I agree that attraction is a tricky word. There's the physical attraction, yes and there's also a, for lack of a better term, an emotional attraction; a wanting to get to know a person that goes beyond casual friendship.
I'm sure feelings can grow out of a relationship, if they weren't there to start and that's partly why I was conflicted about this guy. But then, we humans are a wonderfully adaptive species; we can get used to almost anything. As everyone pointed out, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to try, because it would be settling NOW in the hopes of something growing LATER.
This guy I mentioned, I wasn't physically attracted to him, but I also just plain wasn't excited about spending a lot of time with him. I didn't mind talking to him, but I won't miss it.
Maybe humans are just creatures of thought, talk and touch. In any relationship, we want to be stimulated, mentally, emotionally and physically

Avra, just a quick note which the others can probably expand upon. From your post I had three insta-reactions.

1. Anyone can make a poor first impression, but intuition sometimes can see through it. If you don't enjoy your second outing, trust your intuition. I wouldn't go so far as to link intuition to the "still, small voice" since I've seen examples where those seem to conflict. But if you don't really want to be there, every voice inside of you will say so.

2. Be courteous but firm; be firm but courteous. You want to balance the fact that "other people have a right to not be attracted to you" (i.e., you have a right to not be attracted to someone) ... against the fact that someone took a chance and possibly made a dork of himself in the asking.

See also: the TV series "How I met your mother," for a character named Ted who would have invented the word Dork-for-Twue-Wuv if it didn't already exist. Particularly the pilot episode and the episode "The Wedding Bride."

So, for the beginner's phase of this, try something like, "I had a nice time, but I'm not feeling any sparks." For those of you who may have gone further down the road and are making the decision that you & your companion don't have a future together, "you're a lovable person with many lovable qualities, but I don't love you." It's even okay to say, "I do thank you for the time we had together" if you're dealing with a strong and stable person and you did have some good times.

3. Like the song says, "one of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong." The fellow texted you 200 times? That's not cool.

You know this fellow better than we do, so you know if he's a mad texter because he's a stalker-in-training or merely immature and doesn't know that this is not grown-up behavior. Technology such as texting phones will always run ahead of laws, ethics, and maturity/common sense. By the time we teach people not to text-and-drive, they'll be glassing-and-driving, or something. (Glass=Google's internet in a pair of eyeglasses.)

A good rule for many behaviors is, Would you do this to a strict boss? It doesn't have to be a mean boss, just a professional boss. If the boss doesn't appreciate dirty jokes, name-calling, practical jokes, selfies (pics of you), gossip, tattletales, too-much-information on your social media accounts, or endless texts & phone calls, well, think about why that is. Maybe it's because the boss is a grown-up?

You deserve to be treated like a grown-up. Also, you would probably only want to date grown-ups. When you let him down, you need to make it clear that there isn't really anything that he can say or do or be that would have changed the fact that there aren't any sparks, that sometimes sparks just don't happen -- but by the way, the texting is a turn-off.

The Old Maid, it's funny that you mentioned a boss, because my boss walked in the break room while I was telling a coworker/friend about my experience and she told me "get rid of him this instant". She said he sounded like a stalker in training and she didn't want me messing around with a guy like that.
Also, I told him I wasn't interested in pursuing a relationship with him and he did not take it at all well. "Please don't do this to me, I've waited a long time to go out with someone."
I told I didn't appreciate the guilt trip after I had been honest with him.

Arva, along with the excellent advice everyone has given you... well, firstly I should mention that I'm a teenager, have absolutely no experience in this area, and so I don't exactly have accredited insight. That said, I do want you to know that I sympathize with you and understand you're in a tough spot.

Like TOM said, I think that the 200 texts was :S .
Either he's a stalker or immature. And if he said, "please don't do this to me, I've waited a long time to go out with someone." That kind of evinces the immaturity. I'm glad you said what you did. None of us know him, so you probably are the better judge about this, but his statements at wanting to go out with someone and the 200 texts seem to show perhaps a problem of needing fulfillment... and if he's not particularly attracted to just you and is just interested about being with someone (of course, just inferring this from his statement), that is definitely not something you want to involve yourself in. And also, given that you do not return his feelings and do not find him to be even a good friend. Is it over with him then, or in limbo?

