This whole "chemistry" thing is not for some people

[irc333]

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that when I see a dating profile where a woman says (esp if she's over 40)......says, "There MUST be chemistry!" I immediately skip it because I personally believe it's malarky, BUT...it may not be...perhaps chemistry only works with certain people.

 

The reason I'm starting to think it's malarky is because I've been out with women where the chemistry was there...only to have them flake-out and do a 180 .....you know the type that run hot, then cold.

 

Something happened between the first date and being asked out on a 2nd date that caused her to change her mind , who knows, right?

 

But I figured that's just how they roll...but not me.

 

Right now I met a woman I started seeing that's taking the mantra of 'taking things slow' and better yet, we didn't meet online...but at a Meetup event....we've known each other on and off for a while, but decided to date. She wants to take things slow and I have no problem with it.

 

I believe I'm the time of becoming familiar with the person over time and not that instant spark stuff.

 

WE have kissed, cuddled, etc and started showing affection with each other. SHE even made the first move to kiss me. lol But this time, I"m not getting all "ga-ga" over her making the first move either.

 

That being said, don't you agree that the "instant chemistry" stuff is only for a certain group of people?

[Philosoraptor]

I never had instant chemistry until I met my fiancee. I've met great women in the past that I got along with, but something was much different from the moment I met her.

 

You're entitled to your own way of going about things, and with 3.5 billion females on the planet there are plenty who feel the same way as you. Dating is a numbers game and you need to keep talking to more and more of the opposite sex to increase your odds of finding a compatible match.

[GoodOnPaper]

That being said, don't you agree that the "instant chemistry" stuff is only for a certain group of people?

 

Yes -- at least when it comes to BOTH partners feeling such "instant chemistry". If you are good at attracting dating/sex partners in general, then maybe mutual "instant chemistry" is feasible. But if attraction is a struggle in general, then you are always going to be dealing with little chemistry overall or an imbalance where only you or your partner will feel such "chemistry".

[normal person]

 

The reason I'm starting to think it's malarky is because I've been out with women where the chemistry was there...only to have them flake-out and do a 180 .....you know the type that run hot, then cold.

 

Just because you have chemistry doesn't mean you fulfill all her other requirements. I'm sure you've got female friends with whom you could joke around and talk all day, but that alone doesn't necessarily make you relationship material or even attractive. It's simply one of several things that she's looking for.

 

 

That being said, don't you agree that the "instant chemistry" stuff is only for a certain group of people?

 

Some people experience it, some don't. I have.

[irc333]

Just because you have chemistry doesn't mean you fulfill all her other requirements. I'm sure you've got female friends with whom you could joke around and talk all day, but that alone doesn't necessarily make you relationship material or even attractive. It's simply one of several things that she's looking for.

 

 

 

 

Some people experience it, some don't. I have.

 

Have you known relationships or marriages that have formed out of non-spark/chemistry relationships? Perhaps there are relationships that formed out of long termed familiarity and letting them grow on you?

 

I think I'm one of those people.

 

I think I recall a post here that does it necessarily have to be all "ga-ga" or "rainbows" for there to be a potential relationship?

[iris219]

I believe I'm the time of becoming familiar with the person over time and not that instant spark stuff.

 

This ^ is chemistry. Whether it happens instantly, quickly, or over time, I believe everyone wants it. Are some people able to give up chemistry for sex or security? Sure, but I bet they are unhappy in their relationships.

[oldshirt]

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that when I see a dating profile where a woman says (esp if she's over 40)......says, "There MUST be chemistry!" I immediately skip it because I personally believe it's malarky, BUT...it may not be...perhaps chemistry only works with certain people.

 

 

IMHO skipping over someone because they want chemistry is shooting yourself in foot because everyone wants chemistry to one degree or another, including you.

 

Stating you must have chemistry is stating the obvious. You have to read between the lines a little bit. When someone says they must have chemistry, what they are really saying is even though someone may look compatible on paper, they aren't going to continue to see them for a long period of time if there isn't any spark after a reasonable period of time.

