Is physical attraction a requirement for a long term relationship?

[chenda]

and by the way, what's the deal with so many women taking antidepressants? (or other psychological type medications - there seem to be so many, I can't keep them straight). I used to see that as a big red flag in a potential girlfriend. If I were to weed out all the women taking antidepressants, and weed out all the women who are out of shape (see Jacob's depressing post about that), and weed out the spendthrifts, I'm left with, what - like 3% of women being datable for me?

Its because depression and anxiety are endemic in modern society- amongst both sexes. Women are more likely to seek and receive treatment for depression for various reasons (more acceptable to show emotion, getting regular health checks, more comfortable taking pills etc etc)

Maybe you're too picky ? :p

[champ0608]

Initially, yes, but I wouldn't say its a lifetime requirement. I may be wrong, but I doubt sexual attraction is still a requirement among couples who've been together for 60 years. And if it isn't at that point in life, it must be something that slowly fades as a requirement.

[Chad]

Yes.

[jennypenny]

Yes.

Unless you wear a blindfold, right?

[Chad]

A blindfold only goes so far.

[GandK]

and by the way, what's the deal with so many women taking antidepressants? ...

Its because depression and anxiety are endemic in modern society- amongst both sexes. Women are more likely to seek and receive treatment for depression for various reasons (more acceptable to show emotion, getting regular health checks, more comfortable taking pills etc etc) ...

Yep. Symptoms of depression may be different in men, too... saw this on CNN today:

Men and Depression

Also, all depression is not created equal. Some people have depression for life. Others slip into it during trauma like PTSD, or if they're abused, but it goes away completely if the underlying event is treated. Some only get it during winter (SAD). About 6% of women (including me) only get it for the first 18 months or so after having a baby. And we are otherwise not depressed at all.

You can't really put all "depressed" people into the same category.

[RichUK]

When you're talking about the embodiment of attraction, then also consider that their body can be expressing other things about the person than just their physicality. For example, you might see her weight as a representation of her medication choices, her lack of exercise and poor diet. It's not necessarily the physical body that you're finding less attractive. Consider a thought experiment where two people have exactly the same bodies, but play around with the other personality traits you give them... you're probably going to find one more attractive than the other.

As you're fairly young, I'd also like to throw out there that someone's physical appearance is also not necessarily a reflection of their sexual prowess or your satisfaction in that department!

[chenda]

@GandK +1

I read somewhere that blind people require physical attraction just as much as sighted people.

[Ego]

and by the way, what's the deal with so many women taking antidepressants? ...

Its because depression and anxiety are endemic in modern society- amongst both sexes.

At a guesthouse I stumbled upon a copy of Seligman's book, What You Can Change and What You Can't. In it he reviews the studies on anti-depressants and he says there is no evidence that they work better than placebo for mild or moderate depression.


The claim that mood and emotion are just brain chemistry and that to change you merely need the right drug must be viewed with skepticism. The basic drug discoveries to date warrant only modest enthusiasm. There are indeed drugs that alter mood for some—but not all—people. All of these drugs are cosmetic, however, and all of them produce unwanted side effects, some of which are awful.

and

I urge you to weigh your everyday anxiety. If it is not intense, or if it is moderate and not irrational or paralyzing, live with it. Listen to its dictates and change your outer life, rather than your emotional life. If it is intense, or if it is moderate but irrational or paralyzing, act now to reduce it. In spite of its deep evolutionary roots, intense everyday anxiety is often changeable. Meditation and progressive relaxation practiced regularly can change it permanently.

Endemic? The pathologization of everyday problems is endemic, that's for sure.

[7Wannabe5]

champ0609 said: Initially, yes, but I wouldn't say its a lifetime requirement. I may be wrong, but I doubt sexual attraction is still a requirement among couples who've been together for 60 years. And if it isn't at that point in life, it must be something that slowly fades as a requirement.

Studies seem to indicate that levels of geriatric sex are directly correlated to levels of mid-life sex. Couples who are having sex in the 90th percentile for frequency in their 40s, if they are still together in their 70s, will still be having sex in the 90th percentile for frequency amongst their cohorts. Because I am sometimes nerdy to the point of idiocy and sexual incompatibility was the major fail in my first marriage, I went through a phase where I would ask every middle-aged man who made it to second date with me a question along the lines of "What has been your preferred sexual frequency in a monogamous long-term relationship after the infatuation phase has ended?" and most of them right away knew and offered their honest answer and also offered exceptions to their personal rule that were revelatory and similar (of course, the major red flag here with a man over 40 would be the answer "I don't know. I have never gotten past the infatuation phase."-lol ) One older man I dated, was hard-wired in puberty to be attracted to women who vaguely fall into the same category as Marilyn Monroe and Jane Mansfield and he married and had 3 sons with a woman who looks like Diane Keaton because he affectionately loved her and felt protective towards her after her brother died in a car accident. Fail. Do not do this. Be cruel to be kind in the long run.

