A New Model of Attraction

[Sojourner]

(I'm not entirely sure where to put this. I have a feeling it would get better more responses in MusiRants, but whatever.)

I've been thinking about this stuff a lot lately and I simply could not understand the difference between romantic and platonic relationships. I could not understand what defined romance or love. I looked through a couple of threads, but nothing anyone said really helped. Half of what was said was simply "this stuff is a mess and really can't be clearly defined," which was frustrating as heck. Some people have tried to define the difference as depending on exclusivity, physical intimacy, or intensity, but I can't say any of those make sense to me. They're entirely arbitrary choices to differentiate romantic and platonic, and furthermore, they're qualities of a relationship that I think will vary depending on the people in it, not the type of relationship.

I've also been reading a handful of threads in which people have been trying to define sexual attraction. I couldn't help but notice that in many of these threads, sexuals described it as more than simply sexual. Many sexuals said that to them, sexual attraction had more than just physical elements, and involved an attraction to the person as well as the body. I talked to some sexuals IRL and observed the same thing.

It seemed easy at first to simply say that for sexual people, sexual and romantic attraction are just mixed up inseparably, but as I was already questioning the meaning of romantic attraction, I looked closer, and noticed disparities that implied, as I'd been suspecting, that romantic attraction isn't the same for everyone.

Yesterday I noticed this thread and it got me thinking in a new way that pulled some of my disparate thoughts together.

What I've come up with is this model.

There are seven main types of attraction.

-Physical Attraction: being attracted to the prospect of having sex with someone; seeing a person and thinking ze’d make a good sex partner.

-Aesthetic Attraction: being nonsexually attracted to the look of a person’s body; having an aesthetic appreciation for a person’s beauty.

-Social Attraction: being attracted to a person for zer social status, wealth, fame, etc.; wanting to be near a person in order to pick up the benefits of some of those qualities.

-Predator’s Attraction (until I come up with a better term): realizing the benefits that could be obtained via a relationship of some sort and being attracted to a particular person for such a relationship not because of that person’s traits but because of the apparent ease with which such a beneficial relationship could be formed with him/her/zim.

-Emotional Attraction: being attracted to a person for his/her/zer personality and characteristics, such as strength, determination, sense of humor, patience, ethics/morality, etc.; wanting to be with a person purely because you get along well, and that makes you happy.

-Intellectual Attraction: being attracted to a person for his/her/zer mind, meaning his/her/zer method of thought, opinions, intelligence or creativity, wit, etc.; wanting to be with a person to share in his/her/zer thought process.

-Base Attraction (until I come up with a better term): being attracted to a person for no apparent reason and despite your best efforts at crushing said attraction. This I only add because I know, first hand, that it’s possible. Maybe instinctive attraction would be a better term for it?

What makes this model worth consideration, I think, is that it doesn’t define romantic, platonic, or even sexual attraction. I don’t think that any of those three can be solidly, objectively defined because they’re not the same for everyone. This model not only acknowledges that, but allows people to figure out what those attractions are for them.

Sexual attraction will, of course, include physical attraction, but that’s the only given. It will likely include aesthetic attraction. It seems to usually include emotional attraction, at least for the sexuals whose opinions I’ve read or heard. For many I’m sure it includes social attraction and for some it likely includes intellectual. It may even necessitate base attraction for some people. It varies.

As far as romantic and platonic go, with this model I can finally distinguish between the two for myself. I can’t speak for others, but for me, personally, platonic attraction is a mix of intellectual and emotional attraction. I’ve also experienced base attraction which later led to emotional attraction, and for the sake of having a name for this, I would say that for myself (at least until something happens to make me rethink this), that's what romantic attraction is.

This model makes sense to me, but does it to anyone else? If so, is there anything I've forgotten to take into consideration in it?

[Sherlock]

Just a couple of things that may have an impact on attraction: Science knows that one's preference in a favourite colour or food comes down to us genetically. Science has also discovered that people who like how their sexual partner smells will be more likely to have more children (and healthier) with them (has to do with finding someone whose immune system covers different bases than your own). Also, when picking out partners, people tend to choose other people who look remotely like themselves. (Like how people end up with pets that look like them, or how their spouse looks a lot like their mother or possibly a sibling.)

Other psychological things of note: We are natural predisposed to seeking out or latching on to people we perceive are leaders; i.e., celebrities, sports people, etc. We naturally want to mimic them, be around them, talk about them with others who also see them as a leader/follow-worthy.