Ruby, congrats to your sister and future brother-in-law! How exciting!

Over like the eighties. And he's not taking it well...though I don't feel guilty at all. Just relieved. Also, no, this guy didn't text me 200 times. He's texted me 200 times a day for several days. I told him to quit texting me while I was at work and he didn't stop. So, I broke it off. I just don't have time for that.
Technology in romance is such a tricky thing. How much is too much? On the date I felt like we had already exhausted all the things you talk about on a first date...and a second date...without having decided if we were attracted to each other beyond a first glance.
I know there are people who have meet through technology who have since gotten married. How do you balance words on a screen with romantic feelings?

It is soo much easier to type something than it is to say it. You are hidden behind a screen or what ever. I seem to put forward my views more online off line I just fell awkward and fear of being attacked by um tony abbott supporters.

Avra, I'm sorry he gave you a hard time when you let him go. There are 7+ billion people on the planet; it's not your job to assume responsibility for his difficulty in connecting with them, unless he hires you as his shrink and that's your actual paying job. Which, by the way, never go to a shrink you've dated or wish to date.

Also, much praise to your boss.

Avra wrote:

Technology in romance is such a tricky thing. How much is too much?

I like the Dave Barry rule. It only sounds Luddite because it addresses the recipient's reaction (something a lot of people fail to take into consideration).

In "I'll mature when I'm dead," Dave Barry wrote:

"In the old days, the closest you could come to Twitter was to send dozens of postcards, every day, to everyone you knew, each with some trivial message such as, "Just had a caramel cappucino. Yum!" The people receiving these postcards would have naturally assumed that you were a moron with a narcissism disorder. But nowadays if you do it electronically, you are Engaging In Social Media."

So, if you wouldn't do it with postcards, maybe you're overdoing it with other methods. If the recipient starts sending out telepathic and/or real tirades all containing sentences such as "Lose my number!", you're definitely overdoing it.

But if your grandparents saved all of their love letters, try something in that vein, whether or not you use the same tools they did.

The reason I mentioned immaturity and not just Stalker-Default is that nobody is born knowing how to do things. If you grow up among people who do X, you'll assume that X is how things are done. That can be a good thing ("my parents took me to church, so I'm taking my children to church") or a bad thing ("the genius who taught me to drive drove on the sidewalk, so maybe I should drive on the sidewalk"). And technology tends to be defined by the people who use it most. If adults don't play Angry Birds, then the market will be defined by the people who do, much as the construction crane market will be defined by the workers who use cranes.

Technology is just a tool, like a hammer or a forklift. This young fellow is behaving both immaturely and inappropriately. His use of technology made things harder and worse for him (and for you) than they needed to be. And with his pre-existing personality/persona situation, it's an unfortunate combination.

...

Also, a quick note on this "attraction" idea. A lot of people "fall in love" with people they never would have chosen as friends. Try to avoid that.

Also, sometimes people find a promising candidate and figure they can find a way to like this person. This is where the "You're a lovable person with many lovable qualities, but I don't love you" crowd try to force their way past this problem. A lot of people "fall in love with love," not in love with each other. Try to avoid that too.

Finally, one form of attraction is lust, which is why all forms of attraction get a bad name. But it's good to have the best form of attraction. It's hard to describe, but it feels like ... joy.

Thank you for all the input, everyone! This really has kind of cleared some of the muddy water for me, at least in knowing where you're all coming from. I'm still not sure if I really agree with the whole concept or not, but I'll muse on it for a while before I come to any conclusions...

Here is where I'm kind of at right now. I had a recent experience with a guy who was interested in me, and I guess it was a little similar to Avra's, though minus the creepy stalkerish part. This guy is in fact a very godly young man and a good friend of mine. And for a while, I thought we would work out together. I knew that I wasn't ready for a full throttle relationship, but I was tentatively hoping that we could give it time and see how it worked out.

