|
page:
<<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>>
of 2 pages
|
< previous page | next page >
|
| Jan 17 @ 10:27 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
...that seems to be common thought, and pushed by those trying to sell products or services, is that we can attract anyone. Well, here's just one link to an article written by a sex coach explaining why it's silly to subscribe to such thinking.
sexual imprinting
If you don't resemble a person's unconscious "blueprint" of who they are looking for, how can you expect them to be attracted to you?
If you always seem to choose the wrong partners, delve into your psyche and find out why you choose the partners you do.
If you make the same mistakes over and over, chances are your blueprint could use some 'revising'......what circumstances the mistakes are made in, determines the blueprint you need to 'unravel' and take a thorough gander at.
|
|
  |
|
| Jan 17 @ 10:30 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,088
|
Don't they say that's supposed to be based on the opposite sex parent? Odd, cos my male blueprint so obviously isn't. It's based on the first male I recognised when I was little (a political figure I looked up to) and my female blueprint is based off of my 8th grade science teacher.
I guess some people are just weird like that?
|
| |
|
| Jan 17 @ 10:33 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
Not weird at all, LGQ. It isn't just our parents that we blueprint from, just as they are not our only role models.
Question? Have I broken forum rules by posting that link??? 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 17 @ 10:37 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,088
|
^ I don't think you did.
And it's definitely true. I've never believed that society defined attractiveness as much as I believed each person defined it for themselves. I believe society attempts to but I think it's a much more personal thing than that.
People often wonder why I'm attracted to men who are tall, lanky, older, and weird looking (except for The Undertaker) and women who are tall, muscular, and have masculine features and tendencies...instead of being attracted to the societal "norms" for both men and women. It's often I've been told I have "weird" or "bad" taste. It's just my blueprint, though, and some people are just afraid of theirs. I'm not.
|
| |
|
| Jan 17 @ 10:44 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
Those who tell you your tastes are weird simply don't agree with your blueprinting, LGQ.
There are so very many factors that play a part in mate selection, however, early imprinting is one that many people aren't even aware of, and thereby cause themselves a great deal of frustration in trying to go against it. Once we are aware of our personal blueprints, though, we can actively seek to revise them.
edited to say .. they don't agree with your choices...not blueprinting.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 3:08 AM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
ToucherinSparks
Posts: 6,701
|
If you don't resemble a person's unconscious "blueprint" of who they are looking for, how can you expect them to be attracted to you?
Personally, this is a tough question, physically my "blueprint" is quite different, so I should be looking for a thin, fit, woman with dark hair and dark brown eyes, med height or taller, and with an olive complexion.
So it's safe to say that my SO doesn't fit the "blueprint" at all, but I'm attracted like iron to a magnet, and have been since the first time I saw her pictures.
How does your blueprint theorry account for that?
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 5:18 AM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
You just gave an excellent example in support of the "theory" of blueprinting. You think that slender, fit, tall, dark haired, brown eyed, olive complexioned women attract you, and you probably spent the majority of your life searching for/dating women who fell into that category. Yet you gave your own answer....
but I'm attracted like iron to a magnet, and have been since the first time I saw her pictures.
Consciously, you sought out one type of woman. Unconsciously, a different type attracted you. It may not even be a physical set of traits that calls up your blueprint, but what you perceived she would be like by things you saw in her picture.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 9:05 AM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,311
|
Hi Em-
(you had to know I'd drop in, eh!? )
In my lifetime, I have entirely loved one man-tall, dark, slender, green eyes. I wasn't attracted to his looks at first-it was his attitude and energy. He was an exec. waited 6 months for sex.
The next man I truly loved looked like Garth Brooks, with extra weight, only a few inches taller than I, dark hair and eyes, usually softer spoken .Carpenter. Waited several weeks for sex.
The next one was muscular, bedroom blue eyes, tall, biker and blue collar. Very outgoing. Waited until 2nd visit for sex.
I guess if someone wants to believe in the blueprinting, the 3 of them are NOTHING alike.
#1 didn't work because of a family member's terminal illness, postpartum depression, and the way he chose to support me (or not)
#2- having a very sick child in the home and his working 18 hours a day many days. His anger issues.
#3-he was offered a job in DC, our relationship was young, I wanted more than a couple times a year.
I get along with all 3 of them.I've always gotten along with men in my life after seeing them stopped.
So, you know I think this is kind of bunk. If they are all physically different, with varying personalities, then a "sexual imprint" won't happen until after sex?
JMO-YMMV 
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 10:37 AM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
Question?
You were attracted by each man. Did each one produce the same physical response in your body? And was each attraction immediate?
