Have My Ideals Lost Me Romances

[Rejected Rosebud]

I don't think it will be hard for me to find a man who... feel attracted to me instantly, and where I also feel likewise.

 

Why can't two people get to know one another, when they feel instant sparks?

 

I think I asked you this before or it was in your other thread but you always are posting about Croatian, Chilean, Berlin, etc. guys and how wildly attracted you & they were - where are all these guys right now?

[Rejected Rosebud]

People are telling me to date men whom I meet and I feel no excitement or will to date - simply because I should "want" a partner and they may be really nice men.

 

Not one person has said anything like those things anywhere on this thread!! Nobody says you should want a partner for heavens sake, you are the one asking if you've lost out on romance, so we're thinking that's what you want!!! If you don't want romance and just want intense fireworks, you are on the right track right now.

[FitChick]

What is the 21st Century equivalent of "sounding like a broken record?"

[Leigh 87]

I think I asked you this before or it was in your other thread but you always are posting about Croatian, Chilean, Berlin, etc. guys and how wildly attracted you & they were - where are all these guys right now?

 

 

And it had nothing to do with the fact I felt instant sparks and chemistry with them.

 

It just didn't work out.

 

I will find more guys I feel chemistry with from day one and one of them will be the right mate for me.

 

Until then I will never date men who don't make me feel excited to date them, just for the sake of finding a partner.

 

I would rather be alone and wait out for a man I actually feel chemistry for and who will turn out to be a suitable partner.

[Leigh 87]

What is the 21st Century equivalent of "sounding like a broken record?"

 

 

 

It is not my fault people don't believe that it is possible to meet a partner whom you actually have chemistry with.

[Leigh 87]

Not one person has said anything like those things anywhere on this thread!! Nobody says you should want a partner for heavens sake, you are the one asking if you've lost out on romance, so we're thinking that's what you want!!! If you don't want romance and just want intense fireworks, you are on the right track right now.

 

 

I want intense fire works meaning, two people meeting and both feeling a good degree of chemistry upon first meeting one another.

 

I also want it to last with one of the guys I feel it for.

 

I obviously feel it for a decent amount of men so it shouldn't be hard to end up with a man who I indeed felt excited about from day one.

[MissBee]

In my own experience, ALL my boyfriends ( besides 2 from high school where things developed slowly because we were friends) were those who showed consistency and interest since day one and it was mutual. They didn't have to be hot and heavy, simply consistent.

 

Last boyfriend, our first date lasted from 12 noon until 5am, I went away for vacation, he had already planned our second date before I even went away. I got back we went out again on another long date, third date, he spent the night, we decided to not see other people and went from there.

 

Boyfriend before him, went on a date, had a good time, planned immediately to go out again. He called the next day and we met up 2 days later and went out again. Went out a third time, had dinner at his place. Some days later he called and suggested we be exclusive.

 

Boyfriend before him similar. Boyfriend before that was a little more complicated because it was long distance among other things. But in my own experience with all my boyfriends, they were pretty consistent since day one and I knew they were interested because they continued to make plans and followed through. Most of them also expressed that they were looking for a relationship, so their intentions were clear and it wasn't just a case of messing around and seeing what happens or not.

 

I've had other casual, ambiguous or FWB scenarios and the difference was in the consistency as well as the lack of being direct about wanting a relationship. With my FWB scenarios they never really said they wanted a relationship and seemed to be happy to go along with anything and the consistency wasn't there in the same way.

[Leigh 87]

normally when a guy who lives 2 hrs away does this it's because he thinks you're a sure thing and he is going to get lucky before long....

 

On the flip side.. if a guy is in to you he would move mountains..meaning he will do anything to spend time with you and it not be about the sex..

 

 

Can a guy feel that way after meeting a girl twice?

 

I like to think the guy who lives four hours away was genuine when he said he wanted to see where things go with us.

 

I take people at their face value until they prove me wrong.

 

If he never wants to meet again then I will know my answer.

[Leigh 87]

In my own experience, ALL my boyfriends ( besides 2 from high school where things developed slowly because we were friends) were those who showed consistency and interest since day one and it was mutual. They didn't have to be hot and heavy, simply consistent.

 

Last boyfriend, our first date lasted from 12 noon until 5am, I went away for vacation, he had already planned our second date before I even went away. I got back we went out again on another long date, third date, he spent the night, we decided to not see other people and went from there.

 

Boyfriend before him, went on a date, had a good time, planned immediately to go out again. He called the next day and we met up 2 days later and went out again. Went out a third time, had dinner at his place. Some days later he called and suggested we be exclusive.

