
This isn't dirty, I swear.
It's just that Powell and I were having that conversation again - that conversation about the importance of sexual attraction in a relationship - and whether or not our answer makes us shallow.
You see, Powell and I concur that sexual attraction is indeed important for the long-term survival of any relationship. But we also feel (are made to feel?) guilty about holding this opinion.
Why? Because most people fail to make the very important distinction between:
(1) needing to feel a sexual connection with someone, and
(2) only being able to feel a connection with someone who fulfills a very limited physical description.
Sexual attraction should not be confused with physical beauty.
The truth is, the men I have dated fall into all kinds of categories. Short, tall, skinny, fat, hairy, bald. Some of them had movie-star looks and bodies, while others had obviously spent too many hours in the library being fried by the bad lighting. But the truth is, I thought all of them were gorgeous, sexy creatures.
That sexual attraction was mostly the invisible workings of 'chemistry', but it was also based on word play, sense of humour, the ability to banter, and their willingness to explain new things. Who they were contributed to that sexual attraction as much as their kind eyes, the size and shape of their hands, their thighs, etc.
Sexual attraction is far more complex than most think. I know people who have very limited guidelines when it comes to a mate: "I need a guy who's at least six feet tall", "I can't date a girl who weighs more than 120lbs", "If he doesn't make at least 50K a year, I won't even talk to him".

Not only is this mindset narrow and unrealistic, but it doesn't take into account that some people don't find Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie remotely attractive. If sexual attraction was really that cut and dry, then wouldn't I too be swooning over Brangelina? Why is it that I find Clive Owen more appealing? Or Kate Winslet?
Sexual attraction should not be mistaken for lust-at-first-sight either.
And let's face it - sexual attraction isn't immediate either. Upon meeting one man years ago, I immediately thought, "Thank God, I don't find him attractive, there's no danger here," only to find myself wholly smitten four hours later. Smitten. Like a kitten. Meow!
You've known this since your youth, remember? In the classic tale, Beauty falls for the Beast not because the Beast harped incessantly on her good Catholic guilt until she caved. She falls in love with - becomes sexually attracted to - the Beast because of his kindness. The attraction wasn't there initially, but if it had not developed, there would be no story.
Without sexual attraction, there would be no reproduction, so don't knock it. And if someone tells you, "I'm just not feeling it", they are just not feeling it. Don't take it too personally.
If they say, "Hey Beanpole, why don't you come back when you've grown a butt worth grabbing," then I admit that may be a wee shallow.
But enough of me and my opinions - which side of the bed do you fall on?