Circumstantial attraction

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 5:28 AM GMT
    Circumstantial attraction: an attraction that's more influenced by the unfavorable circumstances of the admirer than by what he would appreciate if his circumstances were similar to the one he's attracted to.

    One fictitious example:

    Middle class woman is dazzled by a millionaire's lavish lifestyle, but if she were a millionaire herself, she wouldn't put up with his smoking habit, womanizing behavior and emotional absence. She would prefer someone who (on top of being rich like her) had qualities that she actually appreciates and flaws she can tolerate. It's not that she fakes her appreciation, or that she only cares about money, but her circumstance makes her see the millionaire through rosy glasses. Glasses which would be transparent if she were rich just like him.

    You can easily transpose this example to the gay world, where a nice face and body are highly valued currencies.

    If you happen to be erotic capital rich, you probably saw far too many who see you through rosy glasses: they ascribe you qualities you know you don't have. If you believe all they attribute to you, you are a narcissist; if you don't believe, then you'll be labeled a cynical. Between narcissism and cynicism, the safest bet to ensure your lover doesn't like you just because of rosy glasses might be to completely avoid anyone below your league. That helps explain why the rich, the famous and the gorgeous tend to date themselves: not because they're shallow, but the opposite: they want to make sure that whoever likes them, likes them for what they truly are behind the shiny varnish of money or muscles. The only ones seemingly capable of this are the ones with a varnish as shiny as theirs.

    - Were you ever circumstantially attracted to someone?
    - How did your view of this person change once your circumstances evolved?
    - Were you ever a target of circumstantial attraction? How did you know it was circumstantial?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 5:49 AM GMT
    It is well researched that attraction is an equation that equate to a number of variables, only one of which is physical attraction. For example, when an ordinarily attractive man is posed as a Starbucks barista, he is rated at a certain level of attraction. But when the same ordinarily attractive man is posed as a successful start-up CEO, he is rated at a higher level of attraction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 7:10 AM GMT
    The chances of meeting handsome gay CEO of a start up is low.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 4:24 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidIt is well researched that attraction is an equation that equate to a number of variables, only one of which is physical attraction. For example, when an ordinarily attractive man is posed as a Starbucks barista, he is rated at a certain level of attraction. But when the same ordinarily attractive man is posed as a successful start-up CEO, he is rated at a higher level of attraction.


    Humm, not really what this thread is about.

    The core question is whether to take seriously the attraction of someone who sees you through rosy glasses due to an ephemeral circumstance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 5:41 PM GMT
    Sounds like prospect theory
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Aug 28, 2016 5:54 PM GMT
    bachian said
    woodsmen saidIt is well researched that attraction is an equation that equate to a number of variables, only one of which is physical attraction. For example, when an ordinarily attractive man is posed as a Starbucks barista, he is rated at a certain level of attraction. But when the same ordinarily attractive man is posed as a successful start-up CEO, he is rated at a higher level of attraction.


    Humm, not really what this thread is about.

    The core question is whether to take seriously the attraction of someone who sees you through rosy glasses due to an ephemeral circumstance.

    I don't see any reason to reject someone being attracted to me for ephemeral circumstance. You could say being handsome or well built is ephemeral. Wealth, education, a lot of things, in fact pretty much everything but personality and values falls into that category if looked at from the perspective of someone who considers it something they lack or that it is something they wish they had more of. I went to a great school and some people are attracted to that but I know you can be smart and get a great education at a lesser school if you are paying attention. Or do well in life without it. We all pick things to value in a partner and frequently it relates to our own sense of insufficiency in some area or another. It doesn't mean we'll choose to live our lives with that person but it can certainly be valid in attraction. I value creativity and artistry in others because I love art but seem to have no capacity to create. So I'm attracted to creatives. But I wouldn't sacrifice core values in a partner to be with an artist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 5:58 PM GMT
    Perhaps what you observed was simply two people who both like having money. One has and the other doesn't. But also the one who doesn't have that money might like to make people healthy. And so the attraction might not be merely that the one person has money though that the other person might also like money would make for that a mutual interest to build a relationship upon or certainly to attract each to each other, but also here the person with the money comes with the bonus of being a project to make healthy. So then they'd have both a mutual interest, being the money the guy uses to attract a mate, plus the bonus project satisfying the desire of the one with less money to interfere in the lives of others for their benefit, of course. So I suppose that all depends on how you might interpret what you think you observed & how closely any of that might reflect what actually was.

