Physical attraction vs. other types of attraction

[ricofederico (deleted)]

I've noticed a lot of posts on this forum in which the posters attempt to make someone feel like their behavior or thinking is wrong for liking large people from a s----l angle. To me, this is completely ridiculous and utterly hateful. It is antithetic to the reason for this site in the first place!

If I want ONLY an intellectual attraction, I would involve myself in, say, NerdPassions, or Mensa's forums. It is precisely because I'm looking for that connection AND the fulfillment of my physical desires that I am on this site and talking to some very wonderful women.

This isn't LargeAndGreatPersonalityPassions.com, people. This is LargePassions.com, period. In the strictest sense, it is obvious that people join up here in order to find a connection with someone who meets one specific criterion above all others...that criterion being that they or the person they are connecting with be larger than average, or at least not skinny.

I think it is laughable that some individuals on here assert that another individual is shameful for liking large women se---lly first, and intellectually or other second. This is only thinly disguised self-hatred on the condemner. If I wanted an intellectual or personality connection first, I would be more active on NerdPassions or some other intellectual-oriented site.

If these individuals on this site cared more for other types of connections BEFORE size, why then, there are other sites that are free to use with a much larger pool of participants to talk to and connect with. Why choose this site, a site dedicated to connections with large people? Specifically? Why?

Why hate on people that like to have S-- with large people? Why hate on someone who thinks first in s----l terms about large people, and then in other terms second? Don't you think that most individuals who are se---lly attracted first will then be able to EASILY slide into long-term connections second? Why put the cart before the horse? If they wanted other connections first they wouldn't be on this great site.

Those of you out there who condemn the physical priority first seem self-hating to me. And that is truly a shame, a travesty.

H.G. Wells said it best: "Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo."

[cookinbubbles]

`Your views are typically male and has nothing to do with liking or disliking larger people.
In general, a woman wants to know a potential mate on somewhat of an intellectual level before doing the horizontal hokey pokey with them.
A woman, in general, invests more emotions into the S-- act than men do initially.
Personally, my feeling is if a man I just met is only willing to talk sex, my first thought is, go away.
I, personally, no matter how hot the guy is, cannot give my body to him without some emotional and intelectual commitment on his part.
Sex first and intellectual connection second IS putting the cart before the horse.

Men do that kind of hit and run S-- all the time. There is NEVER a long term connection to that kind of behaviour.
There is long term connection when the connection is built upon S-- AND intelect, personality, common ground.
Can't have one without the other and still have a successful long term relationship.

Been there. Married 33 years until he passed away.
His first connection to me was my laugh. he hadn't seen me at all up to that point.
My first connection to him was his marvelous blue eyes.

[ricofederico (deleted)]

Thanks for the input, but that kind of gender stereotyping and gender generalization is unnecessary in a post which has less to do with gender and more to do with moral indignation.

My view is typically male? I don't accept this, but even if it were, what is that supposed to mean? Your implication is invalid.

1. If my view IS typically male, cookinbubbles, I fail to see how that in any way jeopardizes the solidity of said viewpoint. Put another way, you are arguing your initial position based on the Ad Hominem argument, and your usage of this argument in the context of this discussion is fallacious. A quick definition of this argument on Wikipedia can be viewed here:

(removed)

Ad Hominem is an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

Your implication that my maleness invalidates my assertion is itself without factual basis, and I challenge you to provide some deductive logic at a minimum, let alone real, peer-reviewed, recent research to back up this claim.

2. Your very response was self-contradicting. You claim that an interaction based initially on s----l attraction - an obvious result of physical ideals of aesthetics - is "typically male", yet in your descriptions of your own attractions you assert that your deceased husband was first attracted to your laugh, while YOU were first attracted to the color of his EYES, an obvious physical attractant.

3. Quote: A woman, in general, invests more emotions into the S-- act than men do initially.
Personally, my feeling is if a man I just met is only willing to talk sex, my first thought is, go away.

3i. Based on what research do women invest more feeling initially? If you are simply generalizing, as your use of the phrase "in general" suggests, than there is no solid basis for this assertion and it is not a valid premise on which to base your argument. It is false.

