Delta4Embassy
Gold Member
It occurs to me this morning reading around that while I know many things, why people wind up attracted to different things or types of people and things continues to be absent in my mind. Researchers into attraction say the color red plays a part, certain smells, associations as with women look for men who remind them of their fathers, etc. Yet we still have no way to say with any certainty, why a person may be attracted to an individual among a group of individuals who have many of the things in common with one another. Let alone why some are gay, others straight, others (like myself) indifferent to the sex of a person altogether enjoying both.
Seems there's an endless array of possible things people cue in on when describing their attraction to another. Male/female, tall/short, short hair or long, the list is virtually endless. Yet inexplicably, even when someone meets many of a person's 'attraction preferences' not every person with them is then attractive. So one or more x-factors is present but not entirely overt. Some will have it, others wont despite meeting other preferences.
I've long wondered if attraction even works that way at all. As in seeing things about a person's body you like. Thinking of the perverbial club scene with people dancing and carrousing, drinking and behaving as though drinking, many people would seem to fit another's list of things they find attractive, and yet not every one of them then is the one person someone will approach. Could it be something more in-line with our primate and animal nature, than something about the list of things we say we desire in another person? Could the ones we eventually approach and talk to be 'prey' and we the 'predator?'
When it comes to 'problematic attractions' as with adults to children the predator-prey relationship sounds much more plausible. In the animal world, a predator for all its strength and capability wont lunge recklessly into a crowd of prey-animals and hope for the best. But stalk, locate, and identify the weakest link among a herd of animals and wait for the opportune moment to strike maximizing its' own safety. White sharks will target and attack the lone sea lion off by itself away from others, not one amongst a group. Lions will go for the stragglers in a herd, not the baby within the herd surrounded by adults. And child sexual abusers like their non-criminal counterparts seem to go after their prey if they're off by themselves much of the time, instead of after what they desire if around others. Line from one of the Harry Potter movies comes to mind where a ball is upcoming and everyone's looking for dates, "Why do they always travel in packs?" asks Harry intimidated by a group of girls. "How are you supposed to get them alone to ask?"
Perhaps instead of asking what attracts us whether pathologically or not, we should instead ask whether or not seeking romantic involvements isn't just a predator going after prey? Even if a group of people include one or more meeting our stated preferences, we might instead opt to pursue one off by themselves. This would help explain the success of online dating since 1 on 1 is the way that all works. Your browse profiles, find someone you like, and contact them. As opposed to a real-world interaction where someone you fancy may be with their friends and you have a Ron Weasley moment.
Sitting on my porch a lot lately watching the goings on by the pool, I see this seemingly predator-prey thing play out. Yesterday in fact I saw 3 blokes flirting with a group of women and seemingly not having much luck. Much as the tribesmen in Africa jump up and down to show their physical prowess while being watched and admired by females, these 3 roughoused with each other and made vocalizations to attract the women's notice. But having no apparent luck eventually meandered off leaving the women by themselves.
Perhaps the predator going after the straggler by themselves dynamic changes if the predators hunt cooperatively. Three predators together will attempt to 'bring down' one to three from among a small pack of prey items? While there were other women available to approach at the time, they sought the pack of girls and not the coupld of lone females, or others. To my eyes, each of the women out there at the time looked more or less equal, yet they sought a specific group. Perhaps the fact that they were a small pack is why? With 3 of them together they need at least that many.
For my part, in my 16 years here I've never had a relationship with someone who also lives here, getting involved with someone you're gonna see all the time not seeming like a good idea if things don't work out. Whole office ink thing. Plus there simply hasn't been anyone I felt that spark for. Many are pretty or handsome, but none really grab my attention.
Seems there's an endless array of possible things people cue in on when describing their attraction to another. Male/female, tall/short, short hair or long, the list is virtually endless. Yet inexplicably, even when someone meets many of a person's 'attraction preferences' not every person with them is then attractive. So one or more x-factors is present but not entirely overt. Some will have it, others wont despite meeting other preferences.
I've long wondered if attraction even works that way at all. As in seeing things about a person's body you like. Thinking of the perverbial club scene with people dancing and carrousing, drinking and behaving as though drinking, many people would seem to fit another's list of things they find attractive, and yet not every one of them then is the one person someone will approach. Could it be something more in-line with our primate and animal nature, than something about the list of things we say we desire in another person? Could the ones we eventually approach and talk to be 'prey' and we the 'predator?'
When it comes to 'problematic attractions' as with adults to children the predator-prey relationship sounds much more plausible. In the animal world, a predator for all its strength and capability wont lunge recklessly into a crowd of prey-animals and hope for the best. But stalk, locate, and identify the weakest link among a herd of animals and wait for the opportune moment to strike maximizing its' own safety. White sharks will target and attack the lone sea lion off by itself away from others, not one amongst a group. Lions will go for the stragglers in a herd, not the baby within the herd surrounded by adults. And child sexual abusers like their non-criminal counterparts seem to go after their prey if they're off by themselves much of the time, instead of after what they desire if around others. Line from one of the Harry Potter movies comes to mind where a ball is upcoming and everyone's looking for dates, "Why do they always travel in packs?" asks Harry intimidated by a group of girls. "How are you supposed to get them alone to ask?"
Perhaps instead of asking what attracts us whether pathologically or not, we should instead ask whether or not seeking romantic involvements isn't just a predator going after prey? Even if a group of people include one or more meeting our stated preferences, we might instead opt to pursue one off by themselves. This would help explain the success of online dating since 1 on 1 is the way that all works. Your browse profiles, find someone you like, and contact them. As opposed to a real-world interaction where someone you fancy may be with their friends and you have a Ron Weasley moment.
Sitting on my porch a lot lately watching the goings on by the pool, I see this seemingly predator-prey thing play out. Yesterday in fact I saw 3 blokes flirting with a group of women and seemingly not having much luck. Much as the tribesmen in Africa jump up and down to show their physical prowess while being watched and admired by females, these 3 roughoused with each other and made vocalizations to attract the women's notice. But having no apparent luck eventually meandered off leaving the women by themselves.
Perhaps the predator going after the straggler by themselves dynamic changes if the predators hunt cooperatively. Three predators together will attempt to 'bring down' one to three from among a small pack of prey items?
While there were other women available to approach at the time, they sought the pack of girls and not the coupld of lone females, or others. To my eyes, each of the women out there at the time looked more or less equal, yet they sought a specific group. Perhaps the fact that they were a small pack is why? With 3 of them together they need at least that many.For my part, in my 16 years here I've never had a relationship with someone who also lives here, getting involved with someone you're gonna see all the time not seeming like a good idea if things don't work out. Whole office ink thing. Plus there simply hasn't been anyone I felt that spark for. Many are pretty or handsome, but none really grab my attention.