As time went by, it was clear that he wasn't sure where I stood. He didn't understand that I wanted to simply focus on our friendship because I wasn't ready for a romantic attachment and Lord knows, I'm not ready to get married any time soon, at least not as soon as he would have wanted. I was distracted with school and work and frankly, I didn't feel grown up enough. I soon realized that he didn't know me enough to realize that he was pushing too hard and this was not what I needed and that I couldn't offer him what he wanted. He also didn't really trust my parents or understand their expectations. All of these things combined sort of scared me and turned him off. And thus nothing really came of it.

Was I attracted to him? Was I not? I never really considered that. I'm not sure how much relevance attraction had in the situation and I'm not sure if it ever will for any relationship situation I'm in. Maybe he thought he was attracted to me at one point, but he rapidly became very un-attracted when he realized that things weren't going to be so simple...which sort of just solidifies in my mind the fickleness of basing decisions off of attraction. I think attraction sways and changes as rapidly as emotions do. That's not to say that attraction isn't an essential result of a healthy, godly, committed relationship...but ultimately the instigator and foundation needs to be a decision to love the other person no matter how unattractive they might become in our eyes.

When it comes down to it, if someone turns me off by their behavior, their speech, or their beliefs...if I witness immaturity and a lack for love and obedience to Jesus Christ within a young man, then I'm not going to really become good friends with him in the first place. And if I'm not good friends with a young man already, then I'm not going to consider marrying him or courting him for that matter.

Was I attracted to him? Was I not? I never really considered that. I'm not sure how much relevance attraction had in the situation and I'm not sure if it ever will for any relationship situation I'm in. Maybe he thought he was attracted to me at one point, but he rapidly became very un-attracted when he realized that things weren't going to be so simple...which sort of just solidifies in my mind the fickleness of basing decisions off of attraction. I think attraction sways and changes as rapidly as emotions do. That's not to say that attraction isn't an essential result of a healthy, godly, committed relationship...but ultimately the instigator and foundation needs to be a decision to love the other person no matter how unattractive they might become in our eyes.

Hmm... it still doesn't sound like we're on the same page when it comes to how we define attraction. Maybe I can explain further.

But first, about the guy you mentioned. If he started showing interest in you, but then backed out when things weren't going quite the way he hoped or expected, then it probably means one of three things. And it mostly depends on how long/well he knew you. Depending on which situation it was, it may or may not qualify as the sort of attraction I was talking about in my post. I'll write all three examples below, and how they do or do not relate to the sort of attraction I'm talking about. If he only knew you a short time before seeming interested in you, see Situations One and Two. If he knew you a long time and knew you well before seeming interested in you, see Situation Three.

Situation One: He saw you and thought you seemed generally attractive, kind, and godly. And since he found you interesting and wondered if he might one day fall in love with you/if you'll be "the one", he decided to get to know you better. However, once he got to know you slightly more, he found out you weren't right for him, and that he wasn't in love with you, nor would he ever be. If this is the case, it doesn't count as the attraction I was referring to in my post because he's not actually attracted to you in this example (other than the mild "attraction" of liking your looks and what little he's seen of your general personality). He doesn't even know you well enough to be genuinely attracted to you. Rather, he's just curious about you. And once he gets to know you better, it turns out to be nothing after all. The kind of attraction I was talking about is the kind that only comes through getting to know that person through time. Curiosity based on first impressions doesn't fall into that category.

Situation Two: He might have been "attracted" to what he thought was you, but what was really just something he had hoped you would be. Sometimes we'll see someone we find physically attractive, and who seems nice. And from there, our imaginations will carry us away, until we have "fallen in love" with our own fictional version of that person in our head who we think is real, and who we think is "the one". Then, once we get to know the actual person a little better, we find they don't match the version in our head, and we're disappointed. If this is the case, then that doesn't qualify as "attraction" as I defined it in my post either. In my post, I did warn against the shallow kinds of "attraction" that are only based on looks and/or not based on anything solid. The necessary kind of attraction I was talking about is attraction to the actual person, as they actually are.

Situation Three: He knew you for a long time, got to know you, and genuinely fell in love with you. But other circumstances arose that showed that it was not meant to be. If this is the case, it may qualify as the sort of attraction I was talking about in my post, and may not be bad or unhealthy in and of itself. But of course (as I said in my post!) other things besides attraction are also needed to make a relationship, and those things were not present in this case.

