The following entry was not written by me, and the original author shall remain anonymous (although I'm pretty sure you guys can figure out who it is). I am impressed simply by the sheer length of the response...there's even a diagram too! Enjoy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like this blog is being neglected!
I'm like an old retired man. Here I am, sitting at my computer, waiting for my steak to defrost, sipping at a concoction of honey, mint, and earl grey, listening to Joshua Bell. On a weekend.
Can't play all the time I suppose. And with the weather...I'm making excuses. Anyways.
Danielle has charged me to answer a certain question. Since my loose tongue has put me into a bind, I owe it to her that I answer them all with thought and consideration.
Ha ha just kidding I'm gonna half-ass this shit.
Why do guys fall for who they fall for?what we wantOk so let's try and break this down. The first step is what do guys want--what is the goal?
I believe that our desires can be parsed out into three basic elements: the Physical, Emotional, and Social. Imagine a triangle then, with each element at a corner. If I've interpreted the factors correctly, then you should be able to place anyone inside this triangle, based on his/her basic desires.
I'm going to approach this cynically. The drive for most men is going to be based in the Physical. Most of us tend toward that corner, deflecting (or not) into Social and Emotional depending on the person. Of course, there are those of us who lean immediately toward the Social or Emotional, deflecting to the other two factors, but these characters are in the minority.
But I've been surprised from time to time by predominantly "Physical" people. Emotional needs seem to be a large factor as well, but it is difficult to have males speak emotions in a culture like ours. There's a dissociation between what a man wants and what a man says he wants, in part because of the standards and stereotypes inherent in so-called 'manliness.' Bollocks in my view. Bollocks especially when these images collapse when you actually get to know these people. If anything, the
ostensibly predominant desire is the physical. One could propose a dual-layered sort of paradigm, where the primary layer is the Physical, and the secondary desires lay deeper. The 'real reason' as it were.
But then, saying 'real' is a gross oversimplification of an already oversimplified issue. The difference between the two triangles is mostly in presentation: we actively demonstrate and exemplify the first level triangle, while we are motivated (perhaps even unconsciously) by the second. That is, where we present one level, we sideline the other. More about these dynamics will be addressed in the second section.
Something that I should've done at the start--define the three factors. Physical is easiest--anything that demands a physical presence is physical. Tactile functions perhaps, and even on the lighter side of things, just having that person near you. Social is the visibility factor, and ties into the allure in being considered a duet as opposed to a one-person show. Emotional needs tie into attachment issues, and I believe can be fulfilled through presence-independent measures--IM, phone, etc. Obviously, these three factors also have significant interplay between them, but I would maintain that they can be labeled as individual entities, not entirely separate, but with a bit of a continuum between them--hence the triangle diagram.
Obviously I'm working on a lot of overgeneralizations, but I think some of the model holds true. The bit about girls though, is up to a lot of debate, and not in the scope of this address. What I should have done was drawn two triangles--one for those "ostensible" desires (the one above) and another for "underlying" desires (the one not shown).
predictions from this model:A model is useless without predictions ;)
If Physical is such a big factor in a relationship, then subtracting it should eliminate desire. The test for this is the viability of a long distance relationship, where the only factors left are Social and Emotional factors. LDRs are famously difficult, and it takes a particularly dedicated couple to make one successful. But in my eyes, the only factor subtracted from an LDR is the physical. I suppose that to a lesser degree, Social factors are also subtracted. Nonetheless, LDRs need to make the shift from Physical to Emotional, putting significant stress on the typical male. And so you'll find, as I have, that most males view LDRs with a bit of skepticism (or in some cases, violent aversion). Females (correct me when I'm wrong), tend to view them with a bit more of an open mind, unless they've experienced failures in that regard before.
Assuming that this dual-layered scheme is true, and that there are further desires underneath Physical, then it would follow that the LDR can be overcome if the relationship is given time to shift toward this second level. Obviously, this shift is completely dependent on the couple, but the schematic and assumptions I make point to that direction.
