I’m never going to get this. Ever. Thanks for trying to explain it to me, though.
cuauhtemoc:
No, it’s not sexual orientation. Women like men, women like women, men like women, men like men. Sexual orientation is not a difference between genders.
An example? Well, if every woman hated strawberries and every man loved them, that would be an example. I’m not the guy saying these differences exist; I’m the guy asking what they are.
Probably written by a straight person out to make gays look completely dense and clueless.
Yes, and in the process I made it very clear several times that I was not gay. Oooh, I’m devious!
Please read the entire thread before posting. Thank you.
Does the sent of a woman (WHOO-HA!) make a huge difference?
I think that’s a major factor for me.
Okay, Priceguy, so you simply can’t understand my reaction in the hypothetical situation I set up. Fair enough, if that isn’t how you would respond. But did you get my point about behavior being a non-physical trait that helps us distinguish between genders? For those of us, straight or gay, who have a definite preference as to the gender of our romantic partner, we are going to look at a person’s behavior (in the absence of physical cues) to help determine whether that person is a suitable target for our romantic interests.
Let me ask you this… are you now, or have you ever actually been, in a romantic relationship where sex was not an issue? A full blown, I’m-in-love-with-him/her and he/she-is-in-love-with-me type of thing, and NEITHER of you wants or expects sex to enter the picture? If so, does/did your partner call it a romantic relationship too, or just a strong friendship? I’m awfully curious…
Thanks for the response on that - I realize that not everyone is going to fit into that scenario. I think the topic of human attraction is a very complex one and was mostly looking for a comparision to help the OP understand some of the possibilities.
Then again, it may be entirely WRONG WRONG WRONG - but for the most part it explains the way things work for me.
OK, the bottom line, and this is the only answer the OP will likely accept, is that yes, WE ARE ALL SHALLOW!
Assuming, that is, that you define shallow as “unwilling to have sex with somebody you are not physically attracted to.”
I am not particularly attracted to obese women. My father, who’s second wife is rather large, thinks I’m shallow (I don’t bother mentioning that my mother, with whom he had many years of sex, was very skinny and that, as far as I know, he and my step-mother have no sex life whatsoever apart from snuggling).
In fact, I’m willing to admit that I am physically attracted to a very small percentage of women. I can’t define exactly what attracts me to certain women, but it is a combination of their general body type, the shape of their face, their smile, the sound of their voice, and yes, the fact that they have a vagina. The thought of sucking another man’s penis, sticking my penis up his butt, or having him do the same to me, is as repulsive to me as the thought of having sex with a morbidly obese woman with buck teeth, body odor, stringy hair.
In short, I only feel what you call “romantic love” (but what everybody else seems to call “sexual attraction”) toward people I am actually physically attracted to. I am not physically attracted to every type of person in the world which, by your definition, makes me shallow.
I simply cannot understand the idea of having sex with somebody I don’t feel sexually attracted to.
At the same time, though, I would propose that that when you feel those butterflies in the stomach it means that you ARE sexually attracted to the other person, and if you only would consider having sex with somebody who affects you in that way, you are just as shallow as anybody else.
Regards,
Barry
No, I haven’t been in such a situation, but then again I’ve only ever been in two romantic relationships. I definitely don’t consider it beyond the realm of possibility, though. Also, when I do feel in love, I start to feel sexually attracted. It seems that for most people sexual attraction has to come first. I didn’t know that.
I get the point, but it doesn’t really solve anything. In the scenario described, you missed, and fell in love with someone of the “wrong” gender, but because of her physical appearance you weren’t interested. That’s sort of what I was asking about.
Godzillatemple:
If the answer is that most people are shallow, then I accept that answer. Great. However, the definition does not need to be “unwilling to have sex with somebody you are not physically attracted to”, but rather “unwilling to have a romantic relationship with somebody you are not physically attracted to”. I still don’t automatically connect romantic love and sex, although I admit that they are connected.
OK, so everybody’s either shallow or feels that sex and romantic love cannot be separated. Great, that’s the answer. Thanks everybody who tried to help.
And no, the next time someone shouts “shallow” in the Pit I won’t be there saying “so you fuck men in the ass? No? Then you’re just as shallow”. I’m not a crusader. I was just seriously, honestly curious.
I’m sorry, but I think you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence there. Either you believe they are connected, or you don’t. And if you do believe they are connected, then you are saying that your definition of shallow is indeed “unwilling to have sex with somebody you are not physically attracted to.”
Look at it another way… You want to believe that “romantic love” doesn’t have to involve physical attraction. Fine. Let’s say that it involves “feelings of romance” (yes, I know that is a tautology). These “feelings of romance” include the butterflies in the stomach, the “I can’t wait to talk to this person,” etc.
The question is, do you have these “feelings of romance” with everybody you meet? Or only with certain people? Assuming it is only with certain people, is it safe to assume that you only want to have a romantic relationship with thse certain people? If so, then then by your definition you are just as shallow as the rest of us. You only want to have a romantic relationship with those people who trigger certain feelings inside you, and exclude the vast majority of the population who do not trigger those feelings.
Barry
Someone prefers vaginas to penises. You find this impossibly confusing.
Someone prefers people who don’t like strawberries to people who do. This makes perfect sense to you?
If not, then what would be an acceptable answer to your question? If not genitals, if not strawberries, then what?
Don’t take this as an accusation, but you seem to be framing the debate with an agenda in mind. It’s like you want me to say “The difference between men and women is that women have such and such personality traits,” so you can say “Well, what if you met a man with such personality traits, would you want to marry him?”