 

Boyfriend before him similar. Boyfriend before that was a little more complicated because it was long distance among other things. But in my own experience with all my boyfriends, they were pretty consistent since day one and I knew they were interested because they continued to make plans and followed through. Most of them also expressed that they were looking for a relationship, so their intentions were clear and it wasn't just a case of messing around and seeing what happens or not.

 

I've had other casual, ambiguous or FWB scenarios and the difference was in the consistency as well as the lack of being direct about wanting a relationship. With my FWB scenarios they never really said they wanted a relationship and seemed to be happy to go along with anything and the consistency wasn't there in the same way.

 

This guy has kids 50% of the time and he lives 4 hours away.

 

I work 3 days per week on his week "off" from his kids.

 

Of the 4 days I am free, two of them he has band practice and the other he takes his kid to basketball.

 

So that leaves two days where he is free to see me every second week...

 

He has met me twice: he texts every day but that is all - last time I showed him he showed me his phone and his data usage - he had used all of his 500 worth of calls calling me the prior week leading up to our second meeting.

 

When he had credit he called me every night without fail and if I said goodnight before he called he was disappointed due to wanting to chat to me and looking forward to our chats.

 

I am assuming that after two meetings, he would know if he was into me and felt for me on a level deeper than sex.

 

I am going with he is just not that into me, but thinks I am really hot and is texting me because he enjoys our chats and thinks I am hot.

[Diezel]

It is not my fault people don't believe that it is possible to meet a partner whom you actually have chemistry with.

 

NO ONE is saying that.

 

You are twisting everything anyone says that doesn't fall in line with what YOU believe, which is why I keep repeating (along with some deleted posts apparently), that this thread has no point.

 

People are saying chemistry is important. YOU are saying you need this complete package of attributes and feelings that MUST happen immediately and if NOT, there is no go for the guy.

 

Chemistry doesn't always need to be instant. Some of my best relationships were also some of my most awkward first dates.

 

Now, when you say EVERYONE is misunderstanding you, I don't think the problem is EVERYONE. Look at the common denominator. The amount of black and white thinking on display is alarming, because people ARE giving you solid advice but it is falling on deaf ears.

 

If you are perfectly fine with being alone well into your 50's, have at it. No one is going to judge you on an anonymous internet forum for your life choices. But don't be that person looking back and blaming everyone else for the fact that you ended up alone. A big part of personal growth is introspection. All I see is externalization.

 

Your thread opened up a portal into introspection and I believed that maybe you wanted to learn from your past experiences, but all you continue to parrot is that you have experience dating and that no matter what your dating past has been, you will continue the same process... regardless of any clues/hints/tips that anyone here could possibly give you.

 

In my culture, they say that no one learns through others' experiences and only through their own mistakes. Learn away.

[Leigh 87]

The passionate type of sexual chemistry is most certainly instant and I don't think I am going to be alone well into my 50's if I seek out the instant chemistry.

 

I have felt instant chemistry with a lot of men in my life so it really isn't that uncommon.

 

I have learnt that instant chemistry makes for way more passionate making out and sex.

 

It is utter nonsense to think that I will be along for a long while simply because I want the instant chemistry.

[Leigh 87]

NO ONE is saying that.

 

You are twisting everything anyone says that doesn't fall in line with what YOU believe, which is why I keep repeating (along with some deleted posts apparently), that this thread has no point.

 

People are saying chemistry is important. YOU are saying you need this complete package of attributes and feelings that MUST happen immediately and if NOT, there is no go for the guy.

 

Chemistry doesn't always need to be instant. Some of my best relationships were also some of my most awkward first dates.

 

Yep and I am sure that you didn't have as passionate or intense sex with the girls you were " meh" about to begin with, then you did with the girls that, may have not been great long term partners, yet who you felt instant sparks for.

 

Instant chemistry isn't rare. It is not unlikely that I cannot find a suitable partner with a mate who I also had instant chemistry with.

 

 

Now, when you say EVERYONE is misunderstanding you, I don't think the problem is EVERYONE. Look at the common denominator. The amount of black and white thinking on display is alarming, because people ARE giving you solid advice but it is falling on deaf ears.

 

If you are perfectly fine with being alone well into your 50's, have at it. No one is going to judge you on an anonymous internet forum for your life choices. But don't be that person looking back and blaming everyone else for the fact that you ended up alone. A big part of personal growth is introspection. All I see is externalization.

