Category: Let's talk
Hello folks,
The subject explains it really. I was thinking, while eating lunch just now about attraction, what it meant and why it was we felt it for people and things. I thought I'd post the questions I have here, to see what you guys think. Have fun with this then.
Attraction. What is it? Why are we attracted to some things, and not others? What makes a thing, or a person attractive? Socialization? Are we born with a certain amount of knowledge of what attracts and repels us? Or does it grow over time? If it does grow over time, if we weren't subject to the rules of attraction, that is to say if we were socialized to think that attractiveness doesn't exist, would the potential to be attracted to people and things still be within us? Or would we lose it? Is it hereditary? How does it start, if it isn't congenital or hereditary?
Walk in beauty,
Simon
I think that attraction is, essentially, a strong preference for something or someone over others. As such I think it is, to a large extent, genetic. Of course it will be influenced by our development, experiences and society over time. We have preferences for most things, foods, music, what we find beautiful and, of course, people, and different aspects or properties attract us about these things. When our older son was 6 months old, before he learnt anything about fashion or language, pointed out a blue stuffed elephant at Ikea and indicated in very strong terms he wanted it. Since then he's slept with the elephant every night, fortunately it was a cheap mass produced thing so we bought 10 or so replacements, because they tend to get lost. But this, more than anything, convinced me there must be a strong inate preferences in us because our child could not possibly have been influenced by anything in his desire for this particular stuffed toy.
I also think I developed fairly indepenet taste of music, between my dad's love of the 60s and 70s and my class mates thrash metal obsession pointed me in certain directions musically but I've expanded my taste constantly ever since. I am influenced in that certain music is more easily accessible to me and I am more likely to be exposed to certain songs or bands, that's society at work, but I find myself having a pretty independent view of what attracts me about music, what I read into lyrics and what melody or words give me goose bumps or make me want to dance my metaforical butt off.
Just a few thoughts, incomplete and random, but it's an interesting topic definitely.
Exactly what I was looking for B. Thanks mate, you rock.
I agree, much of it must be instinctive, with socialization playing a role to alter things as we grow. There are theories on this next bit, and I'll try to dig them out of my chapter from the soc sci course I'm doing on gendered identities, but what then, about same sex attraction? Is it instinctive, learned by social interaction, both, or something else? And please guys no gay bashing, it's a form of prejudice and prejudice is ugly.
Well, thanks to Quintin, I can now add to what I just said properly, having messed it up so badly the first time it's amazing. Thanks Quintin mate. So here's the post I wrote, properly formatted this time:
B, I was struck by something else you said and of course, the geek in me had to research this a bit too. Not too much though, it is midnightish after all here now. You were talking about your son reaching for that blue elephant and now having to sleep with it every night. I started wondering then about the blue for boys, pink for girls thing, and Googled.
There's a very interesting article from The Independant called Boys like blue, girls like pink that says that this too is genetically based. According to the article there is a pretty universal attraction for blue, while most, but of course not all, girls are attracted to colours on the red end of the red-green axis. A study suggests that this goes back to or days in Africa, when blue was a good sign weatherwise (everybody likes a blue sky no?), and pink would indicate ripeness in fruit. In hunter gatherer societies that would make sense, the article says, as it was the men who went on journeys to hunt game, while the women foraged for fruit and other planted goodies. Socialization must play a part here too of course, because we're not all the same and there are many, many cross-overs and exceptions to this rule. Aren't people great? lol. Anyway back to it, I found this interesting, so figured I'd put it here.
this is so totally cool. what smart guys you are!!!!
Here's an interesting story for you. My daughter is congenitally blind as are both her parents. When she was two, I dressed her up to go to a party in a fluffy pink dress. She wantover to the full length mirror we had in the hall, started flipping her long hair like some movie star and saying "i'm beeau-tee-ful." I don't use a mirror, her sighted manly man older brother doesn't and neither does their dad - my husband. How did she know?
I think that the nature versus nurture discussion is a fascinating one. Look at the acculturation of weight. Back in the victorian age and even, with the exception of the flapper, up through the 50s, the rounded womanly figure was the role model. Did you know that marilyn monroe was a size 14? anyway, heavier women were considered beautiful because they were rich enough to be well fed and the mother role was revered. Now the opposite is often true. Though americans and most western countries have a serious obesity problem, the skin and bones model type woman is what most girls particularly teen ones, yearn to emulate.
As for the same sex thing, my brother is gay, and he said he realized his difference from birth. When he was young back in the early 60s he felt he had to fit in. as mores relaxed he has been able to express his preferences, which is a healthy thing. people are too obsessed with who someone sleeps with in the bedroom. if we are successful and productive members of society it shouldn't make a fig of difference.
hope i've made sense. thanks for the great topic.
I think that attraction is instinctive.
I think that all humans grow up/are brought up with certain social expectations which prohibit attraction to certain things/individuals. However I think that the fact that people go against those socially accepted norms is a clear indiciation that attraction is a natural part of our being, and that regardless of expectation, sometimes that natural instinct takes over and we become attracted to things/individuals that are beyond that social remit.
As individuals the social norm is to marry someone of the opposite sex. But sometimes people are inadvertently attracted to people of the same sex. And even though many people try to fight this attraction, often this is simply not possible, and those people therefore go beyond what is considered to be the social norm and come out as gay.
Equally when we are in a long-term relationship the social norm is for us to remain monogamous. However it happens that people in relationships become attracted to someone else, or that someone becomes attracted to someone who is in a relationship (again a social tabu), and although people often fight these attractions, again, often this is simply not possible and the attraction might lead to something else.
I think I'm waffling really but basically, my opinion is that there are accepted levels of attraction, but because attraction is genetic rather than social, sometimes nature defies those accepted levels.
also i think selfishness comes in here too. as for the cheating on a spouse or partner, often we choose to have our needs met instead of working on compromising to make a relationship work. does that make sense?
Albanac. Did you by chance just finish reading a book called The Secret?
It talks alot about attraction.