4. Quote: Personally, my feeling is if a man I just met is only willing to talk sex, my first thought is, go away.

4i. You are making a Straw Man Argument. You are attempting in this statement to attack an argument that was never made. My position is in physical appearance as an initial attractant, not in the behavior of an individual expressing interest.
In this statement, you are attempting to pose my assertion, my topic, as something else, and then attack that new position, when in fact, my post HAS NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with how a man approaches you ( that would be MANNERS and SOCIAL GRACES) AND EVERYTHING TO DO with your perception of yourself gauged against what YOU THINK he might be thinking. This is also called Negative Reciprocal Determinism, another critical social misstep.


This argument is invalid and without basis.

Quote: S-- first and intellectual connection second IS putting the cart before the horse.

This remains to be seen, especially when viewed in an evolutionary sense. I cannot say whether or not this is false, as it is very situational and very complex, with a wide variety of variables that may render this true, false, or maybe.

However, be aware that again, here, you are making another Straw Man argument: you are attempting to pose my assertion of s----l ATTRACTION - as a perfectly fine initial determinant of healthy attraction - as the s----l ACT. I am not taking issue (YET) with the s----l ACT, but with the behavior of large people toward VOICED, s----l ATTRACTION.

Again, your argument is formally invalid: it does not lie within the scope of my assertions, premises, or conclusions.

Quote: Men do that kind of hit and run S-- all the time. There is NEVER a long term connection to that kind of behaviour.
There is long term connection when the connection is built upon S-- AND intelect, personality, common ground.
Can't have one without the other and still have a successful long term relationship.


*SIGH* Again, you are posing s----l attraction as the s----l act or s----l behavior. It is clear that either you misinterpreted my post, or that you purposefully twisted the issue to accommodate your personal issues around the S-- act itself.


Quote: Can't have one without the other and still have a successful long term relationship.


This is a completely erroneous assertion. Of course you can! Ask a polyamorist, or any long-term fu6k buddies, or even committed celibates.

Maybe you meant this in a..generalized form?

[bbwbabyblue]

`For the sake of adding my "two cents" I will keep this as an opinion based response. That being said, i believe that no matter your size, your attraction to another person is strictly based on the physical being. If there is no physical attraction between two people then there will NEVER be another level to the relationship. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man or a woman joining a social group based on what they are attracted to physically. I joined this group because I am a large woman - I want someone who can appreciate my physique and ultimately be attracted to me. I don't expect anyone to change their wants or expectations based on the fact that they are in love with my "personality" or my "intellect", if they are not attracted to my physical form then there will be so much lacking in the relationship. Now, this does not say that I am strictly here for "booty calls", I would love to meet people who share my interests and above all else hold the ridicules of the socially unacceptable love of the obese. There are so many men out there that are not true to themselves about what really attracts them to the opposite s--. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with those who know what they want to go where they know they can be around it. Again, just my opinion.

[ricofederico (deleted)]

Agreed.

:)

[cookinbubbles]

`you asked.."Don't you think that most individuals who are se---lly attracted first will be able to easily slide into long term connections second?"
I answered that question the long way but here is the short version: No, not if that is ALL they have going for them.
I may be wrong but that is my opinion.
You are on this site hoping to find a big girl that tickles your fancy.
I am on this site hoping to find a man who is looking for a big girl for something more than just tickles.
That makes our points of view quite different.

[ricofederico (deleted)]

That's unfair and untrue.

The idea that you propose - that people who are angling for physical atttraction first are not capable of monogamy - is completely out of context on a site that specifies a certain body look.


And...(if you can stand to read this whole reply)...

1. So what if I am? You and certain of your friends on this site have a nasty tendency to attempt to make people who are only after sex, or even who just TALK about the s----l allure of big women feel bad about that. Your apparent aversion to --- sex, or even just s----l attraction, is a deeply personal issue that you might benefit from talking to a professional about.

2. There is nothing that I said or even implied in my post that would remotely suggest that I am only after S-- on this site. Not only is that an erroneous assumption for you to make, but it is also offensive. I take offense to this, not because --- S-- is itself a bad thing, but because you have repeatedly attempted, in vain, to pigeonhole me as someone who is untrustworthy (as the undeniable implication and result of your assumptions) in your view, and then label me as such on this site.

