OK, we here sponsors of “The Artist Known as TBTO Until Someone Gives It a Better Name” are hoping that you, the home audience, are having a wonderful go at it. Someone you, however, we feel might need a bit of a push out the door. And no, not to buy more D cell batteries. (Hurry up on the naming thing; I'm about to give up and call the whole thing "Steve".)
In order to take back what’s rightfully yours, well, you need to find someone willing to give your inalienable rights to you. But how to do so? I’m not worried so much about the locale (bar, wedding, comic book convention, operating room, funeral, embedded with troops) as much as helping you identify the kind of guy who is willing to give you whatcha want, whatcha really, really want.
To do so requires the “Wading in the Velvet Sea Sexual ID Color Wheel”. Now, you’ve all probably grown up learning about the color wheel. Specifically, I’m talking about the primary and secondary colors of this wheel. Via the way that the eye sees light, red, blue, and green can be combined in essence to create any color in the world, but when mixed fifty-fifty, produce the secondary colors of cyan, magenta, and orange. What I’m going to do today is discuss the primary and secondary conditions under which the male will find someone shaggable. Like I said, this is a super scientific study here, backed my years of careful, analytical research, which is all a fancy way of saying that I thought about this on the train on the way home from work tonite.
On we go to our three Primary Sexual Identifications (PSIs). These are the three primary categories that men will assign to a woman if we find them at all desirable. Not everyone is necessarily assigned to one of these categories. Sorry. Life sucks, and so does Corey Haim. Moving right along...
Cute
OK, right off the bat we’re gonna delve into some sticky territory. The word “cute” has caused many arguments, fights, squabbles, even the “Pokemon” craze. Will the madness stop? Still, “cute” is a viable PSI. And we’re not going to dwell on the negative aspects of the word, just the positives. We’re trying to help you girls out here. If we were to dwell on the negative, well, I might tell you that “cute” is codeword for “I don’t have it in my heart to tell you I don’t find you in the least attractive, and could you stop hogging my oxygen?”
Confusingly enough, “cute” can also be a positive attribute, albeit the weakest of the three PSI, namely because it’s largely asexual. There are not too many guys who think, “Mmmmhmmm, break me off a piece of that cute girl.” (There are a few. Most of them play “Everquest”, though, and ladies, you can do better.) No, guys who think a girl is cute in this PSI think she is aesthetically pleasing, but in the way that a DVD player can be aesthetically pleasing. However, in the end, if given the choice of who to go home with (unless the girl comes with Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound), she’s gonna lose out.
Look, before you get all mad, ladies, think about all those guys you know who “really aren’t guys”. You don’t treat them sexually either. In fact, you usually go to them and tell them about all the great sex you’re having. This is the “Duckie Factor”. Thank you, Jon Cryer, for giving a name to men like this everywhere.
If you’re cute, we think you’re good-looking, we just don’t want to touch you, or would feel really, really bad about doing it. I had a female friend like this in college. Cute as a button. Smart as a whip. Long hair. Adorable. But that was it. Adorable. I used to tell Tim, “I’m fairly certain I lower her chances of getting into heaven simply by being near her; I sully her so.” And Tim would sigh and say, “Yes, for once, I agree with you. Now stop touching me.”
It’s better than being considered ugly, but in a way, you as girls might wish you were outright rejected as opposed to being treated like that movie that people rent when the ten flicks then really want are out. Yea, you could live with watching “Just Married”, but you really didn’t have it in mind when you left the house that you’d be going home with it.
Attractive
I labored over terming this category, and I’m not entirely happy with it, but hey, it’s my blog, and I have 6 DVDs worth of “Buffy Season 4” to wade through. Plus I'm pulling most of this so far out of my ass that I may have just picked my nose. A little slack is all I ask.
We’ve upped ourselves from “cute” with this PSI in that we’ve added a little bit o’ lust to the equation. In this case, we’ve got ourselves a classic, “Oh, who is THAT across the bar? I so need to tap that ass.” I didn’t say this would be pretty, girls; I only said it was the truth. I’m the freakin’ Morpheus of your orgasmic world. Let’s take a moment to contemplate how terrifying that is. Done? Me neither. I need a drink.
OK. Slightly sauced and ready to go back into the rabbit hole. What’s really lacking above all in this category is the personality aspect of the girl in question. It also brings up the dichotomy being finding someone “attractive” and “being attracted to someone”. Completely and utterly different things. I’ll argue this to my grave, along with the following:
- Radiohead is the greatest band alive today.
- Season 3 of Buffy can never be topped as a complete season of a television show.
- Being a die-hard Red Sox fan is the easiest path to martyrdom.
Sorry about that. Back to you ladies. Look, I find Jennifer Garner attractive. No secret. Ditto on Minnie Driver (especially when employing a British accent, sigh) and Eliza Dushku. But I’m not attracted to any of them. Why? Um, cuz I don’t freakin’ know ‘em, for start. Nothing gets my goat (or my cow, or my hyena, or my…) more than people who profess to love people they’ve never met. Goes for girls who swoon over Brad Pitt or the hottie at Ambercrombie and Fitch who folds jeans every other Tuesday. You’ve never met them! Hello! Argh. Did no one see that episode of “Growing Pains” where Kirk Cameron spends all night at the school dance googly-eyes over this hot chick, only to find out she was a ditz with a voice like Minnie Mouse on helium? Was Mr. Cameron’s warning all for naught? I feel a hate crime coming on.
Still, if a guy finds you attractive, you’ve got a good in there. Better than if he only finds you “cute” to be sure. Hopefully your breath doesn’t stink and you use complete sentences. Still, if you’re really attractive, these last two qualities are optional to say the least.
There’s no rhyme or reason to why a guy would find you attractive. Just is. He could spot you in sweats at a 9 am class slurping a Frappacino, in which case dear God don’t slurp! Or he could see you dressed to the nines in a club. Doesn’t matter. Something will click, and it’s up to you to reel him in from there with your personality. If you don’t have one, just buy one on eBay beforehand.
Sexy
Not to be confused with “sexual”, which is often a non-so-subtle euphemism for “slutty”. If you see a girl pole-dancing in a club…only there’s not actually a pole, that’s not sexy. Sexual, maybe, and the soda machine would probably be really appreciative if it only had cognizance, but still, not sexy.
Sexy is another PSI rife with intangibles. Sexy has a bit of an overlap with “cute” in that it can be largely based in your personality. And it varies, person to person. To me, someone who can quote lyrics back to me is sexy. To others, someone who bucks trends is sexy. Most people think confidence is sexy. Generally, “sexy” is an inner quality expressed externally in some way, shape, or form. It need not be physical. Sure, a guy with muscles is attractive, but girls find a guy with muscles who doesn’t show them off to be sexy. Nothing can be sexier than a girl who is attractive but doesn’t know it. (See how these start to blend?) Girls who hootchie themselves to the hilt again triple-jump over both “sexy” and “sexual” and land right on board the Ho Train. Ick. Very unsexy.
In short, it’s about attitude. It’s why some guys can pull off leather pants and others can’t. It’s why some girls can pull off belly shirts and others can’t. Only in extreme instances does physiology play any factor in determining if these articles of clothing “succeed” or not. It’s just kharma, an aura, whatever you wanna call it. Some people have it, others don’t, and it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
OK, digest this all for a day. Talk about it, discuss it. What do you think? This is science, people. We’re doing research for the betterment of humanity. Don’t take it lightly.
On Thursday, I’ll publish the secondary PSIs.