in two people getting together, there [...]
May 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm. Permalink.
PolitiPornster replied:
I for one am attracted to the fact that you’re feeling better and look forward to potential for more Shush Lindsey articles to come!
May 29, 2008 at 7:01 pm. Permalink.
jaklumen replied:
I think one of the things that causes the stigma against homosexuals is the thought that homosexual men are like all men, and thus somehow solely physically attracted and stimulated.
Yeah… there are a lot of variables. It’s been a while since I’ve read anything specifically addressing that. I would say that it is further confused by the dichotomy of “effeminate” and “butch”.
I will be brutally honest– I do rather have a bias against the effeminate ones, because I like my men butch. That’s the thorny part– not all the stigma is coming from heterosexuals. There are a number of us that just aren’t very attracted to “nancy boys” and find the associated dish and kitsch tiresome at times, although we have camp and drag of our own, so to speak. (It was interesting to consider that flannel shirts, leather, “ultimate” could be another form of drag. Tom of Finland and all that.)
This is not limited to the men, of course. There is documentation (from gay-affirmative resources) that there used to be a stigma against butch women (even leading to beatings) within parts of the lesbian community. Obviously, this has rather shifted in the opposite direction, much, as I would say it did for the men.
Gay men don’t want to steal heterosexual husbands and fathers away from their families.
Nor would the women. A wise person realizes that’s playing with fire, but yes, gay, bi, or straight, there are always individuals that choose to play regardless.
The closet will continue to exist, but the pressure to be there is less, I would say. I have talked to older folk (mostly men) who said there used to be expectations to conform, to marry to keep up with such. Conversely, for those that do want an opposite-sex pairing marriage, we have greater options as well, scrutinized as they may be.
May 29, 2008 at 9:42 pm. Permalink.
lesbiansaidwhat replied:
It drives me bonkers when my straight friends say gay men creep them out because they may be checking them out. I tend to tell them they think a bit too much of themselves. I also ask are they that insecure with their sexuality that they find another man that intimidating.
For some reason a lot of my straight male friends have it in their heads that gay men want to rape them.
Silly people.
May 29, 2008 at 9:57 pm. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
PolitiP: Thanks! It’s good to feel like a human being again.
Jaklumen: Femme and Butch and all of that can get very complex. People come in all types. I think the point, as always, is to not set up false dichotomies and straw men. Straight or gay or SSA or whatever one is, there’s going to be people who break and make stereotypes. What matters to me is if we’re getting past that to the essence of who people are- and even effeminate men are more than lilting tones and hand gestures. There’s a real person in there.
Lesbiansaidwhat: I always ask guys if they want to rape every woman they are attracted to. Usually that shuts them up. If it leads to uncomfortable silence, though, I run the other way!
May 30, 2008 at 12:09 am. Permalink.
M54 replied:
“First I’d like to talk about the old standard “women are emotionally attracted and men are physically attracted”. I think that is far too simplistic.”
I disagree. A man appreciates things (first) through his eyes. That’s why porn has become so profitable and destructive. However, I do agree that without that initial contact there would be no posobility for further relationship.
You said this:
“First I’d like to talk about the old standard “women are emotionally attracted and men are physically attracted”. I think that is far too simplistic.”
Then you said this:
“I think one of the things that causes the stigma against homosexuals is the thought that homosexual men are like all men, and thus somehow solely physically attracted and stimulated.”
Aren’t you saying two different things? Or am I misunderstanding?
” “gay men don’t want to have sex with you. You aren’t their type.” He joked about young fathers with potato chip bellies and burp rags on their shoulders. Sure, they may be attractive, especially to their wives, but gay men are looking for more than a bump in the coat closet.”
I’m just curious… what kind of a setting is it at your church where men and women talk so openly about sex? Is this common or was it some kind of seminar?
May 30, 2008 at 2:05 am. Permalink.
amberfireinus replied:
Ok well….I am going to go out on a limb here and talk about the animal kingdom.