Was I attracted to him? Was I not? I never really considered that. I'm not sure how much relevance attraction had in the situation and I'm not sure if it ever will for any relationship situation I'm in.

It doesn't sound to me like it got far enough to even matter anyway. No matter what the case was, it doesn't sound like the two of you were compatible. Although, you do have me curious when you say you don't think attraction will have any relevance in any future relationships. What do you mean by that? If you plan on marrying, would you marry someone that you don't find attractive? Not just when it comes to looks, but in any way? Would you marry someone toward whom you feel only friendship?

~

Back to the topic on how I define attraction. I suppose that when I say the word "attraction", what I'm basically talking about is being in love. Not shallow, passing crushes. Not thinking someone is "hot". But actually being in love. And being "in love" has two sides. Most of the time, I've noticed, each person in the world has been told more about one side than the other. Usually (especially in non-Christian circles), people hear about the attraction side - the special tingly feelings you get when you're around them, finding them physically attractive, wanting to be around them all the time, liking their personality, etc. But on the other hand (especially in Christian circles), some people only hear about the other side - admiring the theology and spiritual aspects of the person, willing to be devoted and submissive to that person, willing to stay with that person no matter what as part of your godly duty, etc. And in some cases, the people who focus on the latter side tend to demonize the former side, saying it doesn't matter. In actuality, both sides matter. If you have one without the other, then it isn't true love.

If you have the tingly-feelings and attraction toward someone, but don't have the godly devotion to them nor are you spiritually compatible, then it's a shallow, (perhaps dangerous) crush. If you admire that person as a spiritual leader or admire their theology, but feel nothing other than friendship or even apathy toward them, then again I ask, how is your relationship with them any different with those you have with your father, brother, or pastor? And if you are willing to marry them and stick with them for life out of godly duty, even though you feel nothing but apathy toward them, I would have to wonder why you're marrying them in the first place. If a person did something like that, I would wonder if maybe they thought they had to get married, and were just settling for whichever man seemed to be the most godly. And marriage is meant to be so much more than that.

ultimately the instigator and foundation needs to be a decision to love the other person no matter how unattractive they might become in our eyes.

Here's the thing.

If someone said that attraction should ultimately be the instigator and foundation of the relationship, I would disagree with them (although I do believe attraction has to be there for the relationship to be genuine).

Similarly, when you say "a decision to love the other person no matter how unattractive they might become in our eyes" needs to be the instigator and foundation, I disagree with you too (although I do believe that decision has to be there for the relationship to be genuine).

In fact, every time someone says "This one thing should be the instigator and foundation of a relationship", I am going to disagree with them. Because a healthy relationship never has just one thing as its instigator and foundation. Healthy relationships are formed by many things all coming together equally. Sitting down and figuring out which of those many elements is more important than the others just isn't necessary, as long as you're sure all of those elements are there. They're all important, and they all need to be present and considered.

~Riella

Ithilwen is right. In trying to avoid the shallowness of worldly relationships, you've swung too much the other way and see what God has given as problematic. It too doesn't include a particularly healthy understanding of relationships.

I just wanted to drop by and give a shout out to ericnovak who got married this weekend! Congratulations! That's so very exciting.

A huge congratulations to ericnovak and his wife! Wonderful news!

First of all, major congrats to ericnovak!
You and your wife looks absolutely stunning together and perfect for each other!

Ithilwen - Feminism is feminism, period. There is no "old feminism" or "modern feminism". If other people have added other things in relation to the label, that's just it - it's added stuff; individual opinions and lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with feminism core ideals.
Also, on this topic: Could someone explain to me why especially in relation to dating? Christians go on about how marriage and sexuality is something that is suppose to be sacred and private...yet everyone in the family and their cousins are allowed to have a say in what happens in the love lives of adult children? Isn't there a difference between being under someone's authority and bending to every will and whim of this person in authority?

