Why Hot Guys and Girls Are Like Red Meat – They Will Kill You in the Long Run

JuJu and Echos – Yes I agree.   Sexual attraction is very important in a relationship and I do see a lot of advice to women (as well as comments in this blog from angry men) to minimize or dismiss   that component.   Of course sexual attraction can’t be the ONLY thing, but it can’t be absent either. (Evan, I’m not saying that you advocate for no attraction)

I have read several articles written by pschycologists about attraction say people know in an instant weather or not they are attracted.

However compatibility, intentions, and all the other essential qualities take longer to discern, but why take the time searching for other essential qualities, after you discovered that the essential attraction quality just isn’t there ?   Some call it “giving a guy a chance” but I call it leading a man on.

Attraction isn’t just based on looks for me anyway.   There have been men that aesthetically speaking I found attractive on an intellectual level, but I felt no pull towards them.   Sometimes I could discern that it was something about their demeanor, body language or voice tone that was off putting, but other times, I just didn’t KNOW why I didn’t feel the pull.   There were guys I WISH I could feel the pull, the spark, or whatever you want to call it, but I just didn’t feel it.   I chalk it up to pheremones.   I have also felt that pull toward men, who on an objective level, weren’t particularly attractive, but something about the way they moved, or talked, their facial demeanor, just pulled me in.

Arguing about weather or not sexual attraction or compatibility is more important to a relationship is like arguing about weather oxygen or water is more important to sustaining human life.   Both qualities are ESSENTIAL.

Getting back to the angry male commenters . . . Some of them are so hypocritical.   Right here on this blog, I’ve seen   things such as one male commenter saying he assessed himself to be a 7, then in the next sentence complain that online, the “9”s and the “10”s didn’t write back to him online.   Or the ever complaining Obsidian bitterly declaring that he wanted a woman who was prettier than he was handsome.   Or in the article that Evan ran that said short men get laid as much as tall men, one male commenter asked the question “But are they getting laid by 9s and 10s” ?.   And men who complain about women’s height preferences, then lay out very specific immutable body types that THEY want such as long legs, rounded butt, and natural DD cup.   (I have no real height preference and all of my long term relationship, including my husband are well under 6 feet)

I get that men have their “types” when it comes to physical attraction, and I would never advise men to “give a girl a chance” if they didn’t find her attractive.   I just don’t like the hypocrisy exhibited by some men, that they are entitled to the hottest women (the top 20%) even if they aren’t so hot themselves.   And that women should have no such preference.   Or any preference at all for that matter.   We’re shallow bitches if actually want to feel attraction to the men we sleep with, and whores if we want to be in a relationship with the men we sleep with.   (Yes, the wanting sex only in a relationship   has been compared to prostitution many times on this blog)   The fact that we have ANY choice in the matter enrages some men, and they claim that women have ALL the power, when in actuality, sex and relationships happen by MUTUAL consent.   (except in cases of rape)

Echoes,

I think you bring up a valid point, and I’d like to respond to it. First of all, we’re here on a predominately female-oriented blog,   one major significance of which is, that for women, the majority idea of the Holy Grail is ” committed relationship/marriage” . To that may be added, (and in the minds of a lot of women,  is)  “at any cost whatever, and the consequences to me (or the man in question) be damned”. I don’t think the latter does anyone any good (I suspect Evan would at least partially agree here). I think what a lot of women (and some of us men, as well) hear in Evan’s advice on this subject, is “give up on real chemistry and passion, in order to get compatibility”. Evan has said repeatedly himself, that is NOT what he means, but to some people of both genders, that’s how it comes across.

I can’t speak for all men, but I can for myself, so here’s my take, FWIW.   First of all, there seems to be some popular idea here that a man (assuming he has a normal level of sexual desire) can and will have sex with any woman, so long as she is willing, and vaguely female. I don’t know exactly who that’s supposed to be true of, but personally, I have never in my entire life, slept with a woman I did not find at least moderately physically attractive (yes, even when I was drunk), nor would I ever care to. As for any woman I found physically unattractive, I wouldn’t want to even kiss her or touch her, much less have sex with her. That applies no matter what I think of her personality, intelligence, charm,or anything else. Matter of fact, that’s exactly how I select most of my long-term women friends. I love them dearly; the closest are like extended family…and I wouldn’t ever think of sleeping with any of them. Given that, I wouldn’t expect a woman to do anything different; why on earth would I expect a woman to to even think about sleeping with me,   (much less get into a committed relationship with me) if she did not actively, and pretty intensely, desire me? For me, anyway, the answer is, I don’t; honestly, I would prefer she didn’t! Nothing is worth the misery that can (and often does) inflict on both parties.

I may be an outlier, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why anyone would ever want a sexual relationship of any kind (short or long-term) without some pretty high level mutual chemistry. My take is, that if you want real passion and excitement in life, you go for it, all the way; you never ever compromise or settle, you put up with the resultant storms, and take the bitter along with the sweet, and the pleasure along with the pain, and live and die with the result. That point of view seems to be anathema here. Whether it should be, is something I suppose each of us has to decide for ourselves. Effective? Depends on what you want, or can tolerate, I guess. All I can say is that I’ve lived in two “settle for what you can get” marriages, which I wouldn’t wish upon my worst enemy. The first one actually tried to kill me, and the second was basically a slow death from a thousand tiny cuts, so I fail to see the difference. I’d rather have two weeks of real passion, than a lifetime of what, to me, is nothing but the most insipid sort of “companionship”, if one could even call it that. I get better companionship from my friends anyway, without the emotional angst. I’m a little sick of hearing the threat, “But, Buck, you’ll die alone!”. Horse dung! We ALL die alone! No one, no matter how much they love you, can take the last step of that journey with you. It’s not about that anyway; nor about how long you live; it’s about how much enjoyment you can cram into the ride while you have the chance! Now someone pass me that steak, and hold the damn spinach, tofu and bean sprouts; just like with relationships, I’d rather die tomorrow than live to 120 eating that disgusting bitter swill!