Male animals in general gain superiority and status by mating with the best, healthiest and best looking of the female species. Its all about producing breeding stock and the continuation of the species.
We are still animals. Men still are wired to try and obtain status through the female that they are able to mate with. Having others covet their woman gives them self esteem. Looks are a huge factor in that.
As for Gays, well they are human like the rest of us and are subject to the same flaws and faults. They don’t get a get out of the animal kingdom due to being gay card.
*shrug*
May 30, 2008 at 2:32 am. Permalink.
wvhillcountry replied:
Lindsey, I am glad to see you posting again, and like always you have given me food for thought. I have found it funny to watch the reactions of my friends when I have told them I am gay. Some think, you can almost see the thought race across their faces, “Was she trying to get into my bed all those years we were friends and spending the night at each other’s house?”
To them I say this, “No I am not attracted to you in that way. I don’t want to sleep with you, if I did there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind.” So that is a little bit of tongue in cheek humor, but it is also true. I love my friends as FRIENDS. I love my girlfriend as my soul mate and partner. There is a difference.
And yes I can see a beautiful woman and think to myself that she is pretty, but in no way does that mean that I want to have a relationship with her. I can also appreciate a nice looking gentleman but in no way do I want to have sex with him.
The funniest sterotype that I have come across is that gay people want to turn heterosexuals gay. I mean really, who wants to deal with all of that drama? It is hard enough being in my own skin let alone trying to switch someone’s orientation.
As for wanting the deeper connection past all physical attraction, I believe that is what most people are looking for. I mean the sex can be great but if you can’t spend an hour talking over coffee the next morning it is shallow and meaningless.
I like to believe that all people, either straight or gay are looking for the exact same thing. It doesn’t matter if you are a part of the party, notches in your gun type of atmosphere or searching for your one true love. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are a lot closer than most people think.
May 30, 2008 at 4:06 am. Permalink.
lesbiansaidwhat replied:
Lindsey, you’re too funny. I bet there is a bit of an awkward silence.
May 30, 2008 at 5:29 am. Permalink.
jaklumen replied:
Oh c’mon M54, go right for the source. I said it first, and I do think it’s a bit oversimplistic.
A man appreciates things (first) through his eyes. That’s why porn has become so profitable and destructive.
You assume too much. A spade is a spade. “Erotica”, “slash”, etc. — that’s all porn. A lot more women view what you’re defining as porn nowadays, too, so that’s too pat a view. Granted, the *type* of porn women choose to view is worth mentioning, but hey… again, I think that’s still more of a gender role and is not intrinsically hard-wired.
Besides… even a number of contemporary romance novels today aren’t “romance” alone. They have plenty of explicit sex in them, too. The “soaps” don’t hint anymore– they go much farther than they used to. Porn is porn. Don’t assume it’s a guy thing, because, I can assure you, it’s not that way anymore. Anyone saying it still is, is trying to sell you something.
I’m just curious… what kind of a setting is it at your church where men and women talk so openly about sex? Is this common or was it some kind of seminar?
Speaking of porn, the old-school notions that sex is solely a private thing aren’t germane to the situation at hand. Sexual messages in the media are more widespread than ever before, and so I’m *glad* that churches are finally abandoning old taboos and discussing it. People are exposed to this information whether you like it or not, and it might as well come from a more reliable source that doesn’t bow to counterfeited and distorted notions about the thing. Sorry, sex education at home isn’t doing the job all by itself. The subject *needs* to be discussed, even if it’s not quite that open. Disagree with my denomination all you want, but hey, I see such discussions breaking through in my faith, too. The older generations will get all red-faced and embarassed, yes, but the general leadership, often apologetic, have said this *must* be discussed, and they have done so, with the membership at large.
