Sexual Attraction: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Social Sciences » Sexual Attraction » Sexual Attraction

Sexual Attraction
What are the determining factors?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sexual Attraction

Honestly OK
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/30/08 - 05:08 PM: Subject: Sexual Attraction	#1
I posted this on a philosophy forum since I felt I may receive well thought responses. Sexual attraction is what drawn towards someone in a sexual matter. However, I had some questions on how it manifests in various people. Do you think that sexual attraction always precedes sexual desire? For example person "A" wants to have sex, not with a specific person. Person "A" desires sex because s/he knows certain activities feel good. Person "B" wants to have sex with a specific person. Person "B" desires sex partially because certain activities feel good, in addition, touching and pleasuring this person would be extremely pleasurable to Person "B". I would say that Person "A" just wants sex for physical pleasure but may not necessarily be feeling sexually attracted to his/her partner. This case could be illustrated by people who have sex in prison. Since Person "B"'s interest is brought out by a specific person and Person "B" is not just focused on his/her physical pleasure but also finds it equally pleasurable to caress his/her partner it seems to me that this sexual desire is caused by sexual attraction. Many things could cause sexual attraction. Our society places a big emphasis on visual attraction. Do you think that visual attraction is the most important or are the various other reasons (smell, how a person conducts themselves, personality, the sound of a person's voice, etc.) of equal importance? I think visual attraction is very important for immediate attraction, particularly if you do not know anything about that person. However, I noticed that I felt sexually drawn towards certain people, but it was after I got to know them and it was not from the visual. Recently, I met someone whom I did not feel attracted to until we kissed. Even subtle touching with him is very arousing but I am not sure if this is sexual attraction or sexual chemistry? Has anyone else experienced a sexual attraction that was gradual, that did not happen immediately? Feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

Kurt_Godel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 457

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/01/08 - 07:02 AM:	#2
Just a few lines into your second paragraph, I knew you were a female. Why? Because of the lower importance of visual attraction for you. To keep it simple, men are generally attracted to visual and physically aesthetic qualities. From an evolutionary perspective, this allows for the selection of a female which will produce the best quality offspring. This is why men are attracted to larger breasts and hips in general. Additionally, a woman with a lower body fat % is expected to be healthier. A well proportioned symmetrical body is crudely indicative of better genes. With these general criteria to guide them, males are biologically programmed to seek as many mates as possible. This is to encourage the maximum number of offspring so as to maximize the chance for the continuance of the species. Females on the other hand are attracted to the alpha male in general. While in the animal kingdom the alpha is usually classified based on strength and size (and hence his ablity to keep his mate and offspring safe, along with good genes), in human the alpha is classified more along social qualifiers. Physical size and strength still indicate power, and are hence attractive to women, but so are more social/human centric features such as wealth ($ brings power), social status (higher status = more power), strong personality (strength in interpersonal interactions), fame (appeal/power over the masses). Also important to women are emotional bonds. Women are known to be far more emotionally sensitive than men, so a man who is able to form a deep emotional bond with a woman will earn her trust enough to for her to want to have children with him, with her confident that the offspring will be cared for. So women in general search for the 1 male who is 'right' i.e. the best she can get = alpha. In this way, nature accounts for both quantity (males' desire for maximum number of partners) and quality (females desire for the alpha). Also, due to the characteristics of the respective selection criteria, males (especially men) are able to evaluate females far quicker than the other way around. E.g. it takes a few seconds to visually evaluate a prospective female on an aesthetic level, whereas it can take days/weeks/months to evaluate a prospective male on an emotional/social level. Which is why men know a lot sooner which females they want, whereas attraction builds up gradually (in general) for women. Like I said, these are the fundamental biological principles. Humans being far more socially developed and complex often deviate from these fundamentals.

Honestly OK
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 30, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 10/01/08 - 09:10 AM:	#3
Thanks Kurt for your well thought out reply. Yes, I am female. Men may put more emphasis on the visual as opposed to women, however I do think that looks are important to women also. Obviously visual is a factor (I don't think I would want to go to bed with a man who is ugly to me, but I don't think that an attractive man will turn me on with his looks alone. It may be other factors that make me more sexually attracted to a man. I look forward to more perspectives on this, particularly from females.

Kurt_Godel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/01/08 - 09:22 AM:	#4
Just as women's looks convey relevent biological information, so do men's. A low body fat% indicates a healthy male as well. Symmetrical well proportioned facial and body features in men are also crudely indicative of better physical genes. And of course, size and strength evaluations are made visually. So of course, looks are important to women as well. Its just that other criteria I mentioned in my previous post are somehwat more important. As for more female perspectives on this topic, you may be left wanting...this site is only like 0.01% female .

worldlogicleague
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 42

Posted 10/01/08 - 10:15 AM:	#5
Honestly OK wrote: Thanks Kurt for your well thought out reply. Yes, I am female. Men may put more emphasis on the visual as opposed to women, however I do think that looks are important to women also. Obviously visual is a factor (I don't think I would want to go to bed with a man who is ugly to me, but I don't think that an attractive man will turn me on with his looks alone. It may be other factors that make me more sexually attracted to a man. So if the event youre interested in is the sexual attraction event, then the goal becomes to find a hypothesis that explains its occurance: the SA event is a function of what conditions? SA =f(abcde*?) for you, you said that good looks is a necesary condition (without it no SA), but not a sufficient condition (it alone not enough for SA). So it goes on the causal condition list, but there needs to be more to be sufficient to activate SA: a = good looks. So what other conditions NEED to be present (at least for you) to be SUFFICIENT together to activate SA? In your first post you mentioned: b = good personality c = pleasant voice d = sexual sparks from touching (sexual chemistry) Others you could consider: e = funny f = financially secure g = same interests h = intelligent i = etc. I don't know if there is a universal hypothesis, but you might find the conditions that can be predicted to turn yours on. The question to ask is does the condition NEED to be there? If not it does not belong in the hypothesis. Edited by worldlogicleague on 10/02/08 - 01:37 PM

