Which, is the more pleasurable? Attraction? Or Love?
Attraction is definitely the stronger of the two in my mind. After all can one not love another yet have a love affair with still another they are attracted to, against all vows and promises?
Has this not been shown over and over throughout the ages, in song, literature, movies and plays?
Is therefore Attractiveness the all important piece of the relationship puzzle? Does a relationship begin to dissolve once Attraction disappears? When there is no Attraction, is there not soon in its place, repulsion.
In much the same sense that physicists speak of the magnetic or the electrical, do people not use terms like magnetic or electric for someone they feel Attracted to?
Not Beauty... but Attractiveness.
The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition says of Attraction:
1. The act or capability of attracting [this tells us nothing].
2. The quality of attracting, charm [Charm], 3. A feature or characteristic that attracts."
And of Attractive: 111. Having the power to attract [again, this tells us nothing].
2. Pleasing to the eye or mind [Mind]; charming." [Brackets added by the Author]
Pleasing to the eye decries surely, that aesthetic appeal which so many disparage mentioning. What is that but: Beauty?
Surely however the "pleasing to the mind," description does not explain it. Something that pleases my mind? All of it? Or most of it that can be acquired, accessed by another. What is the negative appeal in this?
An Attractive person is one that attracts your attention by way of stimulating (or "titillating," perhaps too sumptuous a word?) many separate areas of a person's mind. Obviously, the most powerful ones would be affected first: those of Beauty (sight?), Sexuality (movement? smell?), Aesthetic Demeanor (attitude?), as well as Productive Characteristics.
But is that misleading? "Productive Characteristics"? What does that mean?
A mundane example....
Porno movies are Productive.
In a sense they are or else they wouldn't exist, would they? They show us sex, raw and forced visually and audibly into our consciousness. The really good ones would also gain access to our other states of consciousness, as true art penetrates to and through many layers of consciousness and intellect. But not for the immature, the unsophisticated.
Are they productive in a way to truly "turn one on?" I think most would agree not, actually. Though many people do get a kick out of them, just how productive are they, considering their original purpose? That of stimulating one sexually. Surely they only achieve whatever they do by way of being so single mindedly obtuse. Brutal, in a sense. Overkill.
Why is Eroticism generally considered productive according to its purpose? Unless of course, it overpowers and preoccupies one. But this usually only happens to those with truly addictive/ compulsive personalities to begin with. People who needed help from the start. Is this so different from and far between the more raw, projected sexuality of most kinds of pornos? Is it because it is so very hard to achieve?
After all, it does require a certain kind of. . .Class. Of Charm (in other words, I would say, a "need" to be Attractive) in order to be truly sexually stimulating. To any satiating or at least a satisfying degree. This is something that requires a lot of complementarity. To give that to a diverse group of consumers, it "appears" to require debasing it to the point of utter ludicrousness. Thus your run-of-the-mill porno movie. Cheap. Raw. Typically unrehearsed. Poorly thought out.
This happens to us upon a paraphrase of a theorem of the late Media Prophet Marshall McLuhan (see his cameo so aptly put in the "standing in line at the cinema" scene in Woody Allen's, ANNIE HALL).
It proffers the degree of the intellectual level of a medium for any given audience, decreases in proportion to the number of individuals contained in that audience. Thus, so the theory goes, Public Broadcasting produced/sponsored shows, should have a higher quality content than that of the mass media offerings of prime time TV sitcoms.
A porno movie may indeed raise a penis to its full extension, a clitoris to its full engorgement. But is it the raw-nerved throbbing, full bodied mindfulness, experienced in near-orgasm? And no, I do not mean climax. A climax is merely a pleasant spasming of muscles. An orgasm is a much fuller experience and brings in much more of the body/mind experience.
A mere climax can leave the pelvic area congested, which is the way the body sets up sexual arousal: engorgement of the pelvic veins and nerves, irritating the organism's metabolic system to seek decongestion.
Typically, orgasm does not leave the body in this congested state, which is the more healthy (and more popularly desired) form of relief. Repeated congestion of the pelvic region without resolution, especially in women, can be medically unfavorable and lead to complications. And not just emotional ones.