May 30, 2008 at 1:20 pm. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
M54: I don’t discount that physical attraction plays a large role in overall romantic attraction for men- I simply am saying that attraction is more than that. At some point you must have been attracted to more than just your wife’s physical appearance, you must have like certain characteristics of her personality or tastes, you must have desired an emotional component- otherwise all human romantic relationships would be solely about sex.
And my language in that one paragraph was confusing, so I changed it. I meant to say that men must assume that homosexuals are solely physically attracted.
And as for my church- there was a four part series on sexuality and holiness a few years ago. I wouldn’t say that kind of forwardness is common at all, and in fact that particular speaker made several people highly uncomfortable, but forthrightness is a quality my church prizes.
Amber: While that may be true on a primal level, well… I’m not *quite* that cynical just yet.
May 30, 2008 at 3:35 pm. Permalink.
M54 replied:
jakluman… maybe I’m a bit sensative today but I feel like you’ve just jumped all over me. Not in a Christ-like manner either.
I felt like the questions I asked were valid.
Maybe your denomination is right for you. I would supose that that is why you are there. Most people are in a (specific) church because that (specific) church meets their needs. Good for you that you’ve found what you are looking for.
However, you do not have the right to decide for me what is right for me or my family. (”Sorry, sex education at home isn’t doing the job all by itself.”) That decision is solely up to me and what I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding me to do with my wife and children…. not you.
Since you brought up your church… the church I attend teaches the Bible (from Genesis to maps). All Three Persons of the Trinity. We have had discussions about sexual matters but (so as to show respect to ALL of our congregation) never from the pulpit. There is no love in making ” The older generations will get all red-faced and embarassed,”. Jesus would never do such a thing. He would never cause another human discomfort or harm especially to speak of sex. As a matter of fact, help me out here… when did Jesus talk about sex? What exactly did He say about sex? Jesus I mean.
Lindsey: even after of 34yrs of marriage I still find my wife (physically) attractive. We have kind of grown up together. She was 17 & I 19 when we married. She is an awesome cook, has been a wonderful mother to our first three daughters and so nurtering to our new kids. The woman has such a compassionate heart for babies and small children it is almost incomprehensable (she teaches high school math so not so much compassionate for those kids, haha). She is a driven woman. She can accomplish anything she decides too. Her list of accomplishments are too long to list here but… I will say (in part) while working full time and raising kids she went to school at night and finally got her MEd in Math/Science. That ain’t an easy thing. And the woman can put in a mean set of pig tales too!
May 31, 2008 at 2:14 am. Permalink.
jaklumen replied:
Ok, first you can’t spell my (Internet) name right, then you say I’m dictating what you must do… which I am not. Don’t put words in my mouth that weren’t there.
What I said was for better or for worse, the media is blaring messages about sex, and it would be good to step up and say whether you think those messages are right or not… AND what message you think is right. If it means that candid and frank talk is necessary, so be it. But note I didn’t say YOU personally weren’t discussing it in YOUR home… I said that people discussing it openly when there was no discussion otherwise present was likely a better alternative, in my opinion.
You made a potshot at Joseph Smith in another post– saying “how many prophecies of his fail?” going totally OFF-topic. You didn’t recant your words or anything. I chose to ignore it, but then you chose to say here “men are like this, women are like that”, and hey, buddy, if you’re going to hop on the high horse saying “Oh don’t you dare speak for me”, well then damnit, don’t you speak for me or my family either.
Christ-like love? Hah. I think you owe me an apology, man. Don’t come to me saying I’m jumping all over you when you struck first. You take something I say out of context to slander my faith over there, I ignore it the first time, I say you’re leaning to dichotomies here, then you say “don’t tell me what to do”, and you think you can claim the high road? I think not.
That’s it. I’m out of here.
May 31, 2008 at 7:18 am. Permalink.
M54 replied:
jaklumen: Two words…. anger management.
As far as attacking your faith; John Smith and the failed prophesies thing, you failed to answer the question. Just because someone ignores the pink elephant in the room doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
In my previous post (regarding men/women) I was speaking in “general” terms. I should have made clear (for you) that (generally speaking) there will be occassional variations from the “norm”.