Also, I dated for the first time this summer and what I learned from the experience is this: There is a difference between liking someone and liking the attention you get from someone. It also confirmed that - for me, in my life, personally - (careful, Christian) dating is better than courtship.

Ithilwen - Feminism is feminism, period. There is no "old feminism" or "modern feminism". If other people have added other things in relation to the label, that's just it - it's added stuff; individual opinions and lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with feminism core ideals.

Actually, there are three different waves of feminism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

When I said I agreed with "old Feminism" but disagreed with "modern Feminism", I meant that I agreed with the ideas set forth by the First Wave and disagreed with the ideas set forth by the Third Wave. When it comes to the Second Wave, I agree with some and disagree with others.

Could someone explain to me why especially in relation to dating? Christians go on about how marriage and sexuality is something that is suppose to be sacred and private...yet everyone in the family and their cousins are allowed to have a say in what happens in the love lives of adult children? Isn't there a difference between being under someone's authority and bending to every will and whim of this person in authority?

There are some Christian groups that believe that a woman must always be under the authority of a man. They don't believe in the concept of a woman "turning 18" and being her own boss. Instead, she remains at home under her father's guidance unless and until she gets married, and then she is under her husband. This idea is something I believe to be unbiblical. Most of these groups believe this to be God's will because there are descriptions of this lifestyle set-up described in the Bible. But there is a difference between description and prescription. I believe that sort of living has more to do with the cultural laws that were around at the time, and less to do with what God was actually condoning.

It also confirmed that - for me, in my life, personally - (careful, Christian) dating is better than courtship.

I 100% ditto this. I never saw anything especially Biblical or superior in the method of courtship anyway. Plus, I've seen it go sour too many times.

~Riella

Ithilwen - Feminism is feminism, period. There is no "old feminism" or "modern feminism". If other people have added other things in relation to the label, that's just it - it's added stuff; individual opinions and lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with feminism core ideals.

Actually, there are three different waves of feminism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

When I said I agreed with "old Feminism" but disagreed with "modern Feminism", I meant that I agreed with the ideas set forth by the First Wave and disagreed with the ideas set forth by the Third Wave. When it comes to the Second Wave, I agree with some and disagree with others.

Could someone explain to me why especially in relation to dating? Christians go on about how marriage and sexuality is something that is suppose to be sacred and private...yet everyone in the family and their cousins are allowed to have a say in what happens in the love lives of adult children? Isn't there a difference between being under someone's authority and bending to every will and whim of this person in authority?

There are some Christian groups that believe that a woman must always be under the authority of a man. They don't believe in the concept of a woman "turning 18" and being her own boss. Instead, she remains at home under her father's guidance unless and until she gets married, and then she is under her husband. This idea is something I believe to be unbiblical. Most of these groups believe this to be God's will because there are descriptions of this lifestyle set-up described in the Bible. But there is a difference between description and prescription. I believe that sort of living has more to do with the cultural laws that were around at the time, and less to do with what God was actually condoning.

It also confirmed that - for me, in my life, personally - (careful, Christian) dating is better than courtship.

I 100% ditto this. I never saw anything especially Biblical or superior in the method of courtship anyway. Plus, I've seen it go sour too many times.

~Riella

You don't need to identify with a subgroup - or even all of feminism's belief's - to be a feminist. I consider myself a feminist even though I disagree with many of the viewpoints within current feminism. Feminism is simply believing woman should be treated with respect and taken seriously, that if we are doing a job, we should be paid no different wages, and we deserve the same rights as men. Imo, anything else is simply fluff. Anyways, that's the last I'll say about that since it's kind of off-topic.

Okay, I misunderstood because at first I thought you were agreeing with it! But yeah, I agree that it's unbiblical. Every couple is different and needs to pray about what God wants for their unique situation; and they can only get that answer for themselves, not from anyone else. Parents can actually interfere with God's plans if they pass the boundary into meddling.

I have had internet friends get into courtships (and marriages that originated from courtships) that ended horribly. I think one internet friend who had a courtship actually ended well. The rest? Divorce, infidelity, scams, etc. Some have even turned away from Christianity altogether because of having such an awful experience. From what I've seen, the vast majority of courtships do not work at all.