Romantic attraction almost seems like it’s the easiest to explain, since everyone presumably has an idea of what romantic attraction is. But It’s not necessarily synonymous with love. For example, you can love your parents, a pet, or even a place/object important to you. But people aren’t typically romantically attracted to those things. Romantic attraction is more of an intrinsic desire to be with someone, to be a part of their life. It’s associated with the idea of mutual happiness. That comes with instincts of protectiveness and the desire for intimacy. The attraction can be seen as something formed from compatibility of personalities, interests, and goals. The bond formed by romantic attraction typically doesn’t break without a change to the status quo. I’ve been describing this as more or less between just two people, but this can also apply to polyamorous relationships. The only difference is that all participants share the romantic attraction equally. At the end of the day, romantic attractions are possessive by nature.

Let’s contrast this with platonic attraction. The very obvious difference is a lack of intimacy. Platonic attraction is kinda hard to define because as you start to list its characteristics, it will sound a lot like romantic attraction. But there is less of a possessive element to it. You have less of an investment in the other person’s life. You feel compelled to interact with them in friendly manners, but you do not necessarily want to become part of their lives. Another difference between romantic and platonic attraction is the gender element. This is more of a consequence of social norms, but preference in romantic partners is heavily influenced by gender preferences while platonic attraction is less so. Now I also want to point out platonic attraction isn’t a measure of how strong the friendship between two people is. I, for example, have plenty of friends who I get along with great and I enjoy their company. But there is no “pulling” force drawing me towards them. You can vibe with someone and find their personality pleasant without feeling platonic attraction towards them. Platonic attraction implies a greater level of engagement beyond social needs (as humans are naturally social creatures).

Sexual attraction is probably the most straightforward but still worth discussing. It should be noted that not everyone is capable of actually demonstrating sexual attraction. For example, some people may be asexual and do not see the appeal; others simply enjoy sex as a physical pleasure due to lust or biological impulse. In my opinion, real sexual attraction involves a desire for mutual pleasure. It’s not just about receiving satisfaction but also wanting satisfaction for the partner. Sexiness is a state of mind rather than just physical appearance. Compatibility in intercourse ultimately will determine a lot of how strong the sexual attraction between two individuals is. Biological and social norms obviously have a huge impact on the concept of sexual attraction, as the topic of gender identity and orientation is considered to be very important when it comes to choosing sexual partners.

I imagine what most people consider to be a “soul mate” would entail a sort of relationship that includes all three of these forms of attraction. But it is entirely possible for people to feel these attractions in isolation (or feeling just two out of the three). People are complex, not everyone wants the same thing. Understanding how people feel about each other is important for society as a whole.

Now I also want to point out that the concept of aesthetic/visual attraction exists. But I believe it’s a bit of a misnomer. Because I don’t think it’s actually a form of attraction. I think it’s in the same category as lust or finding someone’s personality pleasant. You wouldn’t really say your bond with someone increases the more attractive they are to you. It’s a preference sort of thing. Acknowledging beauty or sexiness or whatever other arbitrary aesthetic value is simply something that contributes to your perception of the person. It doesn’t necessarily strengthen your relationship with them the way the three former listed attractions do. I’m not saying using “attractive” to describe an aesthetically pleasing person is the wrong terminology. But I need to distinguishit from how I’m using the term attraction in the context of this discussion.