 

What is the undefined variable here is what that period of time is. for some people it may be one date or even one phone call or a number txts/emails. For other people it may be several dates or a number of weeks or even months.

 

eliminating people from consideration because they say that is kind of silly because your needs for chemistry is just as big as anyone else. You are just willing to put some time and effort into developing it where as some people want it right off the bat. eliminating people because they want chemistry is nothing more than eliminating people that you have something in common with.

[GoodOnPaper]

How can chemistry be separate from physical attraction? I don't get that -- for me, if there is intellectual chemistry then physical attraction will always accompany it. Women seem to be able to completely separate "chemistry" from their interest in dating/sex. I was burned many many times by that.

[irc333]

Well, we could just say that over 50% of marriages wind up in divorce anyways...so it's all moot. Not sure how many of those marriages started off when there was "chemistry" vs. those that did not.

 

I'm just saying, that those that started off with "chemistry" the relationship probably ended within months anyhow, so there was never even got as far as marriage.

 

 

IMHO skipping over someone because they want chemistry is shooting yourself in foot because everyone wants chemistry to one degree or another, including you.

 

Stating you must have chemistry is stating the obvious. You have to read between the lines a little bit. When someone says they must have chemistry, what they are really saying is even though someone may look compatible on paper, they aren't going to continue to see them for a long period of time if there isn't any spark after a reasonable period of time.

 

What is the undefined variable here is what that period of time is. for some people it may be one date or even one phone call or a number txts/emails. For other people it may be several dates or a number of weeks or even months.

 

eliminating people from consideration because they say that is kind of silly because your needs for chemistry is just as big as anyone else. You are just willing to put some time and effort into developing it where as some people want it right off the bat. eliminating people because they want chemistry is nothing more than eliminating people that you have something in common with.

[iris219]

How can chemistry be separate from physical attraction? I don't get that -- for me, if there is intellectual chemistry then physical attraction will always accompany it. Women seem to be able to completely separate "chemistry" from their interest in dating/sex. I was burned many many times by that.

 

Chemistry is beyond physical and intellectual attraction. It's entirely possible to find someone physically and/or intellectually attractive but not have chemistry with them. It's unfortunate when this happens, but it's common.

[irc333]

eliminating people from consideration because they say that is kind of silly because your needs for chemistry is just as big as anyone else. You are just willing to put some time and effort into developing it where as some people want it right off the bat. eliminating people because they want chemistry is nothing more than eliminating people that you have something in common with.

 

So you're saying that me "getting to know someone over time" vs. "Instant Chemistry" is one in the same? Not sure I follow.

 

I think we're splitting hairs here, but this reminds me of a situation where at a Meetup where some of us met up at a dance club in the area that we usually frequent. My friend brought a +1 to the event and was introduced to a handsome fireman, they started dancing together, immediately got close to each other on the dance floor and started to make out (heavy kissing)...then they left together.

 

What was that? Chemistry? or "instant" chemistry...or just two horn dogs running back to his/her place to bang it out?

[iris219]

What was that? Chemistry? or "instant" chemistry...or just two horn dogs running back to his/her place to bang it out?

 

That was alcohol and horniness.

[irc333]

That was alcohol and horniness.

 

Actually, they hadn't been drinking.

[spiderowl]

To me, chemistry means feeling a real connection with a guy, being able to communicate with him, feeling happy with him and wanting to see him again. If I don't feel that, he may be a good guy but he's not for me.

 

As individuals, we know when we feel good with someone, when they light up our day. If they don't, if their personality jars or their attitudes are hard to cope with, or they smell bad or whatever, we may say there is no chemistry. There just isn't that comfortable connection.

 

If someone says there's no chemistry, it means she hasn't felt that attraction, happiness and ease with you. It's no-one's fault. You could equally meet a woman two days later and feel that she doesn't appeal to you in some way. It is instinctive and natural. The sad thing is that chemistry can work for one but not the other. Not much you can do about that but just assume that if that natural attraction is there for both of you, it will work out. Mismatches don't work, it's just the way it is.