That is mean. You have labeled me as such in previous posts and you are doing it again. That is --------, in the clinical sense. You are ------ing the description of my position as something to be abhorred when in reality, cookinbubbles, your method of flagellation is to be abhorred.

You have completely misunderstood the idea of this post, and of my other posts. You insist on mislabeling me both in your own mind and in the minds of whoever reads or listens to you.

That is combative.

Quote: `you asked.."Don't you think that most individuals who are se---lly attracted first will be able to easily slide into long term connections second?"
I answered that question the long way but here is the short version: No, not if that is ALL they have going for them.

Do you see the italicized part there, cookinbubbles? I did that. I italicized that to demonstrate, yet again, that you are attempting to phrase my argument as your own and then debate THAT.

Also, your argument that you make here is still unsound, because it lacks a verifiable premise and lacks an accommodating rationale in making such a claim.
You do not accommodate the fact that plenty of modern relationships do fine with s----l attraction first. Your intent, it is clear, is to keep twisting my post around until it fits what you want to argue about. If what you want to argue about is how s----l attraction equals social graces or bad personality, then by all means, feel free to create another post.

But please don't troll my post, trying to twist my ideas around to look like something you obviously have deeper issues with than can possibly be addressed or resolved on this site.

I'm as sentimental and old-fashioned as a guy my age might possibly be, but I'm not going around trolling other people's posts with the intent to frame their values as valueless and without merit, while surreptitiously re-phrasing their words and ideas as something more akin to my own.

I mean seriously, you quite obviously have something you need to talk about or complain about, but I think it belongs in the ISSUES forum. See?

You keep re-phrasing my ideas as something new and then attacking that new position.

That is unsound logic.

Again, that is a Straw Man argument.


To continue...



Quote: I may be wrong but that is my opinion.

This statement is unnecessary in the context of this argument.

Just because you posit that you may be wrong, does this somehow absolve you of the responsibility incurred in voicing it? If you are entitled to voice an opinion, you are entitled to the responsibility in voicing it, and that means you must prove your logic or be proven illogical and irrational.

I suggest that you are being illogical and irrational.

Quote: You are on this site hoping to find a big girl that tickles your fancy.

This almost makes me laugh, and for the following reason:

What if my fancy is a long-term and permanent relationship? Why then, of course I'm trying to "tickle" my fancy, as you so diplomatically put it.

But I rather think that this is your indirect way of saying that you think I'm only on here to score cheap S-- and dump girls after having said s--. Is this what you are trying to prove over and over again with your replies to my posts?

You keep iterating, over and over, in one way or another, how much I must be only looking for s--... that I can't POSSIBLY possess the values or seek the same emotional or long-term goals in a relationship as you like to think you possess. That is completely ridiculous. How trite of you.

And I suppose that only sex-averse individuals have the monopoly on monogamy, is that it? The idea that you propose, that people who are angling for physical attraction first are not capable of monogamy, is completely out of context on a site that specifies a certain body look. Let me repeat that again, for effect:


The idea that you propose - that people who are angling for physical atttraction first are not capable of monogamy - is completely out of context on a site that specifies a certain body look.

Your assertions about me are reprehensible.

And by the way... your use of the colloquialism was moot.

Quote: That makes our points of view quite different.

As you say, our points of view are quite different, but not because I or my value system is less trustworthy, as you keep implying...

No, the difference in our viewpoint is the apparent disparity between our emotional and logical solidity. While you repeatedly describe your depressive fascination with the inferiority of those who place value on s----l attraction, you unwittingly lay bare your apparent lack of a clear rationale in arguing these narrow-minded assumptions of yours.

While you attempt to dress your dogmatic, and quite frankly, irrelevant ideas as morally superior behavior, you make unsuccessful and conspicuous attempts to dress my logic as an untrustworthy and inferior value system.

What you have been engaging in is what psychologists might call Passive-Aggressive behavior, at least on this site anyway.

Your attempt to make me feel bad for understanding human nature and the purpose of this site has failed.

