I feel incredibly lucky in that for me, Kendra is the total package.
I have to take serious issue with that graph, however. For me, there are other dimensions. Sexual attraction to me is not just physical (and I don't mean this in the "I'm not shallow!" way). As in, there can be characteristics of someone's personality, or even just the way they walk or the way they carry themselves that I can find sexually attractive. There are people I am sexually attracted to that I would never want to date in a thousand years, and that I don't find particularly physically attractive. I don't know how else to explain it. It's raw sexual attraction, but it has nothing to do with physical appearance. So, I guess, long story short, I'd want the x-axis relabeled "sexual attraction".
I have "serious issues" with the graph, with regards to the chemistry and spark of attraction being measured in such a tidy box. I know describing stuff like this in terms we can wrap our brains around is handy...but, it is like the Pritchard poetry graph, and to quote Robin Williams:
Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
While I haven't found a long-term partner, I have found people that rated highly on all three criteria. Those are the ones that have broken my heart. They exist though.
Yes. Many people might consider me completely insane (as well as pretty and intelligent) for feeling very lucky to have been found by those who "rated highly on all three criteria". Yes, they are out there, and it IS worth it when you find them, but then there is an enormous luck factor if compatibility/love can whether daily wear and tear.
My mother told me a few months ago that finding a man who is the best sex you've ever had, a great father, and your best friend is an extremely difficult thing to do, and thus I should expect to compromise on one or more dimensions in a long term partner. It's not quite the same as your pick two, but gets at some of the same characteristics.
Hm, my criteria/approach was different than yours. When I first got to know someone, it was more about if I liked being around them and wanted to know more about them. As the relationship went forward I started to think about if I liked myself around this person (do they bring out the good parts of my personality? minimize the neurotic parts? make me feel beautiful/special/smart/sexy?). When deciding to marry Cal I was thinking "would I like myself if I became more like him? Can I deal with his flaws for the rest of my life? Do I trust that I will like him as he changes?"
For me, Cal meets all of my criteria (and yours). I do think I am very lucky.
Comments 10
I have to take serious issue with that graph, however. For me, there are other dimensions. Sexual attraction to me is not just physical (and I don't mean this in the "I'm not shallow!" way). As in, there can be characteristics of someone's personality, or even just the way they walk or the way they carry themselves that I can find sexually attractive. There are people I am sexually attracted to that I would never want to date in a thousand years, and that I don't find particularly physically attractive. I don't know how else to explain it. It's raw sexual attraction, but it has nothing to do with physical appearance. So, I guess, long story short, I'd want the x-axis relabeled "sexual attraction".
Reply
Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!"
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
For me, Cal meets all of my criteria (and yours). I do think I am very lucky.
Reply
Reply
it's not just who you are and who they are, but who the two of you are together.
Reply
Leave a comment