Are love and physical attraction different (conceptually) to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's not a gender thing. It's probably true of the vast majority of people. But do yourself a favor and don't discuss your lack of attraction or the "99 other women" with your wife.

Seriously, without question almost everyone feels stronger attraction to novelty rather than familiarity. Especially men. The biggest difference is, on average, men have a naturally strong drive, so they want to have sex with most women, including their wife. Women who have responsive sex drives, they won't respond to the same old, but only to something new.

Monogamy is hard for everyone, it's just a safer route than open relationships.

I actually think women feel a stronger attraction to novelty than men. Or get bored by monogamy faster. At least so says Daniel Berger, author of What Do Women Want?

But I agree, it is difficult for everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With respect to women's attraction to men, the Redpillers call this "Alpha f*cks, beta bucks." Women have lustful attraction to guys who aren't marrying material and a certain long-term fondness for reliable guys who they don't really want to have sex with.

While the RedPill way of saying it is offensive in its language, this is (unfortunately, for both men AND women) a core truth for the majority of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's not a gender thing. It's probably true of the vast majority of people. But do yourself a favor and don't discuss your lack of attraction or the "99 other women" with your wife.

Seriously, without question almost everyone feels stronger attraction to novelty rather than familiarity. Especially men. The biggest difference is, on average, men have a naturally strong drive, so they want to have sex with most women, including their wife. Women who have responsive sex drives, they won't respond to the same old, but only to something new.

Monogamy is hard for everyone, it's just a safer route than open relationships.

I actually think women feel a stronger attraction to novelty than men. Or get bored by monogamy faster. At least so says Daniel Berger, author of What Do Women Want?

But I agree, it is difficult for everybody.

My totally unscientific belief is that women sexually prefer shorter term committed relationships and men prefer a free for all.

I couldn't prove it but would volunteer for the research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's not a gender thing. It's probably true of the vast majority of people. But do yourself a favor and don't discuss your lack of attraction or the "99 other women" with your wife.

Seriously, without question almost everyone feels stronger attraction to novelty rather than familiarity. Especially men. The biggest difference is, on average, men have a naturally strong drive, so they want to have sex with most women, including their wife. Women who have responsive sex drives, they won't respond to the same old, but only to something new.

Monogamy is hard for everyone, it's just a safer route than open relationships.

I actually think women feel a stronger attraction to novelty than men. Or get bored by monogamy faster. At least so says Daniel Berger, author of What Do Women Want?

But I agree, it is difficult for everybody.

My totally unscientific belief is that women sexually prefer shorter term committed relationships and men prefer a free for all.

I couldn't prove it but would volunteer for the research.

Interesting thought. I've (a woman) thought that a shorter 5-10 year marriage contract would be preferable to this "forever" stuff. Which jives with your theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had amazingggg physical chemistry with a guy I dated for a year but never wanted to marry him. I married a guy that I love and the physical part doesn't come close to the former relationship. Some people get lucky and get both. I'm happy with my choices.

Is he? Does he know that you compromised in this way?

[Anonymous]

of course they are different

No male is more physically attracted to his 40 50 60 something wife vs a college coed

same for females

You marry the one you want to spend the rest of your life with not the best one night stand partner and if you can't fight the urge for a one night stand later on you shouldn't have married in the first place

Marriage has sacrifices but the benefits totally outweigh the costs

[Anonymous]

I see it as part of biology. In the beginning, infatuation is needed to produce offsprings. But I can't imagining anyone staying at this intensity without burning out. Then it wanes and the deeper feelings and companionship follows which is needed to raise the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, it's not a gender thing. It's probably true of the vast majority of people. But do yourself a favor and don't discuss your lack of attraction or the "99 other women" with your wife.

Seriously, without question almost everyone feels stronger attraction to novelty rather than familiarity. Especially men. The biggest difference is, on average, men have a naturally strong drive, so they want to have sex with most women, including their wife. Women who have responsive sex drives, they won't respond to the same old, but only to something new.

Monogamy is hard for everyone, it's just a safer route than open relationships.

I actually think women feel a stronger attraction to novelty than men. Or get bored by monogamy faster. At least so says Daniel Berger, author of What Do Women Want?