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 12:03 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
Gallows_Humor
Posts: 8,063
|
i was not......  .......... 
I have been attracted to many different "types" so I have to agree that the blueprint theory is indeed bunk.. but there is a point where it does have merit.. society does imprint just what "type" is supposed to be attractive..
also..  I am really confused here...
so I should be looking for a thin, fit, woman with dark hair and dark brown eyes, med height or taller, and with an olive complexion.
you mean that Emm is none of the above???
(this is not in any way a slam against emm.. as from her posted pictures she has it going on...  )
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 12:03 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,311
|
Not right away. And they each had different affects on me.
All good, just different.
I still don't have a particular type in mind, except funny but mature, smart. I like taller, bigger guys-but it isn't an absolute...I just love to "fit" with them.
If that makes sense.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 3:57 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
painter007
Posts: 15,990
|
My blueprint reads just a nice man....
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:02 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
Imprinting is not bunk. Sorry folks. We have imprints from our early years for most aspects of our lives and thinking....from money to how we parent to what we find attractive. Remember there are as many factors as there are stimuli... maybe even more.
I have to get some stuff done before Touch arrives, but I'll be back. Hopefully with some quotes and/or links.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:05 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
loisday
Posts: 1,333
|
I too think imprinting is bunk.............
I have NOT been attracted to someone and after getting to know them, was ga-ga about them..
I have also been droolingly attracted to someone and couldn't wait to get away from them.....after the first date.
Attraction wears many different hats.....they all fit....
They just all don't look good on your head................... 
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:06 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
st93
Posts: 303
|
you all need to quit the analysis.........
the bottom line is -
peoples attraction to females = the classic 'hourglass' figure
peoples attraction to males = broad shoulders, narrow waist, small tight butt
..........it has always been this way and it always will
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:10 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
loisday
Posts: 1,333
|
^^^ That may be how your world works...........
But is sooo not a reality. Someones "shape" is only a portion of what attraction is. There are even times when body type has nothing to do with the attraction.
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:24 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
I'm not sure about the male figure, but ST, you are correct about the female hourglass figure.
For those who will jump on the bandwagon, there are studies done with world wide research, where only one small area...again, I have to look it up.....does not validate this research data.
The hourglass figure does not have to be slim.....it's actually the proportion of waist to hips......
...anyone have some extra time they can donate to me?? 
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:34 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
Loreli
Posts: 20,311
|
You just enjoy your weekend!
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:35 PM |
A Popular Fallacy
|
|
ColdinWisconsin
Posts: 8,637
|
I absolutly agree. I have found this to be true for myself time and time again.
I am drawn to simple men. Men who are not after physical posessions. Who value laughter, time spent together, and fabulous conversation.
I've never gone for sharp dressers. But sharp wit I have a weakness for.
Fancy cars don't do it for me. But give me a man who can fix one....and I'm impressed.
Candle lit dinners don't excite me. But give me a man who wants to be with me, and a picnic can make me very happy.
Rings are all well and good. But I would rather you "find" something beautiful in nature and give it to me.
Men who need to draw a rooms attention don't impress me one bit. But a man who can laugh until he cries will get my attention every time.
And I can read through ever one of those and see the most difinative person in my life. My father. He laid a blue print on my heart and I have never really varied from it.
So yes, I do find it to be true for myself. Certain qualities attract me.
|
|
| |
|
| Jan 18 @ 4:36 PM |
A Popular Fallacy |
|
Empath
Posts: 5,094
|
Oh, believe me you, I WILL!!!
Here's one reference to the hip/waist ratio....
In some generations, relatively thin partners are preferred; at other times, relatively plump partners. But what stays the same, apparently, are the preferred proportions. The preferred proportions of women center on the ratio between waist and hip size. According to judges of different ages, sexes, and cultures, a ratio of 7 to 10 (or perhaps just a tiny bit lower) seems the most attractive (Singh, 1995). Thus the proverbial "hourglass" figure seems universal. (It may be that a better indicator of attraction is the BMI.)
One exception , a remote group in Peru, might make one look at the near universality in less than necessary terms but perhaps as in a form of early "imprinting" during which a target "erotic image" becomes fixed in an individual.
" Yu and Shepard, who published their findings in the Nov. 26 issue of the journal Nature, found that the Matsigenka men from the most remote village (the least exposed to Western media) rated the "overweight" woman with a tubular figure best in all threecategories: attractiveness, healthiness and preferred spouse."
this quote is from http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/intro/attraction.html
|
| |
|
|
|
page:
<<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>>
of 2 pages
|
< previous page | next page >
|
|