You do a pretty good job of attacking but a very poor job at answering my questions (ie, John Smith, Jesus talking about sex, etc.) When one does that (generally speaking) they either don’t like the answer(s) or don’t have them.
My basic point about talking about sex at church is this. If we study about the Trinity at church EVERYTHING ELSE will fall into place.
Now I’m off to the second part of a Marriage Seminar with my bride.
Jak’, like I, it sounds like you have some unresolved issues. Let’s figure out what they are and work on them and become whole and the men we were created to be.
May 31, 2008 at 11:52 am. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
Jaklumen: You and I have already spoken, so I’ll leave it in the private arena.
M54: As far as your initial asking Jaklumen how many prophecies Joseph Smith got wrong, I understand his frustration with that question. Most LDS followers will also point out that there are many he got right, and while that to you may not outweigh the whole of the mistakes made, to them they feel that they can rightly rationalize Smith’s humanity with a divine calling, and look past the wrong and follow the right. I understand that you probably don’t agree, as you probably think that they are mistaken, but I’ve known many totally rational and good people that chose the LDS faith, and thus I won’t judge anyone based solely off of that.
As for everything else, I don’t really know what to say. I understand where you were coming from with your questions but I also understood Jaklumen’s frustration, as he feels that the way most people frame discussions about sexuality (man, woman, period) leaves little room for deviation and thus little room for people like him, who do not follow stereotypical gender roles.
In any case, I’ve little taste for angry discussions on my blog, and hope that in the future people can refrain from outright confrontation.
May 31, 2008 at 12:09 pm. Permalink.
M54 replied:
Lindsey: forgive me for sounding “angry” or “outright confrontational”. That was not my intention. Is there no room for diferentiating diolog?
Isn’t the fact that Jesus NEVER spoke about sex a legitimate question? I mean if (as in previous posts that you’ve made) what you have said that Jesus is love then surely He loves us all. I believe that too. I wonder if this (sex thing) is such an important issue to us then why did not He specifically address it?
I can’t help the way people feel about “issues”. However, I certainly should not “egg them on”. In fact, I did make deliberate effort(s) and in fact deleted somethings tyed before posting.
Jak’: I wish you no harm but inner peace and the love of the Savior.
May 31, 2008 at 5:04 pm. Permalink.
Lindsey replied:
M54: No, I do believe what you asked where very legitimate questions (at least your initial questions to me) and I feel that Jaklumen took them perhaps a bit to personally, as they weren’t addressed to him specifically or about him specifically- but I do think your further dialog with Jaklumen fell into the category of confrontational. Especially the earlier question that he took so personally, your question about Joseph Smith’s prophecies.
Jesus did not talk about sex- or, at least, the New Testament does not quote him as such. But that doesn’t mean that sex doesn’t matter or that God doesn’t feel that sex matters- after all, the Bible as a whole does have quite a bit to say on the issue. Song of Solomon, for example. Christians would be remiss to not discuss it at all, but for the most part I think such discussions can be left to smaller, private forums where people who are easily disturbed by sexual imagery wouldn’t be subjected.
May 31, 2008 at 8:42 pm. Permalink.
e2tc replied:
Eep – please, no flame wars, guys!
As for the animal-human comparison, animal behavior is one of the most complex and baffling subjects out there. As I said in another reply, animals have their own reasons for doing things and I think it’s important for us to not make such comparisons lightly. I share my home with a rabbit, who – more often than not – seems like an alien being in bunny clothes. (As opposed to being “just” a cute animal.)
I know I’m threadjacking a bit, (sorry, Lindsey!), but would highly recommend having a look at books like Temple Grandin’s Animals in Translation for some insight into the differences. I’m sure that she would say that she’s barely scratched the surface! (And I believe she would be right.)
May 31, 2008 at 9:49 pm. Permalink.