NEWS: Plotting Attraction Theory

GEEK: Plotting Attraction Theory

Sex is a form of communication. You could strip away everything and compare it to anything from holding hands to instant messaging but that would not be fun, and who wants to strip away the stuff that makes sex fun? Not me. The point I'm trying rush into is that with sex, like other forms of communication you have to decide who to communicate with, for how long, and what you want to walk away from the communication with. This is where attraction come into it - and why this attraction theory graph is so interesting:



My friend Zadi sent that out to friends the other day and most of us laughed and that was that. I thought it was amusing and showed it to a few other people and everyone seemed to have their own take on it. Some people commented how dead on accurate it was, others suggested it was bullshit right away. One friend of mine, who is male, instantly wrote it off until it was suggested that maybe it was made by a girl, which changed his perspective on it right away. Of course the science of who we are attracted to isn't so simple, but this is an interesting spark of an even more interesting larger discussion. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that the folks here on SG might have some good insight and could help mold it into something better.

After showing the graph in it's current form to a handful of people I had a good bit of starter feedback. The biggest issue I heard from people right away was the fuck buddies part. First of all, very few people actually have fuck buddies. And they certainly aren't in the same proportion to people they consider "just friends." I understand where that came from - opposite ends of a spectrum. People you want to talk to and people you want to have sex with. The thing is those two are not mutually exclusive, and someone you want to have sex with but don't want to talk to doesn't instantly become a fuck buddy. So clearly that's a misclassification to look at. I also heard that there wasn't enough awkwardness and it wasn't enough places.

It's also worth looking at what point in a relationship this graph is trying to speculate on. I know I have friends that I'm physically and mentally attracted to, which would plant them firmly in the "dating zone" yet I'd never date them. I also know people who might have fit in one area when I first met them, but the more I got to know them them moved to another, so this has to look at a small snapshot of time, rather than the span of a relationship. I'd say first 24-48 hours of meeting someone perhaps.

Taking these comments into account, I whiped up a quick revision, which looks something like this:



I changed fuck buddies to one night stands, because I know lots of people who have had one night stands, and very few who actually have fuck buddies. Also a one night stand seems like a more plausible outcome of the "want to have sex with but don't want to talk to" problem. And I added a ton more awkwardness because, um, you know. Yeah.

Even with those changes, it still seems like it's not quite there. Maybe missing something, maybe trying to fit too much in there. It makes you think, but doesn't make you agree. I'm hoping this is where you can help. What is there that shouldn't be. What's missing. What's in the wrong proportion. What isn't lining up. The more feedback I get the better. If we can put together something that makes more sense I'll release it on the web and credit it back to everyone here. What do you think?

The inclusion of one-night stands is an improvement.

But why, in both diagrams, does "awkwardness" lie between "dating potential" and "dating zone"?

At the moment I'm floating somewhere in that large zone of awkwardness.

I think it's a pretty good representation actually. Maybe the marriage potential zone should be smaller though.

Aw! Fuck! Noooooooooooooooo! I'm stuck in the Friend Zone! Get me the fuck outta here!

This graph, as with the first one, has the problem of no overlap. IMO the fuck buddy zone should have a higher degree of mental attraction (even if all you think about is having sex with them...you are still thinking about them).

I'm also not so sure about the second Dating potential zone. If there is that little mental attraction then surely it will become nothing more than a fuck-buddy relationship? I agree with lateralus19 that the marriage zone should be smaller too.

I think the Just Friends part extends a little too far down, and some of that should maybe be switched to one night stand. I also agree with Evilgasm that fuck buddies should have a higher degree of mental attraction. Maybe place it on top of the one night stands.

Also, I don't think there should be awkwardness between the dating potential and dating zone. They should sort of flow into one another.

I think the graph should be animated, so that the marriage potential zone could be a moving target.

Also, everytime I read "Zone of Pain", I think kinky thoughts, and want to put it squarely in the middle of the Dating Zone.

What's the difference between the null zone and the zone of pain?

Interesting--it makes more sense to me to look at it in terms of potential vs reality. A reality graph based on an individual person's actual experiences with the rest of the human race would differ greatly from one person to the next. Maybe i will make one of those for myself as a piece of homework--although I may be shocked at the results.

I agree that the marriage potential box is still too big. Also, I agree that some of the fields need to be overlapping.

However, the one thing that seems missing is a third qualifier. Chemistry, pehaps? It just feels a tad too simplistic to use physical/mental attraction as linear absolutes.

Add some orange.

I think the point is that 100% attractiveness mentally and physically is unobtainable and someone who would fit in that section doesn't really exist therefore it's null.

That was my thought. It would also be known as the "...and then you wake up and go 'ah, fuck'" zone.

Why is it called the "zone of pain" and why does that sounds so hot?

So . . . how you doin'?

and the "just friends zone" is now the perfect shape to pare away at my self esteem!

Rapid_Fire said I think the Just Friends part extends a little too far down, and some of that should maybe be switched to one night stand. I also agree with Evilgasm that fuck buddies should have a higher degree of mental attraction. Maybe place it on top of the one night stands.

Also, I don't think there should be awkwardness between the dating potential and dating zone. They should sort of flow into one another.

I agree.

This is my first time on here so please bare with my awkwardness and misspellings.

This whole concept is really great and I think the suggestions are improving it even more.

I don't like the name of the Null zone. That name really makes it seem like nothingness when it really is heaven on earth. The Null zone seems to me to be where you are so attracted to each other that you forget about the rest of the world and even basic life functions to the point of destruction. You are so attracted to each other at all levels that it becomes like an addictive drug that you cannot put down. So it is more of an extreme ecstasy until death zone. Maybe Zap or Overdose or Firefly would be a better name for this zone. And yes I want to go there!

I'm always stuck in the friend zone... That is when I'm not floating around in the sea of awkwardness.

historically, there was a lot of green in my personal history. But, I'm getting hitched so, I'm on my way through the stargate to null-vania.

No they can exist, it's just that then fate fucks with you and takes them away.

Maybe it's because you don't need to be attracted to someone very much at all to want to invite them into your Zone of Pain

Speak for yourself.