Your replies seem so very Passive-Aggressive. That is neither required nor appreciated.

[sheevaa]

`Physical attraction is great. However, as the other gals here stated, I am going to get all the more attracted to the personality of the guy.
If he's hot, but as dumb as a box of rocks, it's not gonna fly. If he can't be silly, or doesn't have a decent sense of humor, same thing.

I'm attracted to all sorts of different types of guys. If the complete opposite of what I like chatted me up and we clicked, he would become more attractive in my eyes.

Rico, don't goad Cookinbubbles, she's seriously one of the nicest ladies here. I highly doubt she meant any offence to you.

By the way, i'm baaaaack. I missed you guys! :-D

[ricofederico (deleted)]

I appreciate your input, sheeva...but really, let cookinbubbles' rebuttals stand on their own (if they can, which they have not been able to so far).


If rebuttals are defensible, they will not need another individual, like yourself or any other, to have to come on here and argue for their validity based on the personality of the person making them. That is, sadly, an example of poor reasoning, and shows even more clearly that they are invalid in the context of the argument.

No, whether or not she is "one of the nicest ladies on here" has nothing to do with the replies she has been posting to my ideas. Frankly, her replies about my goals and personalities have been ego-centric and without merit.

She has seemed intent on this post and in previous others to continue arguing her ideals, which consistently have little, if anything, to do with the argument at hand, by not only misinterpreting my positions, but by re-framing as some other issue she has.

On that note, whether or not any offense was intended is also irrelevant.

1. I was offended
2. I clearly described and justified that offense
3. The reasons for my taking offense were clearly not unreasonable: by virtue of justifying those reasons with sound and valid logic, I have made a good case for apology.
4. Taken together, the totality of her posts have been offensive, therefore I must assume that she meant offense, at lest in some small part.

She has not attacked or weakened my logic, my reasoning... my ideas, or anything pertinent to the discussions at hand without ALSO attacking what she ASSUMES (without justification) to be my personality and my goals.

Also, I am not goading her. Your use of that word is out of context; to goad is to prod someone, to get them to react. I am defending my position; neither she nor I have been goading anyone.

But this post is less about cookinbubbles, and less about her a priori assumptions, and less about your previous acquaintances, and more about what I posed in the first place:

Sexual attraction is a fine initial determinant of attraction on a site that espouses the attractiveness of a certain body ideal, namely, that of the large individual.

As an adult, if her statements cannot stand on their own without you or someone else having to prop them up with descriptions of her great personality, maybe she shouldn't be making them.

[cookinbubbles]

`strangely enough, I find "ricofederico" sort of interesting but also find that you gotta have lots of time on your hands to pick apart an opinion and call it an argument.

I never said YOU were on this site to find S-- only but sweetheart, many guys ARE.
You will never be in the position to know that because you will not be approached by those kinds of men.
I never said I was offended or angry or disapprove of anyone who wants instant s----l gratification on this site.
Prove to me, with any scientific, wordy, wikipedia sourced argument that S-- first and then intellectual bonding is a viable form of starting a relationship.
Quote me numbers, sources, studies, the works.
You asked about most idividuals, not yourself personally.
Since you take offense, I would have to assume that you consider yourself most individuals. your words, not mine.

[cookinbubbles]

`Nice to see you back Sheevaa.
This new guy is a trip, sort of fun to watch him flail around, wading through the dictionary and an ecyclopedia.

[sheevaa]

``See, Rico, I'm not one to fight like that. If you want to pick apart every word in a post, go for it. I'm not going to do much more than skim your replies though. Frankly, it's nit-picking, and boring.

So, cookin, thanks, lady! Dang compy went on the fritz and I've been super busy. Nice to be back, though.

Regarding the S-- first, intellect/personality second. I have friends that have gone that route who are still with their partners. However, they had a more difficult time once the initial s----l thrill wore off. It's like "well, now what?". They barely know the person they'd been in bed with for two months.

[obsequium (deleted)]

I've read a number of posts on the forums that discuss superficiality. There does seem to be an underlying implication that liking someone for aesthetics is 'shallow'. As I've stated before, this makes little sense to me. If you're not looking for someone to appreciate your size then why join this site? I will without hesitation say that people join here to either find larger men/women or because they're large themselves. If you don't consider the appreciation of your size, or the size of your partner to be a bit of a clincher in a relationship why are you here?