 

I know who I am and I don't want to date men who I don't feel excited about dating - after the first date I need to feel excited for their texts... and dying to see them again.

 

I am not going to be alone into my 50's simply because I have a preference for the instant type of fire works and chemistry.

 

I also want a suitable partner so I will get to know the guys I have instant chemistry with before determining whether a relationship is probable and ideal.

 

Your thread opened up a portal into introspection and I believed that maybe you wanted to learn from your past experiences, but all you continue to parrot is that you have experience dating and that no matter what your dating past has been, you will continue the same process... regardless of any clues/hints/tips that anyone here could possibly give you.

 

But I don't need to date men I have no chemistry with in the hope of "building" chemistry over time.

 

Just because it worked well for you doesn't mean it is who I am.

 

In my culture, they say that no one learns through others' experiences and only through their own mistakes. Learn away.

 

I have not made mistakes that are bad - I have had long term R's, I have enjoyed dating and yeah I think my dating life has been successful in that I have learnt a lot, I know how to live with a man for years on end and I know what I want more than ever.

 

I know myself better than you do and I know that dating men I feel no instant sparks for wont help me -

I know I will be happier waiting for the dudes I feel chemistry for and then getting to know them slowly and taking it from there.

I am being true to myself and I know I can find love if I am sensible in how I handle the instant chemistry.

 

In fact - the guy I had instant chemistry with? From two weeks ago? Well we have decided to continue getting to know one another long distance and really getting to know one another outside the sex and passion we naturally generate. We have both learnt from out mistakes of rushing into relationships - We have decided that rather than rushing into relationships like we both have in the past - that we want to talk on the phone most nights, text throughout the day, and get to know each other very well before deciding if we want to take that step.

 

We had fireworks from the moment we spoke but we aren't stupidly dropping everything to pursue it. So as you can see me and this man are not repeating our mistakes of the past - and we are getting to know one another well before meeting again and deciding how compatible we are and what sort of emotional connection we share....

 

I think I have proven that I am perfectly happy to take things slowly with a man who I had fireworks and instant sparks with.

 

Initially I assumed that he just wasn't into me - due to, after our second meeting, he still texted every day but he wasn't as full on as he has two kids and has no free time to orchestrate me coming 4 hours down to stay with him in order to meet up with him again. He still texts me daily and acts genuinely interested to get to know me (we don't talk sex it is obvious that he wants to get to know me for me).

 

This man probably wont end up being the one for me, however, it has taught me to not only seek out men who I have instant sparks with, but to get to know them and not jump into things simply because we have great chemistry.

 

And in future I won't be sleeping with them after one week. As I did with this guy. Thankfully, he is showing through his actions that he wants to get to know me (we don't talk sex now) and he initiates texts daily and wants to chat about various topics.

 

He texts me during work whenever he find a spare moment too I noticed.

[Diezel]

Actually, some of the most passionate and intense sex I've ever had was with women that I developed stronger feelings for over time.

 

But what the hell do I know, I only have a penis and have been in longer term relationships, more than likely.

 

Why do you think so many men stop the pursuit once the act has been given up so immediately?

 

Stop defending, START THINKING.

[clia]

What if I meet another guy who lives a few hours away?

 

It's the same thing except you won't be able to see each other in person as frequently. But he should be planning for when the next time he can see you and getting that in his calendar and making plans. He should be calling on the phone and wanting to Skype and all of that to make up for not being able to see each other in person. Personally, I'm not a fan of long distance relationships and I think you should try to find a guy nearby.

 

And how soon after meeting someone who lives hours away can you expect them to stop dating others?

 

Meeting someone long distance throws a whole new wrench into things. I don't think you can expect to be exclusive or have a guy focus on only you as quickly when you aren't close enough for him to see you with any frequency.

 

In fact - the guy I had instant chemistry with? From two weeks ago? Well we have decided to continue getting to know one another long distance and really getting to know one another outside the sex and passion we naturally generate. We have both learnt from out mistakes of rushing into relationships - We have decided that rather than rushing into relationships like we both have in the past - that we want to talk on the phone most nights, text throughout the day, and get to know each other very well before deciding if we want to take that step.

 

We had fireworks from the moment we spoke but we aren't stupidly dropping everything to pursue it. So as you can see me and this man are not repeating our mistakes of the past - and we are getting to know one another well before meeting again and deciding how compatible we are and what sort of emotional connection we share....

 

I think I have proven that I am perfectly happy to take things slowly with a man who I had fireworks and instant sparks with.