But I agree, it is difficult for everybody.

My totally unscientific belief is that women sexually prefer shorter term committed relationships and men prefer a free for all.

I couldn't prove it but would volunteer for the research.

Interesting thought. I've (a woman) thought that a shorter 5-10 year marriage contract would be preferable to this "forever" stuff. Which jives with your theory.

The big difference is that men know going into marriage they have a strong, strong urge to have sex with every other woman around them. It's the whole concept behind the corny idea of the bachelor party (your last night of freedom before sexual jail). Assuming women get married in the first several years of dating, the attraction may be strong through the wedding and honeymoon phase. The collapse of sexual attraction for their husbands catches some off guard, which is why Berger's book is so valuable. It's normal, it's not usually anything the DH did to find himself there (although there are of course things he could do to accelerate of slow down that reckoning).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to women's attraction to men, the Redpillers call this "Alpha f*cks, beta bucks." Women have lustful attraction to guys who aren't marrying material and a certain long-term fondness for reliable guys who they don't really want to have sex with.

And hate groups provide such helpful relationship advice.

But they get their hooks into guys because there is a mostly unacknowledged truth buried in there. The Redpillers characterize it in the nastiest possible ways with respect to women, but naive guys start trusting them because it feels like they're telling a truth that everyone else ignores or denies. Traits that are appealing in a long-term partner aren't the same traits that are appealing in a sex partner. So, if they're hearing "be kind, supportive, and reliable" but see women hooking up at bars & parties with guys who have big muscles, they're going to believe the dudes telling them that chicks dig assholes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With respect to women's attraction to men, the Redpillers call this "Alpha f*cks, beta bucks." Women have lustful attraction to guys who aren't marrying material and a certain long-term fondness for reliable guys who they don't really want to have sex with.

And hate groups provide such helpful relationship advice.

But they get their hooks into guys because there is a mostly unacknowledged truth buried in there. The Redpillers characterize it in the nastiest possible ways with respect to women, but naive guys start trusting them because it feels like they're telling a truth that everyone else ignores or denies. Traits that are appealing in a long-term partner aren't the same traits that are appealing in a sex partner. So, if they're hearing "be kind, supportive, and reliable" but see women hooking up at bars & parties with guys who have big muscles, they're going to believe the dudes telling them that chicks dig assholes.

There are jerk “redpillers,” as there are jerks in any group. It’s easy to find people like that in any group and use them to dismiss any claims made by that group. The “redpillers” account of male-female dynamics seems, to me, far more predictive of what actually happens than the “standard model” of those dynamics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pay attention here men. The answers in this thread is why you don't want to get married.

What answers? That physical attraction are different things? I read somewhere once that intense physical attraction (lust) typically lasts about 18 months in a new relationship. Love is what grows - or doesn't - during that period to take the place of that intense attraction in a long-term relationship. Not that attraction dies completely, but it tends to be moderated and subordinated to the broader affection and understanding that makes up love. This seems normal and natural to me (I'm a man), and why I think marriage proposals shouldn't happen until the couple has been together at least 18 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think people are missing what I'm saying. I'm not talking about platonic love. I'm talking about deep love in a romantic relationship. Love that involves sacrifice, care, a strong desire to be with this person through thick and thin. That's the type of love I'm talking about. I think it is BOTH being in love and loving. Not trying to make that distinction. What I'm curious about is how common it is for a person to have that love grow deeper and never wane but to have the type of (excuse the lingo "itch in the private parts attraction) wane over time such that if given the choice between your partner and 99 other women to have sex with regularly you'd chose the 99 (even if you -- at one time -- wanted to choose this partner).

My point is that I'm being told that those two thing (those two items of raw attraction and abiding love) go hand-in-hand. And for me, that's NEVER made any sense. In the beginning I never have love for a partner, but I do have lustful attraction. Over time, invariably, I tend not to have lustful attraction but I do have love.

Is this just the way it is always?

No, they don't always go hand-in-hand, because no, that's not always the way it is. Different people, different couples, have different experiences. People aren't automata with identical reactions to identical stimuli. Ceteris Paribus does not apply to the heart.