Now, that doesn't mean to say that I believe physical attraction to be the only significant factor to include when discerning a viable partner, but I obviously consider whether we are se---lly attracted to one another to be vital enough to make an account on a website for those who are physically attracted to fatter women. I believe personality is incredibly important too, but I know that the existence of mutual s----l attraction in a relationship is very important. I dislike that when I make that statement, others imply I'm shallow.

If you are approached in a bar, or café, or wherever you might socialise and someone engages you in flirtatious conversation, the likelihood is they find you physically attractive. I don't believe it renders them shallow. Someone initiated a challenge to cite evidence that s----l attraction before emotional/intellectual attraction can lead to successful relationships. In reality, is very often the initial basis for a relationship. There are many theories on attraction to support that, but then they are just theories and can be refuted. I believe that it would be just as difficult to find concrete evidence that the inverse is true.

There are obviously going to be people that are here simply to derive s----l satisfaction, and if that's not for you then that's fine. That is hardly the constituent population of this website, but the almost complete majority of people here must consider physicality as something they value highly. If you're looking for someone who considers looks unimportant, I'd suggest a site that was created in appreciation of an aesthetic ideal is not for you.

[sharlie27]

`I'm sorry but in pure honesty what I find attractive can and has make or break a relationship. Am I shallow? Probably to some. I am on this specific site to find someone that is attracted to my curves and more. Do I have a great personality? Sure! Doesn't everyone online? Am I intelligent? Sure..I have google/yahoo/aol/bing.
What I do have is what everyone sees first. My picture. If a guy finds me attractive but doesn't like my glasses...he may be able to get past that once he gets to know my great personality. But if a guy doesn't like dark hair and hazel eyes..oh well..because I am not changing my hair color or eye color. I think what a lot of people are missing is just because you think in s----l terms does not mean you are going to jump in bed with a person.
To quote Rico(and answer)
"Why hate on people that like to have S-- with large people?
Stupidity
“Why hate on someone who thinks first in s----l terms about large people, and then in other terms second?
Lack of understanding? Lack of self worth? Lack of anything better to do? I dont know if there is a specific answer here. I approach a man because I find him attractive. Because unless he has a sign around his neck that says his IQ is above 100 there is no way to know much more than that at first glance.
“Don't you think that most individuals who are se---lly attracted first will then be able to EASILY slide into long-term connections second? “
Yes! se---lly attraction is not S-- people! But it could lead there so dont you want to be with someone that gets your blood pumping?
I see this in the forum and it bugs me that people in a "large passions" site would be this short sighted. One of my needs is to feel attractive to and be attracted to my partner and that comes first. Let's face it if I find you unappealing chances are I am never even going to open your profile much less write you. I want a guy to think Im sexy and want to get to know me. Do I know there are men out there that think ONLY in S-- sure but they arent looking for a long term anything.
I joined this site because I am a large woman. I have curves. I also have pretty eyes, a sharp wit, a great laugh and loyalty that can sometimes get me in trouble. Therefore I want to be with someone who appreciates those qualities in me.
I believe it was bbwbabyblue that said it best “If there is no physical attraction between two people then there will NEVER be another level to the relationship.

[cookinbubbles]

`I have come to the conclusion, after reading all these posts since this discussion started, that I am totally out numbered!! LOL
I still stand by MY feelings, for myself on this issue though.
For me, a large part of s----l attraction is intellegence and personality based.
Looking hot will get me to peak through the peep hole but if you want in the door, you better have something besides a nice --- and big muscles. For me, s----l attraction is the whole package, not just the wrappings on the outside. I think it makes me either old fashioned or naive.
Every one has their own criteria and likes and dislikes.
What floats your boat doesn't necessarily float mine.
So why am on Large passions?
Because I want to. I don't have to explain myself.
Do I suffer from self loathing or have "issues' because I am the way I am? Hell no. I have been this way for 57 years, I probably won't change.
Don't try to change me and I won't try to change you.