 

Do you think things would be going slowly if he lived in your town? Would you be full stop, putting the brakes on sex if you were going on dates with him? I doubt it. You basically have no choice but to take things slow with him since you already agreed not to see each other again until after Christmas. So...I don't really think your current situation necessarily proves anything. Frankly, I think this guy sounds too busy for a long distance relationship anyway.

[insert_name]

Fireworks this, chemistry that, sparks the other.

 

Seems to me yet another example of the'instant gratification' culture that seems to be the hallmark of the young and single woman. Not that I can necessarily criticise as I suppose if you have the options and the patience then you can wait for that unicorn that pisses glitter to come riding over the horizon to your rescue.

 

But there does seem, to me, to be an all or nothing mentality about it. Instead of being open and receptive to all the people that one meets it becames about compartmentalising them into "hot" "and "not hot" and never the twain shall meet. When this happens, i feel that there is a real danger of "mugging oneself off" as the vernacular has it and its all fated to end at age 50 with all the other women singing the "where did all the good men go" blues.

 

Mind you, I should admit that I dont really understand the concept of chemistry and spark and all that. I have never hesrd a man talk about it as a prerequisite either as I dont think we necessarily look for something magical from our relationships. Maybe there is some correlation with the sort of cultural influences that are aimed at men and women.

[Rejected Rosebud]

Well the thing is that it's never going to work out, so the point of this all is pretty moot, I mean of course we often end up with somebody who we felt a spark for on first meeting but the way the OP is approaching the whole thing has nothing to do with reality and what relationships actually are.

[Weezy1973]

...and I know what I want more than ever.

 

Well this is a good start. Knowing what you want is half the battle - so kudos to you for getting closer to that goal.

 

I also don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting instant chemistry. The problem for you (and others like you) is that chemistry (or as you defined it - sexual attraction) is based on very superficial qualities. And when your sexual attraction is based on superficial qualities, it makes it a lot tougher to get into a meaningful long term relationship.

 

Sexual attraction that is based on superficial qualities is great for casual sex and FWB type relationships (as you have experienced).

 

Most of the women I know that are in successful long term relationships have their sexual attraction based on deeper qualities. They would never feel "instant" chemistry because it takes quite awhile to get to know someone well enough to discover those deeper qualities. I'm talking about things like integrity, empathy, compassion, reliability etc. If your sexual attraction is based on those things, you'll have a much easier time finding a long term relationship as you will quickly dismiss those people that don't have those qualities.

 

Alas, your sexual attraction is not based on those qualities - and as you've said you feel chemistry with A LOT of guys (and I'm guessing a lot of guys feel sexually attracted to you too!). Again - absolutely nothing wrong with that - it'll just make it a lot tougher for you to find that long term relationship. And it may indeed take until you're 50. Or you could meet someone tomorrow. Or you may never find them. That's just the lot in life you've got.

 

Unless of course you choose to change your behaviour regardless of your feelings.

[insert_name]

Well this is a good start. Knowing what you want is half the battle - so kudos to you for getting closer to that goal.

 

I also don't think there's anything wrong with you wanting instant chemistry. The problem for you (and others like you) is that chemistry (or as you defined it - sexual attraction) is based on very superficial qualities. And when your sexual attraction is based on superficial qualities, it makes it a lot tougher to get into a meaningful long term relationship.

 

Sexual attraction that is based on superficial qualities is great for casual sex and FWB type relationships (as you have experienced).

 

Most of the women I know that are in successful long term relationships have their sexual attraction based on deeper qualities. They would never feel "instant" chemistry because it takes quite awhile to get to know someone well enough to discover those deeper qualities. I'm talking about things like integrity, empathy, compassion, reliability etc. If your sexual attraction is based on those things, you'll have a much easier time finding a long term relationship as you will quickly dismiss those people that don't have those qualities.

 

Alas, your sexual attraction is not based on those qualities - and as you've said you feel chemistry with A LOT of guys (and I'm guessing a lot of guys feel sexually attracted to you too!). Again - absolutely nothing wrong with that - it'll just make it a lot tougher for you to find that long term relationship. And it may indeed take until you're 50. Or you could meet someone tomorrow. Or you may never find them. That's just the lot in life you've got.

 

Unless of course you choose to change your behaviour regardless of your feelings.

 

Well observed, I thought I was going mad with all this "instant chemistry!!1" nonsense. It doesnt seem to me that you can know there is REAL chemistry until you have truly got to know someone, you cant expect to get it when you first meet. The best connection I ever had was with a girl who I first thought was 'so so' and who after seeing her in 3 or 4 different contexts I realised was the hottest girl in the world both in terms of looks and personality, but there was certainly no "ZOMG we have soooo much chemistry!" when we first met and she still to this day is the girl of my dreams above and beyond women who I found far more attractive at first meet.