OTOH, although there is a fairly large minority of men who are absolutely core never able to adjust their preference to any woman over the age of 22, I think most men are reasonably flexible and able to adjust to a few pounds here or there and the effects of aging given that they are with somebody who initially matched their fancy. Also, what RickUK said is very true. Human beings are very impressionable and often not very self-aware about their acculturation and biases in all things sexual. For instance, the popularity of girl-on-girl porn in the 80s and 90s had a fairly huge effect on the sexual behavior of that generation of American men and the MILF trend influenced the next batch etc. etc. Women are just as "bad" and "superficial" in terms of wanting their dominance in the form of Valentino, James Dean or 50 Shades.

I'm not doing a fantastic job of getting to my point here...but, it seems to me that once you get past "To be objectified or not to be objectified" as point of debate, then it all gets much easier. One of the best pieces of advice I ever got from a male friend on an occasion when I was complaining about my current partner's comments about my appearance was "But...if he is commenting on your appearance that means that he is interested." IOW, you are looking at an opportunity for sexual empathy. If his sexual ideal is Marilyn Monroe and that seems seriously daunting on the basis of your appearance, you can still learn to do that play-dumb-sex-kitten thing that she did and you can still let him take you shopping at VS (be flexible but stay frugal!-if it is his thing let him fork out $50 for the push-up, etc.) Doing the difficult thing in any realm will always increase your optionality in the long run. This is the revision or caveat, I would like to tack on to the advice I previously did not really offer to Zalo's partner-lol. I was just in a grouchy mood the other day.

[GandK]

I thought of this thread today when I stepped on the scale.

Major personal triumph: today after years of effort, I finally (re)achieved my pre-pregnancy weight. For reference, my youngest will be 5 in September.

This is in contrast to what happened after I had my older son. I remember I lost the same amount of weight in almost exactly 9 months (same length of time as the pregnancy itself) and most of it just fell back off. I didn't have to work nearly as hard to accomplish that.

This is an illustration of the way your metabolism slows down over time. Having a baby at 25 (my oldest) and having a baby at 36 (the youngest) are nowhere near the same experience... and the way my metabolism has slowed down over time has made keeping in shape a challenge now. Not impossible at all, but it requires intention and daily effort, whereas in my 20s it didn't really require much at all.

To paraphrase an earlier comment: you can be accidentally hot at 20. Probably most hot people at 20 are accidentally so. But you ain't accidentally hot at 40. Hotness at 40 (which I continue to aspire to, LOL) is the result of hard work. And based on my current trajectory, I suspect hotness at 60 will require medical intervention.

[7Wannabe5]

@GandK. Congratulations on the weight loss! I can totally empathize. I had the same experience as you first pregnancy vs. second pregnancy even though both occurred in my 20s because I had an appendectomy when 6 months pregnant and had to lie around like a lump followed by a year of breast-feeding which has the tendency to render me ravenous beyond the extra calories really needed. The only reason I have not destroyed all pictures taken of me during that era of my life is that they usually include my kids when they were at their most adorable.

At just turned 50, I agree with the accidentally hot at 20, takes work at 40 and needs intervention at 60 trajectory. Except, the funny thing is that there is a bit of lucky that comes back into play in terms of whether or not you happen to be genetically blessed with factors that make you the type that ages well. Anyways, there's a level on which I am kind of pissed off at these damn affluent baby boomer females and their ridiculous precedent setting interventions. Do I really have to try to be GILF, really? Is it even worth the effort beyond health considerations? I was watching a recent show starring Jane Fonda and I could not for the life of me figure out if I would think she was hot if I was a man in his 70s.

The fact that I am living with my 48 year old sister and we are both single (again) is kind of putting me into this weird time dilation mode. Like it seems like it was just yesterday that we were 13 and 15 and being hit on by tanned,long-haired, tattered blue jean shorts wearing boomer men in their 20s on the beach. "Would you ladies like a beer?" and my sister replies "We're NOT ladies!" Lingering in the hot zone too long kind of feels the same as entering it too early. Like I am feeling compelled to tell younger men I suspect of hitting on me that I am 50 for the same reason that I used to have to tell older men that I was 14.

[Did]

I know this is an old thread, but I would not wait around with someone who is getting fatter and fatter. Especially if you've only been with them a year. life is too short. It might be different if you had a 20 year history. I speak from experience. Your life becomes a misery and your eyes start to wander. It is better for you both if you pull off the bandaid.