And now, a rare WESOTERIC post about relationships! YAY!

Having observed a number of dates via television shows and having read a number of failed date blog entries, I've noticed that one of the most prevalent reasons that an otherwise good date doesn't lead to a romantic relationship is that there just isn't that *spark* -- that sexual attraction, that aching desire to molest the other person and use his/her delectable body for one's pleasure and gratification -- for at least one of the parties. Even when the two parties really get along and hit it off personality-wise, the decision may be made during the second or even first date that the two should simply be friends rather than try to force something that just isn't there. That is, even in the face of a highly compelling reason to continue to pursue a romantic relationship, the initial absence of something so insignificant as conscious sexual attraction (note the italicized word; we'll come back to that later) is enough to halt any further attempts to make progress on that front. Because there's no spark.

I think this is a mistake.

First, consider the word we use to describe this attraction -- spark. It's true that a spark with the right kindling can turn into a bonfire, but in most cases all it takes to extinguish a spark is a light gust of wind, a single drop of rain, even the passage of a few seconds. How many times have you been sexually attracted to someone but ceased to be so within days -- or even hours? How many marriages have failed because they were based on a spark that died out long before "'till death do us part?" And how many times have you been attracted to someone you didn't even like -- someone whom, despite getting on your fucking nerves, you still fantasized about stripping naked and licking up and down in frenzied fashion beneath a waterfall hidden behind shower curtains? And yet, like fools, we continue to view the presence of this unreliable and irrational spark as a determining factor for our choice of potential lifelong mates!

Granted, our reliance on the spark isn't quite as ridiculous as the above remarks imply. It does feel good to want someone, to look someone up and down and mutter, "God damn...!" under one's breath while absently wiping drool from the corner of one's mouths, yes, to lust after someone -- and I imagine having that lust momentarily satiated feels even better. This is the reason that many people are led by their more carnal appetites not only in the context of seeking romantic relationships, but even instead of seeking said relationships, preferring to play the field and sexually devour as many beautiful persons as possible in their quest for physical pleasure.

However, as we've seen, this isn't enough to sustain a true relationship, so why do we continue to value it more than the most significant requirement of a working relationship -- that a girlfriend or a boyfriend actually be a trusted friend? But perhaps I'm being unfair in supposing that our relationship focus is wholly focused on the spark -- for while it does seem, in many cases, to be the determining factor in a relationship, people do seem to require that they like spending time with a mate outside of the bedroom as well. But is it realistic to hope for both? Certainly, both lust and like can exist simultaneously for a time, but, as we've no doubt seen and experienced, the spark often fades -- and then what are we left with? In the best instances, a caring and devoted friendship. But note that this dynamic is the very same state of affairs that, had the spark not been there at first, would have convinced the parties that a romantic relationship wasn't worth pursuing.

Now, in some such situations, where the people have already realized that they do care about each other and want to stay together even though the spark appears to have faded, they'll attempt to put the fire back into their relationship in various ways. What I find curious is that persons in the same situation but who are just starting out -- i.e. have gone on a few dates where no spark was present, but do seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company -- seem unwilling to try to generate the spark themselves. I think that more marriages are failing today because, in the old days, the spark wasn't as important when choosing a potential mate, so when it faded it wasn't as big a deal. People had other reasons to stay together, and if the spark meant that much to them, they'd seek ways of rejuvenating it or overcoming its absence. But now, with our desire for instant gratification, and our emphasis on the spark, and our lack of faith in our own "mechanical" ability, an engine that lacks or loses its ability to generate such heat is thrown on the scrap heap without the slightest consideration of taking a wrench to it. And I actually think that many more failed potential relationships might be successful and actually lead to deeper relationships than those spurred on by an initial, haphazard attraction if people actually tried to figure out each other's kinks and work through their lack of initial sparkage instead of just supposing that if the lust isn't there at first sight, it never will be -- or that once it fades, it won't ever return -- and parting company right there.

And I wonder about this, because my theory of sexuality is that pretty much anyone can turn anyone else on, provided that the parties aren't physically repulsed by each other and, in spite of the lack of initial/continued attraction, find each other to be reasonably attractive -- they just have to know what buttons to press.

The reason I'm pondering these moments at present is that there's a girl I think I could really be into -- I like her and (I think) get along with her really well -- except that, for the most part, I feel no sexual attraction whatsoever towards her when we're together. Oh, she's very pretty -- that's not the problem -- but I think that we get along so well and that I focus on our conversation so intently that it doesn't even occur to me to be consciously attracted to her. And I wonder how many potential romantic relationships appear to lack that spark for the same reason. I mean, if you're really engaged in a fun conversation and having a great time, you're probably not going to hear those voices in the back of your head whispering, "Pssst, glance at her breasts!" or give into that impulse to check out her ass when she gets up to go powder her nose.

In my case, it hasn't only been this girl -- it seems that the women I like best are the ones I appear to be the least interested in undressing, whereas the ones I find myself fantasizing about (while actually in their presence, anyway -- I often find myself dreaming of them later) are the ones I find to be uninteresting, or ditzy, or charming in some ways but unappealingly common in others. I think that my lusty thoughts for them arise out of a certain kind of boredom -- because in those really great conversations with the others, the thought of curves and tender flesh would constitute a distraction, and I'm not easily distracted from an engaging discussion. I mean, these days, I can spend time with girls I lusted after in high school -- girls I used to watch intently for a glimpse of something titillating -- and moreover spend time with them during which they do, in excess, the very same thing that used to fuel my desire so many years ago, and not even think to observe them in the act until afterwards, almost as an afterthought, because my mind was elsewhere, outside of the gutter, during the chill session. And sometimes my mind needn't even have been preoccupied with furnishing replies in a complex conversation -- once, when I invited a girl to my dorm room to watch a movie, she actually fell asleep during said movie and I sat there, looking at her prone, snoozing form, and didn't want her. I actually thought about that as I looked at her. I thought, "To steal a kiss -- yes! Surely, it would be wrong, and all too easy... but not only do I not want to do it, but I feel no desire whatsoever to lean over her slumbering form and press my lips to the soft flesh of her cheek! Why?! Why do I not want to kiss her?!"

But as I've said, it's not that the spark (on my end, anyway) is wholly absent in these cases -- it's just that the friendship aspect of these relationships is strong enough to snuff it out while in the moment. I've noticed that depending on what these girls wear, I can be made to want them more on the spot; usually they dress in a plain, tomboyish sort of way, which apparently does nothing to arouse my baser ideas, but other outfits fare better in that respect. Also, an excess of alcohol does much to allow lustier thoughts space to roam in my head -- but perhaps, given popular abuses of alcohol towards that end, that isn't quite so unique.

So does this mean that (at least in my case), intensity of thinking and presence of mind are the enemy of romantic attraction? Regarding the role of clothing, must a potential "meal" be presented in a certain state of preparedness in order for one's "hunger" to be aroused? (Side note, which may or may not be related: I am one of those people who is rarely truly hungry, but have a tendency to desire food more when it is unwrapped and/or within my reach. Also, I've also noticed that certain kinds appetites appear to be connected, not only in my case but in others as well. For example, note that certain popular sexual practices involve eating and sucking...)

I don't have any answers here; I'm merely making observations and asking questions. Deep down, smoldering faintly beneath the heavy blanket of of my formidable intellect, is there a spark? Do I secretly want this girl? Have I ever wanted any girls whose company I genuinely enjoyed? Can the spark and a genuine meeting of the minds coexist? Speak!