From: amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky)
Subject: re: sexual attraction
Followup-To: soc.motss
Summary: frequent irrelevance of "types"
Organization: out in linguistics
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:02:14 GMT

just to keep things confused while robert is worried that he's doing a
bad imitation of me, this goes off on a tangent to robert's thoughts.
but it does touch on them.  (well, i mean, it's a *tangent*.  i would
say "noli me tangere", but i wouldn't mean it.)

the original context was my saying that rob bernardo was the only gay
man i've known who was in fact what i used to think of as exactly my
"type".  i had this detailed fantasy picture for i don't know how many
years, and he fit it.

of course this is entirely irrelevant to my sexual life (rob and i got
to be dear friends, but this had happened before i even saw him, so it
can't have anything to do with "types").  my partners have been of a
variety of heights and builds and races and ages; they have been hairy
and smooth, delicate and muscular, dark and blond, cut and uncut,
clean-shaven and bearded, and on and on.  types have very little to do
with it.

my male lovers - the partners i've said "i love you" to (when not in
the grip of orgasm, when i say "aluvyuuuuohhhh", anyway, not anything
as coordinated as "i love you"), intending to make some kind of bond
for life - make a less variable group physically, but then there are
not all that many of them.  they incline to the lean and tall, dark
and clean-shaven, and their sex sweat smells like coriander and cumin.
what they *really* have in common is that i liked them as friends
first: they inhabit moral worlds i understand and admire [are you
surprised to find moral worlds mixed in here with orgasms and sex
sweat?  you shouldn't be]; they have interesting imaginations, serious
takes on the world; they are both passionate and playful.  (as an
extra, i cannot imagine loving a man who didn't truly enjoy the
company of women.)

for me, there are four big operative principles here: 

  [1 the prime directive:] people i love nonsexually are attractive to
me sexually;

  [2 the reflection rule:] i am turned on by people who are turned on
to me;

  [3 the antireflection rule:] but people who aren't attracted to me
sexually aren't attractive to me (as a rule, this cuts out straight
guys, and also the many gay men who are uncomfortable fucking with
their friends);

  [4 the lessons of history principle:] and anything that is like a
lover is lovable.

that last principle means that all kinds of accidental things about
one lover make others attractive.  dean's physical resemblance to
larry made me inclined to like him when i first laid eyes on him; he
was also sending out attraction rays at me (rule 2), so it was a
pretty steamy moment.  it also means that since jacques and i have
been together uncut cocks have an attraction for me they never had
before.  and so on.

this is *my* constellation of feelings, in which "types" have hardly
any role to play.  other people work by other principles, and
surely "types" play a bigger role for some.  but talking to my
friends suggests to me that "types" are mostly a fantasy thing -
they are the kinds of people we conjure up for ourselves in our
minds, and have surprisingly little to do with the particular
people we love and want to share our lives with.

and *that* is a very heartening idea...

arnold