As the rest of my last post should have made clear, the difference between a man and a woman is that I perceive one to be a man, and the other to be a woman. When I look at a man, I see a man. When I look at a woman, I see a woman. Like sunfish,* I could be attracted in an erotic way to a person I believed to be a woman, but the attraction would cease were I to find out that she was actually not a woman. You said you would never, ever understand this. I recommend you stop asking the question if you can’t understand the answer.
I’m not a philosopher, but I think there’s a conflict between essentialism and existentialism here. Think of it in terms of Platonism. Suppose that, up in the sky somewhere, there live two people. One is a perfect** example of a man. The other is a perfect example of a woman. Let’s call these two people “Essential Man” and “Essential Woman”.
Now suppose that each of us (except you) has an image of these two people embedded deep in our psyche. Whenever we meet a new person, we compare them to Essential Man and Essential Woman to see which one they are more like. Most of the time, it’s pretty unambiguous that they are closer to one than the other.
Now most of us desire erotic relationships with other people, and most of us have a preference, either for people who remind us of Essential Man or for people who remind us of Essential Woman. For most of us, this preference is pretty strong. Even strong enough that we would refuse erotic interaction with anyone who reminded us of the wrong member of the Essential Couple.
Would you like me to describe Mr. and Mrs. Essential? Well, I can’t. It’s impossible, because they don’t exist as people, only as ideals. Take Mr. Essential, for instance. He’s not a person, he’s a set of characteristics that all actual men possess. Actual men are various and complex, and many things may be true about them that are not necessarily true of Mr. Essential. However, nothing that is true about Mr. Essential is untrue about any existing man.
He’s a definition, nothing more. He is the absolute minumum of what is required to define oneself as possessing the characteristic of “manhood”.
What I’m trying desperately to make you understand is that in order for a traditionally defined “straight female” or “gay male” to be attracted to another person in an erotic way, that person must possess the essence of manhood. If you can honestly say this makes no sense to you, I suppose I give up. I can’t explain it any better than that.
** No value judgement implied in the word “perfect”, I just mean that he fits the definition of “man” as well as it is possible to fit it.
MAybe it’s more like …
I don’t think romantic love and sex have to be connected, but they usually are.
Which removes the internal inconsistancy.
I would still think sex is too strong a word in this use.
Maybe …
Does romantic love require sexual attraction to the object of that love?
To this I would answer Yes always. What would others here answer?
Cheers, Bippy
I’m sorry for the perceived contradiction. While I admit that sex and romantic love are connected, they are not automatically nor inextricably connected. For me. For some (apparently most) people, they are. Fine. I’ve got no problem with that. It doesn’t make me a better or worse person in any way.
Many of the responders in this thread have assumed that I try to make myself out as a better, higher, more developed person than they. It’s just not so, although I understand why my posts can be perceived so.
Look, I know I fucked up in this thread. I never said I wasn’t shallow. I just observed that the same people who would think I would be shallow to say I’d never date a fat woman would not think I would be shallow to say I’d never date a woman. I didn’t see the difference.
And yes, I only want to have a loving relationship with someone I’m in love with. I do believe love and love are inextricably connected.
cuahtemoc:
No, of course not. The strawberries thing was one example of a possible externally detectable non-physical difference between the genders. The existence of those has been taken for granted on this thread, but so far no-one has pointed out a single one.
And I’m sorry, but I cannot understand why the feelings of love would cease upon finding out the loved one’s gender. I really can’t. I’ve realised that I’m in the minority, but I just can’t wrap my head around why that would happen.
Priceguy: For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t think you were shallow if you said you’d never date a fat woman. I’d say that you only want to date women you personally find attractive, and if you are not attracted to fat women that is perfectly all right. There are plenty of guys out there who are attracted to fat women, and you just aren’t one of them.
Barry
cuauhtemoc, nice job. I understand EXACTLY what you’re saying.
PriceGuy, the reason you don’t get it is because you are bi. Most people aren’t bi, and therefore would not EVER be attracted to people sexually OR ROMANTICALLY the way you are. You don’t have to understand it. You just have to accept it. We’re not shallow, we’re not bigots. We’re just Gay or Straight. We’re not missing out on anything. We are who we are. “We’re Straight! We’re Great! Get Used To It!!!”
claps for cuauhtemoc
Very well put.
PriceGuy said, "And I’m sorry, but I cannot understand why the feelings of love would cease upon finding out the loved one’s gender. "
Dude, the feelings of LOVE don’t cease. The opportunity for ROMANTIC LOVE, i.e., sexual contact, ceases. This is a huge difference. I still love a lesbian friend who told me she wanted to have sex with me. But I’m not going to have sex with her. I’m just not going to. Doesn’t mean I don’t love her as much as I always did.
Thanks, Kalhoun and Venoma 
Priceguy:
It’s obvious we’re not speaking the same language here. Good luck with everything, I hope you find what you’re looking for.
The trait is knowing whether or not you are a man or a woman. Your gender is obvious to you and to others much in the same way that you understand that someone is sad or happy.
I don’t understand. On one hand, you kept on going about great relationships, which will definitely involve more than just physical aspects. On the other hand, you are asking this question. Isn’t this contradictory?
No it is not. Why did you agree with me that it is not just physical, then turn around to make the same erroneous statement?
Suppose you have a very nice dog. You love it a lot. It keeps you company 24 hours a day. It makes you laugh. Will you fall in love with it? After all, the difference is only physical, right?
Why do I get the impression that no-one is listening? I don’t give a flying fuck about dogs or strawberries. Answer me two simple questions:
Are there or are there not non-physical, absolute differences between the genders that are obvious to an outside observer?
If yes, name one.
Why is this so difficult? Please, one straight answer is all I want.