Chapter 4 Exercises: The Language of Desire

Exercise 4.1 — Framework Application: One Scenario, Seven Lenses

Type: Individual written exercise (300–400 words) or small group discussion Time: 30–40 minutes

The Scenario: Priya, a 24-year-old Indian-American graduate student, meets Daniel, a 26-year-old white professional, at a mutual friend's party in Chicago. Priya notices she is strongly attracted to Daniel within about fifteen minutes of conversation. Later, she tells her roommate: "I don't know what it was — he was confident but not arrogant, and he actually listened when I talked. I felt this pull I haven't felt in a long time."

Your Task:

Apply each of the seven theoretical frameworks from this chapter to this scenario. For each framework, write 2–4 sentences that describe what that framework would highlight — and what it might not notice or explain.

  1. Evolutionary Psychology: What would Trivers or Buss emphasize about this attraction? What would they predict about Priya's preferences?
  2. Social Exchange Theory: What "calculations," conscious or unconscious, might be happening? What is each party's comparison level?
  3. Attachment Theory: What early relational patterns might shape how Priya interprets this pull? What might we need to know about her attachment history?
  4. Social Constructionism: What cultural scripts might be shaping Priya's experience? What narrative of "meeting someone" is she drawing on?
  5. Feminist Theory: How do power and gender structure this encounter? What is Priya permitted to want — and to show she wants?
  6. Queer Theory: What heteronormative assumptions does the scenario make? Would the analysis change if Priya were attracted to a nonbinary person, or to a woman?
  7. Intersectionality: How does Priya's position as an Indian-American woman shape what she can safely desire, who will find her desirable, and under what conditions? How does Daniel's whiteness factor in?

Reflection question (write one paragraph): After applying all seven lenses, which framework gave you the most insight that you hadn't originally considered? Which felt least adequate? Why?

Exercise 4.2 — Structured Debate: Nature vs. Nurture

Type: In-class debate with assigned positions Time: 20–25 minutes of debate + 10 minutes debrief

Setup: The instructor divides the class into two teams. One team argues the evolutionary psychology position, the other argues the social constructionist position — regardless of students' personal views. Both teams have 5 minutes to prepare.

The Prompt: "The kinds of partners that humans find attractive reflect universal biological imperatives more than culturally specific norms."

Team 1 (Evolutionary Position) should cite evidence from Buss's cross-cultural survey research, parental investment theory, cross-cultural consistency in attractiveness standards, and neurobiological findings.

Team 2 (Constructionist Position) should cite evidence of cultural variation in beauty standards across history and geography, the role of media and socialization in shaping preferences, and Illouz's analysis of romantic love under capitalism.

Rules: - Each team gets 4 minutes to make their opening case. - Each team gets 2 minutes to respond to the other team. - Each team gets 1 minute for a closing statement.

Debrief questions (full class): 1. Which arguments were hardest to counter? Why? 2. Were there points where both positions were, actually, simultaneously correct? 3. How would an intersectional framework change this debate? 4. Did anyone find themselves genuinely persuaded by a position they started out disagreeing with?

Exercise 4.3 — Personal Reflection: Which Framework Resonates?

Type: Private written reflection (not submitted unless student chooses) Length: 200–300 words Time: 15–20 minutes

Of the seven frameworks surveyed in this chapter, one probably resonated with you more than the others — it seemed to capture something true about your own experience of attraction, or it gave you language for something you had felt but hadn't been able to articulate.

Write a personal reflection that addresses the following:

  1. Which framework resonated most with you, and why? Try to be specific — what aspect of your experience or observation does this framework illuminate?
  2. Which framework felt most foreign or uncomfortable? Is the discomfort intellectual (you find it theoretically unconvincing) or emotional (it challenges something you believe or experience)? There's an important difference.
  3. Reflexivity check: The framework that resonates most with you may reflect your own social position. If you're someone for whom evolutionary psychology "just feels true," consider whether that feeling might be shaped by your gender, race, or cultural background. If constructionism resonates strongly, ask yourself whether there are biological dimensions of your attraction you're more comfortable setting aside.

This reflection is not asking you to abandon your intuitions — it is asking you to examine them.

Exercise 4.4 — Framework Detection in the Wild

Type: Individual homework assignment Due: Next class session

Instructions:

Find one article, editorial, or news story (from a mainstream publication, not an academic journal) that discusses romantic attraction, dating, or relationships. It could be a piece about dating apps, a feature on "what makes someone attractive," a personal essay about falling in love, or a culture piece on hookup culture.

Write a 200–300 word analysis that addresses:

  1. Identify the implicit framework: What theoretical framework does the article appear to operate within — even if the author doesn't use that language? Is it implicitly evolutionary ("men are wired to")? Implicitly constructionist ("society teaches us to")? A mix?
  2. What does this framework make visible? What aspects of attraction does the article illuminate by using this lens?
  3. What does this framework obscure? What questions does the article not ask, or what groups does it implicitly exclude from its analysis?
  4. Language check: Find at least one term in the article (attraction, desire, love, seduction, chemistry, etc.) and evaluate whether the author uses it precisely or conflates it with related concepts.

Be prepared to share your finding with the class. We will create a collective map of which frameworks appear most frequently in popular media coverage of attraction.

These exercises are designed to be pursued in parallel: the analytical exercises (4.1, 4.4) develop your ability to apply theoretical frameworks, the debate (4.2) forces you to argue from evidence rather than intuition, and the reflection (4.3) develops the reflexivity that is essential for studying human behavior ethically. None of these skills operates in isolation — rigorous analysis and honest self-examination are both necessary for this field.