This ideal indeed comes only with true eroticism. And that only comes through ... Attractiveness. See? One has to be attracted to (say...), the people on the screen in a porno, in order to experience this. Or the scene they are playing their charade out in. The projected circumstance. One could be attracted to oneself, or a preconceived idea, which then uses a porno only for confirmation and orientation in order to more fully solidify what was already in one's mind.
But true eroticism is no easy thing to achieve. In part because as has been pointed out by others long ago, it is in the nature of the human experience that one can even erotisize, raise to the level of a fetish, even that of a rock.
It is in essence, the Charm, the Quality, the Classiness (even anti classy, as in eroticizing a sense of the aesthetic of the ugly and finding sexual attraction in it, that is to say in being turned on by the gross and disgusting) of the viewing and not the view itself that does the real work.
This is one reason why pornos do indeed work for many people. For do they not primarily focus on the quality of the viewing and not the actual view being watched? Which brings up the potential for the individual to be pre-experientially inclined for an intense release, in which case one could watch a wall and find the same intensity.
It is the bare fact that the person the viewer is with (even if that be themselves), in the circumstance they are in, is the stimulating factor. It is the Attractiveness, the Charm, and the Class, as well as the Company they are keeping.
It is not as many do claim, that everyone is simply different in their tastes and therefore it is much too hard and expensive for a scene to be made which will please most anyone. Although it is indeed NOT easy to do this, I believe it is for another reason. Rather I believe it is a difficult thing to produce because of the innate need for Attractiveness. Something that requires a kind of Class, of Charm, to be truly sexually stimulating. And not necessarily in the classic sense of the words.
This is why viewing naked is sexually inspiring, but less-than-naked is Erotic. Thus, the high sales of special undergarments with orientations toward sexuality. This is also why hardcore porno is merely stimulating, while softcore tends more easily to be erotic, more fully... engaging. However, many will note that since softcore does not show it all, many viewers (mostly male) feel cheated and so do not find it in the end erotic. Once again, this reflects back onto the appetites of the individual viewer.
This is a mere misconception on the individual viewer's part. Often they find after seeing it all, that this does not satisfy after all. Nor does it satiate. Is it such a fine line for most people between the sexual excitement achieved through hardcore porno and the more fully erotic elements exercised by the way of Love, Aesthetic Appeal, or Attractiveness?
It has been said that true sexual fulfillment only comes from one being in a deep relationship. However, cannot the opposite be said in that a stranger that arouses, can also lead to an intense and deep satiation? Or does one actually satiate and the other simply inspire more desire? Which, is the most desired in that case?
Does this distinction so easily become blurred? Isn't it more like the case of a glass of fine wine is lost on a wino because he is looking for the strongest "kick." A motivation so unlike the Attraction a wine connoisseur finds for that same glass, prior to the wino having drunk from it.
The True Seeker finds instead of the wino's "kick," the connoisseur's aesthetic explosion of appreciation. One that comes up from deep within, through many levels. What is actually a cascading of mental appreciation through various regions of the brain and various levels of one's mind.
An explosion that warms, that comforts, that nurtures and lingers, sometimes for days afterward. For drinking a very fine wine can produce in a Connoisseur, an orgasm-like (though perhaps, very temporal) response. This is far indeed from what a wino experiences in his drugged, "climatic" deliriums.
So one has to ask: What is meant by having Productive Characteristics? Is it "climax?" Or, is it "orgasm?" Aesthetic Appeal (the single glass of a very fine wine), or total inebriation (a five liter box of cheap fortified Thunderbird wine in the hands of a wino)?
Is Attractiveness simply physical Beauty, or something else, something...more?
I will leave it up to you. The next time you see someone who draws your Attention to them without their even trying, from across the room, attracting you from across a bar, or through the curious air at some party, consider just what it is that is drawing you.
Consider just what it means to you. To the both of you.
I think you will find that the pleasures in Life will be better for you if you do consider it. Just like the fine wine in the hands of a Connoisseur.