Mech
neo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2008
Location: The internet
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 125

Posted 10/01/08 - 01:04 PM:	#6
Kurt_Godel wrote: Just a few lines into your second paragraph, I knew you were a female. Why? Because of the lower importance of visual attraction for you. I was thinking the same thing - that and 's/he' hinted to it. Wait.. there are girls on this forum? First of all, [I am a blunt bugger when it comes to this sorta thing]: whats the difference between sexual 'chemistry' and sexual 'attraction'? Do not both lead to: I want in your pants? I firmly believe in this day in age, lusting the sexual concepts/desires is the mere value we place on sexual attraction. I don't think this is right. Sexual attraction should consist not of just one quality - 'I think you're hot and you make me aroused baby, oh yeah.' But, it should consist of a love for the opposite gender for their personality, their appearance, their personal love for you - simply not reciprocating lust. Sexual attraction is mans downfall - you as a female should know this!
"Take the word of one immortal." - Disturbed "How could that be gay if im pretending you're a woman?" - Flight of the Conchords "Whose to know if your soul will fade at all" - Seether

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11794

Last Blog: Blog welcomes giant check in Happy Dry Spot

Posted 10/01/08 - 11:11 PM:	#7
Kurt Godel wrote: males are biologically programmed to seek as many mates as possible If you cared about actual science, things would be a lot more complex than your flat stereotypes: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5098

Posted 10/02/08 - 12:03 AM:	#8
Biology, great science. But I don't know about it when it comes to explaining the social. And sex is rather social I guess. I don't believe in this alpha male. Few reasons, first the definition is circualr. One is an alpha male because one gets girls and one seems to get girls because of being a typical alpha male. Than the evolution. Well evolution is supposed to take millions of years right? But than the females of the human species eveolved very quickly to figure out that men with money have more potential for healthy off spring. The human male mind you is very much stuck in this evlution because he can only see breasts and hips. I don't buy it. Lets take a slightly more metaphysical view. We desire sex with another to fulfill a certain moment, a certain moment of losing oneself and just becoming another. We become an object for another, something by which the other feels at home in the world, for whom the world can't be better than just right now. At the same time we know that that other to whom we are willingly becoming an object for desire, to be tormented, to be teased, to be rewarded, is becoming an object for us. I can tease her, I can make her crawl, I can make her do things she wouldn't mention in ordinary day to day work. What we do is tearing the bonds that keep us to this world, of decency, of deceit, of being different than we are. We want to do that, but not just with everyone. That is why rape is a terrible crime because another forces you to tear these bonds, a very existentally frightening affair. So it must be someone with who you feel safe doing that. Now who you feel safe with depends on which personality you are. Women are usually more risk averse than men. (for good reasons I think which I won't go into now) So women like a man they trust, they know (thopugh it changes as society becomes safer and social repercusians are to be feared less) A man that they feel can look after himself and be forceful at the right moments. Women I think like to be seduced. They like a man to make them cut these bonds, to make them give themselves. So the men should be good at making her feel at ease, but also causing arousement in that imminent moment in which all clothes are off. He needs to promise protection as well as promise her loss of usual protection. (clothes protect from prying eyes, a well mannered demeanor from gossip etc.) Men also like to be seduced, but the seduction of women is more subtkle, they signal that it is ok for the men to start his seduction. So can a man who is ugly be seductive? Yes, why not, but he often lacks self confidence to do so. Beauty plays a part in it for both sexes. When we give ourselves we like to give ourselves to a hero or heroine, someone we deem worthy. Looks play a part in that. It is easier to construct such an image with a beautyful partner. But sense of humor does too, intelligence does too. Some women get turned off by dumb men, some men by dumb women. I can't see myself losing myself and my imhibitions with someone that is really staring blankly oput of her eyes. (Perhaps I can, but than I wouldn't give myself really and just go for the physical sensation) Thing is we want sex, we crave that release so that is biological. If you kiss a guy, you might think, hey what the heck, why not keep on doing that. I don't know if it is sexual chemistry or just availability. We also are attracted to because of what we expect. We construct an image of a person, that is what we are attrcated to, images. For the rest there are just touches and sensations and the ultimate sensation of annihilation and power at the same time. regards Tobi
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 10/02/08 - 01:40 AM:	#9
Tobias wrote: So can a man who is ugly be seductive? Mary Whitehouse once asked Debbie Daniels in an interview: "What first attracted you to short, balding, ugly, annoying, multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?"

Kurt_Godel
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 457

Posted 10/02/08 - 12:58 PM:	#10
Paul wrote: If you cared about actual science, things would be a lot more complex than your flat stereotypes: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics... http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy Why the needless jab? If you look at my post history, you'll find it abundantly clear that I do care about "actual science". I clearly said "to keep it simple" at the begining of my post. Further, I said "males", not men. Wikipedia wrote: The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90 percent of birds engaging in social monogamy but only 7 percent of mammals engaging in social monogamy. The incidence of sexual monogamy appears quite rare in the animal kingdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy Although social monogamy occurs in about 90 percent of avian species and about 3 percent of mammalian species, investigators estimate that 90 percent of socially monogamous species exhibit individual promiscuity in the form of extra-pair copulations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.