[irc333]

The reason I had poo-pooed the idea of "Chemistry" is because I had situations, where I had gotten real excited about a first date as opposed to the dull ones where it was mutual that there simply was NOT a connection.

 

We'd be laughing, flirting, joking around, banter was excellent, I had a woman even call me when I got home to talk some more. And had agreed that MOST definitely she wanted to see me again.

 

These situations I could only count on 1 hand

 

I KNEW was a complete shoe-in for a 2nd date....then come the come the next phone call for a 2nd date....no return call, no answer, goes completely off radar.

 

She basically flaked.

 

Again, that's why I poo-poo the idea that chemistry isn't for some people

 

I'm sure this makes sense that some of these women may be of the impulsive variety or serial daters or something isn't right upstairs either.

 

 

 

 

To me, chemistry means feeling a real connection with a guy, being able to communicate with him, feeling happy with him and wanting to see him again. If I don't feel that, he may be a good guy but he's not for me.

 

As individuals, we know when we feel good with someone, when they light up our day. If they don't, if their personality jars or their attitudes are hard to cope with, or they smell bad or whatever, we may say there is no chemistry. There just isn't that comfortable connection.

 

If someone says there's no chemistry, it means she hasn't felt that attraction, happiness and ease with you. It's no-one's fault. You could equally meet a woman two days later and feel that she doesn't appeal to you in some way. It is instinctive and natural. The sad thing is that chemistry can work for one but not the other. Not much you can do about that but just assume that if that natural attraction is there for both of you, it will work out. Mismatches don't work, it's just the way it is.

[Kate9292]

The reason I had poo-pooed the idea of "Chemistry" is because I had situations, where I had gotten real excited about a first date as opposed to the dull ones where it was mutual that there simply was NOT a connection.

 

We'd be laughing, flirting, joking around, banter was excellent, I had a woman even call me when I got home to talk some more. And had agreed that MOST definitely she wanted to see me again.

 

These situations I could only count on 1 hand

 

I KNEW was a complete shoe-in for a 2nd date....then come the come the next phone call for a 2nd date....no return call, no answer, goes completely off radar.

 

She basically flaked.

 

Again, that's why I poo-poo the idea that chemistry isn't for some people

 

I'm sure this makes sense that some of these women may be of the impulsive variety or serial daters or something isn't right upstairs either.

 

Or it could be that something happened in woman's life and she was no longer in a mood for dating for a while. Unfortunate but it happens...

[MissBee]

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that when I see a dating profile where a woman says (esp if she's over 40)......says, "There MUST be chemistry!" I immediately skip it because I personally believe it's malarky, BUT...it may not be...perhaps chemistry only works with certain people.

 

The reason I'm starting to think it's malarky is because I've been out with women where the chemistry was there...only to have them flake-out and do a 180 .....you know the type that run hot, then cold.

 

Something happened between the first date and being asked out on a 2nd date that caused her to change her mind , who knows, right?

 

But I figured that's just how they roll...but not me.

 

Right now I met a woman I started seeing that's taking the mantra of 'taking things slow' and better yet, we didn't meet online...but at a Meetup event....we've known each other on and off for a while, but decided to date. She wants to take things slow and I have no problem with it.

 

I believe I'm the time of becoming familiar with the person over time and not that instant spark stuff.

 

WE have kissed, cuddled, etc and started showing affection with each other. SHE even made the first move to kiss me. lol But this time, I"m not getting all "ga-ga" over her making the first move either.

 

That being said, don't you agree that the "instant chemistry" stuff is only for a certain group of people?

 

 

Chemistry doesn't guarantee a relationship or another date, but having none certainly decreases chances significantly, while having some increases it.

 

If I am already friends with a man in real life, then chemistry may get a chance to build over time, where he goes from a friend to me seeing him as more and our feelings changing, but if I am going out on dates with men I haven't known, I am way less inclined to want to see you again if upon meeting we don't vibe. For me chemistry isn't about magic or love at first sight, it's do we vibe? Can we talk comfortably? Laugh? I'm not watching the clock, don't want the night to end, want to know more about you? If not..I am not gonna wanna see you again. So it's really about me feeling good with you and wanting more of your time...I can't fake that or force that.