[Born of Star Dust]

What we often refer to as "Romantic Attraction" is actually something that occurs in the brain which is distinct and seperate from sexual attraction and seperate from what I call deep love or attachment. It might be what you are refering to when you say "Base Attraction." It has a very similar effect to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) or drug addiction, and I believe it actually occurs within the same part of the brain in which Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder occurs. This sort of attraction is intense, but usually doesn't last too long. It is responsible for that feeling of butterflies in the stomache and the constant thoughts about the person towards who the attraction is directed (which is explained by the fact that it is located in the same part of the brain as OCD). What starts out as a romantic attraction can lead to attatchment/deep love, but one can certainly have attatchment/deep love without this romantic attraction which happens in the brain. And I would argue that one could have what could be defined as a "romantic relationship" without romantic attraction in the same way that asexuals can have sex without sexual attraction. Perhaps aromantic people are people who do not have this process occuring in their brains... In that same vein, I wonder if people who are aromantic would also be less likely to be Obsessive-Compulsive and addictive personalities (But I am not basing that bit on aromantics on any facts or data, it is just speculation on my part). I know that I personally experience intense romantic attraction (these feelings) and I have OCD and I am prone to be addicted to things easily...

But that is just one neurological component of attraction which is often called "Romantic attraction", there could easily, and probably is, much more to it than that. And I agree with you that each relationship is different, and that to sort relationships into either platonic or romantic is to greatly over simplify the complex webs that are relationships. I think you were right to make a list of different types of attractions and not different types of relationships, because while a sort of attraction might be similar, relationships themselves, I think, cannot be categorized, because each is specific to the people involved.

I know that when I say that I want a "romantic relationship," I mean that I want one which full of deep love. I mean that I want a partner for whom I will feel these intense feelings, but mostly someone I can go on the adventure of life with and have deep conversations and a profound connection... But when I really think about it, I could have this with friends. I think romantic attraction is real, because it is something which has been charted in the brain, but perhaps romantic relationships are social contructions. In which case, we could construct them to be whatever we want them to be.

[Sojourner]

Sherlock - on reflection I think physical attraction would include smell, sound of voice, whatever else that's physically, sensually based, not just what's seen. As to your point on leadership, I'll have to give that some more serious thought.

What we often refer to as "Romantic Attraction" is actually something that occurs in the brain which is distinct and seperate from sexual attraction and seperate from what I call deep love or attachment. It might be what you are refering to when you say "Base Attraction." It has a very similar effect to Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) or drug addiction, and I believe it actually occurs within the same part of the brain in which Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder occurs. This sort of attraction is intense, but usually doesn't last too long.

What I refer to as base attraction is something I've been feeling for a certain fellow classmate of mine for roughly three years. It was hardly noticeable at first, and later came to be accompanied by emotional attraction, but it's been there the whole three years.

Other than that, though, I wouldn't have trouble believing that romantic and base attraction are the same thing. I'm just hesitant to say that because I don't know what romantic attraction is to every individual; so far as I know such a consensus on its definition has yet to be reached.

What starts out as a romantic attraction can lead to attatchment/deep love, but one can certainly have attatchment/deep love without this romantic attraction which happens in the brain. And I would argue that one could have what could be defined as a "romantic relationship" without romantic attraction in the same way that asexuals can have sex without sexual attraction. Perhaps aromantic people are people who do not have this process occuring in their brains...

It's possible for sexuals, as well as aces, to have sex without experiencing sexual attraction. I think it happens more often than people realize. Part of what I'm proposing here is that sexual attraction really isn't just physical attraction, as, for most of the sexuals to whom I've spoken, it involves emotional attraction as well.

So of course it's possible for a person to participate in a "romantic" relationship without experiencing base or romantic attraction. The problem then is that he/she/ze won't be experiencing the romantic feelings that his/her/zer partner is feeling, and won't understand the relationship the same way.

I think romantic attraction is real, because it is something which has been charted in the brain, but perhaps romantic relationships are social contructions. In which case, we could construct them to be whatever we want them to be.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Wouldn't "romantic relationship" just mean a relationship in which one or both people feel romantic attraction/affection? How, then, could it be a social construct?

[sindi]

Other psychological things of note: We are natural predisposed to seeking out or latching on to people we perceive are leaders; i.e., celebrities, sports people, etc. We naturally want to mimic them, be around them, talk about them with others who also see them as a leader/follow-worthy.

This is totally off the topic, but... I've never ever had this And I bet I'm not the only one on earth...

Just to point out, that all things have exceptions... or something xD