|
|
Post by krolle on Dec 26, 2021 13:36:40 GMT
Im a bit if a reductionist so perhaps this is too simplistic, but I remember reading it somewhere....
"Possibly in everyone, but certainly in an insecure individual, attraction is created by thinking that someone can meet your needs"
What are you guys thoughts on the above statement? Accuracy, validity, places it misses the mark? etc
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Dec 26, 2021 19:43:20 GMT
I don't agree with this. An insecure who is attracted tends to assume the person can meet their needs because of the fantasy and projection aspect involved in insecure attraction. Like, "I never click with people but I do with this person so therefore it must be right and they'll be a good partner or I wouldn't feel this way." And then they've chosen someone who can't actually meet their needs, which validates their negative world view about romantic attachment and partners / themselves.
The attraction tends to be from either being subconsciously triggered, the inherent dysfunctional relating in the dynamic feeling immediately familiar (I'm so comfortable and connected with this person!), trying to recreate and "fix" past relationships (dysfunctionally), and/or meeting someone who meets some check list of superficial desirable traits someone else put in your head earlier in life (for example, I realized only a few years ago that my grandmother was obsessed with light eyes and idealized that trait in the preferred partner for the rest of us, and then of course western society reinforces that beauty standard).
It doesn't feel that way at all until you get through the insecure attachment layers. It only feels like, who can explain the mysteries of attraction. It just happens or it doesn't. There's some biological components too which I'm sure need to be in place for physical chemistry to exist and attraction to sustain once you get involved, but I highly doubt the majority pairing being anxious/avoidant is as much biologically related. I personally think it's driven by the brain and insecure issues but requires the biological physical attraction component to also be present in the background to kick things off.
|
|
|
|
Post by krolle on Dec 26, 2021 22:32:50 GMT
I don't agree with this. An insecure who is attracted tends to assume the person can meet their needs because of the fantasy and projection aspect involved in insecure attraction. Like, "I never click with people but I do with this person so therefore it must be right and they'll be a good partner or I wouldn't feel this way." And then they've chosen someone who can't actually meet their needs, which validates their negative world view about romantic attachment and partners / themselves. The attraction tends to be from either being subconsciously triggered, the inherent dysfunctional relating in the dynamic feeling immediately familiar (I'm so comfortable and connected with this person!), trying to recreate and "fix" past relationships (dysfunctionally), and/or meeting someone who meets some check list of superficial desirable traits someone else put in your head earlier in life (for example, I realized only a few years ago that my grandmother was obsessed with light eyes and idealized that trait in the preferred partner for the rest of us, and then of course western society reinforces that beauty standard). It doesn't feel that way at all until you get through the insecure attachment layers. It only feels like, who can explain the mysteries of attraction. It just happens or it doesn't. There's some biological components too which I'm sure need to be in place for physical chemistry to exist and attraction to sustain once you get involved, but I highly doubt the majority pairing being anxious/avoidant is as much biologically related. I personally think it's driven by the brain and insecure issues but requires the biological physical attraction component to also be present in the background to kick things off. Thankyou for the input alexandra. Some very interesting points. I enjoy it when people offer logical disagreements. I'm not quiet sure I understand your first paragraph however, as you say you dont agree. But then your explanation does not really disagree with the quote as far as I can tell. But as always I premise that statement by possible naivete on my part. For example your point regarding familiarity creating attraction. I agree with that. But the statement still stands true along side it as far as I can work out. So it could fit by stating on this occasion "The need for familarity (percieved safety?) created attraction" and it would not invalidate the quote. Remember the initial quote says the attraction is created by the person THINKING the other can meet their needs. Perhaps even subconsciously. Not that that they actually can. So Basically the projection and fantasy you described. In regards to physicality. Then I agree physical attraction is by definition superficial. But still a hugely deciding factor in a lot of things. And your comment about light eyes threw me off. I have always personally been attracted to very dark eyes. For reasons I can't consciously work out. And I was always under the impression that in recent times especially, dark eyes were considered more attractive than light. Of course thats a wildly subjective statement but I just meant as a generality. How were you able to pinpoint your grandmother creating your attraction to that feature? |
|
|
|
Post by alexandra on Dec 27, 2021 7:15:30 GMT
I disagree because it's not that someone insecure is attracted to a person who can potentially meet their needs (as it is literally usually the opposite lol). They decide they are attracted first and THEN impose wishful thinking after the attraction is established that the person can potentially meet their needs. But the initial attraction is based on the other things I said, and the idealization that follows around the potential of a new partner or situation will super impose that on anyone. It has zero to actually do with the person having any ability to meet needs and it follows as part of the fantasy instead of the attraction happening because needs are any part of it. It's like retroactively thinking maybe this time will be different and the person will meet my needs, to rationalize the attraction. Does that make sense?
Re: eyes, I was thinking about cultural topics around racism and attraction the last couple years. And I was thinking about why something so subjective and superficial even is a preference to people. It's pretty loaded and I did a thought exercise to try to really trace back if even half my perceived physical preferences in men were real or simply learned.
|
|