[irc333]

Right, I'm more of the mantra of becoming familiar with the person over time, not into the whole "our eyes connected from across the room and it was magic!" stuff

 

 

Chemistry doesn't guarantee a relationship or another date, but having none certainly decreases chances significantly, while having some increases it.

 

If I am already friends with a man in real life, then chemistry may get a chance to build over time, where he goes from a friend to me seeing him as more and our feelings changing, but if I am going out on dates with men I haven't known, I am way less inclined to want to see you again if upon meeting we don't vibe. For me chemistry isn't about magic or love at first sight, it's do we vibe? Can we talk comfortably? Laugh? I'm not watching the clock, don't want the night to end, want to know more about you? If not..I am not gonna wanna see you again. So it's really about me feeling good with you and wanting more of your time...I can't fake that or force that.

[Els]

If it's not for you, then it's not for you. Not sure how anyone else could convince you otherwise - you probably know what you want better than anyone else.

 

You're not entitled to a woman who thinks the same way, though.

[Woggle]

If I were single I would stay clear of women who too much stock in chemistry. Not to say that it doesn't matter but for people who base everything on it it is not a stable thing at all. It very much ebbs and flows and one day she will be crazy about you and the next day her feelings are gone. A committed relationship is a huge investment in my book and I am not making a huge investment in something so unstable.

[man_in_the_box]

Considering that I'll probably major in chemical engineering next summer I'm definitely a 'chemistry person'.

[Shepp]

I think it'd one of therm things that once you taste you want, and until then you don't get the fuss!

 

Chemistry is not on my list of things I look for In a girl but Back when trying to get my gf to be my gf was 2 steps forward 1.89 steps back, there were other girls who wren intrested they were lovely girls, pretty, nice, steady, easy to talk too and uncomplicated!

A few there only fault was quite simply they just weren't her!

 

Cause with her it was all that corny *****, it was electric, it felt right, I guess we had awesome chemistry.

She was, she is, my firework - she shakes my world up, and compared to that pretty, nice, steady, uncomplicated just wasn't enough!

 

I've got some great girl mates, wicked girls but with my gf it is that 'catch my eye in a crowded room and my breath catches' even after knowing her over 5 years.

[irc333]

Right, one common thing with women (and I notice men don't much stock into it) is I think they are trying to compare their lives to a romantic comedy or something or just a romance (Sleepless in Seattle).

 

I am currently seeing a woman that enjoys my company as I do hers, she's wanting to take things slow and not relying on this "instant chemistry" crap that dies out at a wink the same way a kid gets tired of a new toy.

 

 

If I were single I would stay clear of women who too much stock in chemistry. Not to say that it doesn't matter but for people who base everything on it it is not a stable thing at all. It very much ebbs and flows and one day she will be crazy about you and the next day her feelings are gone. A committed relationship is a huge investment in my book and I am not making a huge investment in something so unstable.

 

I think it'd one of therm things that once you taste you want, and until then you don't get the fuss!

 

I've actually experienced "chemistry" in the past, only to have the woman bail on me at a whim. It's highly disappointing.

Edited November 2, 2013 by irc333

[d0nnivain]

I have always needed both to maintain a relationship. If I didn't feel instant chemistry with the person I learned not to even accept the 1st date invitation because when it came time for the goodnight kiss I wasn't going to able to go through with it. The two times I tried it, was just awful.

 

If the instant attraction was there, I would keep talking to the guy to find out what kind of a person he was. I would go slow & get to know him before taking anything farther than a few hugs, kisses & cuddles. I usually keep the 1st few dates very public so even if I'm tempted by the chemistry, there is no way to act on it.

[irc333]

I learned not to even accept the 1st date invitation

 

That's kind of silly, don't you think? At least go out with them that one time, see what they are like, give them a chance as opposed to writing them off immediately like that?