    Generally life is a kaleidoscope of qualities and situations with fragments moving through some time together and sometimes torn apart by both their own qualities and by the turning of the wheel.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 9:35 PM GMT
    ^

    So for the sake of discussion, assume a guy sees his missing piece in you and sees you in a more positive light than if thought otherwise. Let's say education is the missing piece. Over time he gets the education he was missing -- how is that going to influence his view of you now that he sees you as his equal? You better hope he likes you for other reasons too.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4433

    Aug 28, 2016 9:42 PM GMT
    bachian said^

    So for the sake of discussion, assume a guy sees his missing piece in you and sees you in a more positive light than if thought otherwise. Let's say education is the missing piece. Over time he gets the education he was missing -- how is that going to influence his view of you now that he sees you as his equal? You better hope he likes you for other reasons too.

    Sure. But it's hard to envision that I'd stick with a guy ONLY because he's entranced with my good education. Or because the ONLY thing he likes in me is that education. Your original example of money is probably the only circumstance in which your scenario holds true in the real world. Poor marries rich, gets rich (or suspects he can take enough in the exit), takes the exit to find someone more compatible. I guess it happens with looks, especially if the looks are also youth. But in both cases you're talking about some seriously shallow people (The Donald?).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 10:10 PM GMT
    For all these reasons, this is why modern people, before the Great Recession, date so as to allow time to mellow the circumstantial attraction variables to illuminate whether the person is truly "attractive" for the long term. Nowadays, young people don't date because of the expense among other things. They "hang out" to observe in groups the potential of the other.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 10:30 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidSure. But it's hard to envision that I'd stick with a guy ONLY because he's entranced with my good education. Or because the ONLY thing he likes in me is that education. Your original example of money is probably the only circumstance in which your scenario holds true in the real world. Poor marries rich, gets rich (or suspects he can take enough in the exit), takes the exit to find someone more compatible. I guess it happens with looks, especially if the looks are also youth. But in both cases you're talking about some seriously shallow people (The Donald?).


    If they are truly shallow (meaning their attraction is unidimensional), then even if their circumstances improve this shouldn't influence anything, after all their lovers still hold the one quality they initially liked (let's assume we're not talking about youth) It's only that now, because of their improved circumstances, they don't want just that single thing, but many others on top of that initial quality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 28, 2016 10:35 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidFor all these reasons, this is why modern people, before the Great Recession, date so as to allow time to mellow the circumstantial attraction variables to illuminate whether the person is truly "attractive" for the long term. Nowadays, young people don't date because of the expense among other things. They "hang out" to observe in groups the potential of the other.


    That's very interesting. But it begs the question of whether we are willing to know the truth early on and bypass the exciting honeymoon phase which is circumstantial by definition.
  • AnonymKOIA

    Posts: 90

    Aug 30, 2016 5:26 PM GMT
    When I was in my early 20s I fantasized about being whisked away by a moneyed somebody,but never in real life because I don't like bossy people.

    Not relevant, I still despise being controlled or feel like someone is too bossy.You be, you I be me do together.


    But it is what life is about,you can never have everything. If what you have or who you are works to your advantage then use it as long as you can live with it. Just be you and don't act above the next guy so that at least you will have a bit of satisfaction that at least he was interested in talking to you before he knew what you have. Body is not a currency though, its a necessity,it keeps fire burning. After all we don't fall pregnant,fire must burn.icon_smile.gif