There are other predictions, but listing them all would take forever. I leave that to you then :)
what we see
These next two parts are probably of more interest to you. The "falling for" situation depends as much on the woman as it does the desires of the man. In this section, I hope to address the interplay between man and woman.
I've seen strong confident men pushed to their knees by an innocuous woman. I've watched others abandon all reason, all rationality to be with 'her.' In some cases, the chase seems completely counter to what they've said they've wanted . Is this then a shift in a man's desires or is it a reflection of one's second, deeper triangle?
It seems to me that you can only answer the question using a combination of the two--that this woman must have had the potential to fulfill an internal desire thus shifting his external beliefs. How does this woman do such a thing?
(Preface: I am stripping away the issue of intentionality from these arguments. You can be good at this stuff and not intend to be. You can knowingly use these ideas or unknowingly use them. Neither is more or less effective than the other.)
Clever marketing. One must cater to both triangles. The operative word in that statement is "cater." Fulfilling a desire does exactly that--fulfills it. Promising to fulfill a desire is something else entirely--something much more powerful. This is how one exerts a certain power over another: through a succession of promises, each more desirable than the last, but none of them fulfilling.
The outline here seems to imply a lot of Physical, but it would be erroneous to push aside the Emotional and Social. Imagine the girl who plays to another's desire to bond, to exchange ideas and thoughts. Imagine another whose calm and easygoing demeanor makes her an ideal person to bring home and show your parents and friends. Both are significant and powerful desires, and can still be subject to a succession of promises, from intimations of emotional intimacy to dreams of that girl you can bring home.
I stand and respect the apparent power females can have over males. Exerted properly, we can find ourselves utterly incapacitated, mere shells of men. He collapses, finding himself in a situation where he only chases his base, second triangle desires. The more flexible, first triangle would is manipulated and changed as she sees fit, feeding back to the second, altering base desires with subtle interactions. While this is one way the machination operates, I would contend that it is perhaps more effective (or even easier) to play to both levels than just one.
But is the first triangle the only one subject to change? Partially so. I believe that the deeper level is only subject to long-term changes. These are desires that change as we mature, or even, as we experience heartbreak or joy. In any case, this change is gradual, where the first level triangle is slightly more fickle. I think second level changes is an essay unto itself. So I won't get into it here.
predictions:
It's difficult to limit myself to this section since male-female interplay demands more than what's listed here. The only example I see is the male "thrill of the chase," where the thrill isn't in the fulfillment of desires but the gradual, stepwise function that follows promise after promise, hope after hope, in the pursuit of the possibility that all one's desires might be fulfilled. I would contend that it's the possibility of reaching the ideal that drives the chase. Contrast that with fulfillment, which ends the chase with a tangible experience short from the ideal (Plato's Forms if you're into that). In short, one chases because one hopes that this romance might actually be perfect.
when/where we see itThis section primarily concerns setting, but I'll also be relating it with the previous section.
As important as it is that these desires be catered to, circumstance is just as, or even more important than how one caters. Obviously, desires change over time. More interestingly, appeal and potential can be magnified depending on the context. A character met in a church would probably be interpreted differently from a character met in a club, even if this were the same character. The setting exaggerates the appeal in any one of the three categories, which can work to one's advantage or disadvantage.
At the heart of this issue is how a man defines his relationships. This process grows out of the nascent stages of any connection, where there's a matchup between what she has to offer and how these play into his two sets of desires. Again, the setting has a huge influence on what she has to offer. As that previous example demonstrated, meeting a friend's friend is immensely different from meeting someone on a blind date because of context. This friend may or may not be the same person, but the context alters the definition process, altering the potential for match ups with his desires. More often than not, setting takes precedent over person--the blind date will be seen in the context of desire fulfillment; the friend will be seen an improbable prospect. The exact influence on one's triangle though is probably still dependent on the characters at play.
Ancillary to this is is the natural shift in desires as one grows, separate from the definition process. We might consider a certain set of desires at one point of our lives, but this will naturally shift as our priorities grow.
predictions:Relationships can grow out of circumstance, and can be substantiated by circumstance. When at last circumstance is removed, so is the amplification of certain characteristics. If these characteristics do not coincide with the desires of the male, then the relationship will most likely fail. Attraction will be defined in large part by context.
the nutshell (and contentions and conclusions)
Why do guys fall for who they fall for? At the simplest level, we have the two-fold triangle, where guys seek to fulfill their desires, whatever they might be. Complicating this is how the woman markets herself, how she plays to certain desires, and how these things build. Further complicating this is how the context alters this relationship.
I feel like I'm not really answering the question, just providing a framework under which the question can be answered. The real meat of the issue lies within those two triangles--what desires do we men have. And that's an issue that would probably demand individual attention. As much as I can make generalizations, it would be wrong to do so. I've already done enough pointing out that a significant factor is the Physical.
I hope that one of the things that comes out in this is how applicable this might be to both sexes. You can speculate on that I guess. Another idea is how much power a woman can wield in a relationship. The framework here implies a system where men show their desires and women offer a response. Realize that in expressing desires, much of a man is exposed while a woman can remain a veritable mystery. The balance in this system is tilted to favor the woman--men are playing this game with their hands exposed (although Author agrees that whoever has feelings for the other first is the one that holds less power, regardless of gender). So while you play this game, it's useful to keep in mind how vulnerable the man is when he puts himself out there.
Yeah, let me say that again. How vulnerable a man is. The simplistic assumption is that males are unthinking, purely Physical creatures. I will grant you the idea that men may be primarily driven by that Physical corner, but assuming that we are unthinking and somehow simple is a poor representation of reality. There is complexity there, but we rarely take the time to articulate it. I hope I've done my part in articulating some of it here.
I also didn't directly address the issue of standards and ideals. I think both these ideas play into the first triangle, perhaps feeding back into the second. I suppose it is coldblooded to think that our standards are still a reflection of very basal desires, but I think there is evidence for this position.
Now I guess I could go on for another million pages talking about exceptions, but that's all I want to say for now.
I think my debt has been paid back Dani :P I didn't get to half ass it.
And this doesn't get out that I've written this. Please. This was my diversion to keep me from working this weekend. And a moment to exercise that other part of my brain. It worked very well.
Obviously I'm working on a lot of overgeneralizations, but I think some of the model holds true. The bit about girls though, is up to a lot of debate, and not in the scope of this address. What I should have done was drawn two triangles--one for those "ostensible" desires (the one above) and another for "underlying" desires (the one not shown).
but only because I see everyone else crying! Anyway, my cousin's wedding on Sunday was really beautiful, and I could understand why parents and family members cry because it's a bittersweet thing to see your daughter/sister/etc. grow up and start her own family. Even my 19-year-old carefree guy cousin cried a lot more than I would ever have expected for his sister.
and how a home is really just a place to store all your stuff so who cares how it looks! but they didn't lay him off.. what a relief. sometimes though, don't you guys imagine yourselves in the worst case scenario, just to convince yourselves that it won't be so bad. to cushion the hypothetical fall? but then again, i'm sure i also glamorize street life. ain't no happy hippy trip! just watch City of God. shrug. if you guys have read this kerouac book, "tristessa", wouldn't it be happy and nice having a small windowed room in a junkie lady's house-- as long as the gangster and addicts and prostitutes stay out of your business and don't involve you in theirs? ok.. maybe.. yeah.. unrealistic! i know. :]
hi dudes. this is my first time posting on this blog. remember that time we went rafting? or bubbling? or whatever the heck its called where we floated slowly down the river? sort of like congo rapids at six flags but we each had individual boats? REMEMBER. angela mentioned it the other day and thinking back on it, i remember it was a lot of fun!! let's do that again some time in july? 