 

It seems that people who go for this instant attraction stuff are mistaking infatuation and lust with actual chemistry. True chemistry is a work in progress and you probabky wont even realise it until you have given them that chance

 

Again it all comes back to instant gratification. In my younger years pre smart phones dating was all about getting to know people and if you liked the person and got on well you would see each other a few times and give yourselves the chance to really get to know the person. With the rise in mobile technology our attention spans have got shorter, more emphasis has been put on beauty and style is now far more important that substance so 'dating' means something totally different. You have to win the girl over in the first 10 minutes mainly using your appearance before she can think of reasons to ditch you and move on to the next. Its bizarre and very sad, but thats how it goes and its not going to be changing anytime soon unless we can roll back the emphasis on our obsession with needing to feel some kind of instant magic with someone in order to justify seeing then again.

 

I can see the OP being back here in 10 years time when their outlook is, umm, how can I say this politely? A little more 'mature'...and admitting that the person that they fell for hardest was someone they didnt see coming and where the attraction and connection developed naturally.

[Leigh 87]

What I want is this simple:

 

For me to date a man, the following is essential :

 

When they text me after we first meet, I'll get excited.

 

Their texts will put me in a good mood instantly.

 

 

 

 

These are the men I won't accept a date with:

 

When they text me I feel the same way about the calls or text as I do when my friends or mother texts me.

 

Men I feel zero excitement about surrounding getting to know them better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't feel that I'm asking too much- to want aa partner who excites me when we first meet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ffireworks and passion isn't instant- you need a genuine connection for that and this comes with building trust.

[Leigh 87]

I am looking for instant zsxual fireworks and some excitement surrounding that person.

 

I'd like a man to be smitten with me relatively early on rather than being meh about me.

 

It's just a personal preference.

 

I don't think the passion has to be crazy intense immediately- you cannot feign true love and the passion that generates and true love doesn't happen instantly. ..

 

 

The love I was thinking has two ingredients: me being instantly excited about getting to know them better. Instant chemistry. Second ingredient: with a decent person who has good values and who interests me.

 

 

 

 

I'm not asking for too much. I don't have a physical type really nor do I care about their profession or pay check unless the cannot support themselves. ..

[Rejected Rosebud]

 

I'd like a man to be smitten with me relatively early on rather than being meh about me.

 

Give up on the smitten thing you should be more mature than that.

 

The love I was thinking has two ingredients: me being instantly excited about getting to know them better. Instant chemistry. Second ingredient: with a decent person who has good values and who interests me.

 

I'm not asking for too much. I don't have a physical type really nor do I care about their profession or pay check unless the cannot support themselves. ..

 

That part is all reasonable but a mature guy is not getting "smitten" he is getting attracted and interested in knowing you, you focus WAY too much on your ego and external things, why don't you try posting about relationships without using words like hot, smitten, wants me badly, etc and see what you come up with.

[Leigh 87]

Give up on the smitten thing you should be more mature than that.

 

 

 

That part is all reasonable but a mature guy is not getting "smitten" he is getting attracted and interested in knowing you, you focus WAY too much on your ego and external things, why don't you try posting about relationships without using words like hot, smitten, wants me badly, etc and see what you come up with.

 

 

 

Because most men do become smitten with some women. And it can even happen early on.

 

I happen to want to be that girl for the partner I end up with. Not just someone he met and wasn't that into to begin with.

 

 

This is perfectly reasonable. I don't have too high expectations since I don't care about their line of work or about their looks too much ( I'm not after a hottie I'm just as attracted to a erg we cute guys)

[Leigh 87]

Actually, some of the most passionate and intense sex I've ever had was with women that I developed stronger feelings for over time.

 

But what the hell do I know, I only have a penis and have been in longer term relationships, more than likely.

 

Why do you think so many men stop the pursuit once the act has been given up so immediately?

 

Stop defending, START THINKING.

 

Yeah I want someone I developed stronger feelings for over time but we have to be excited about seeing each other from day one and not just be meh whatever about it.

[Rejected Rosebud]

"Most men" get "smitten"? Has even one person, guy or girl gone along with your ideas about this here?

 

Report back in 25 years and let us know how your requirement for men being smitten with you worked out!

[Rejected Rosebud]

I thought I was smitten once. Turns out it was indigestion.

Or you bumped into a light post and were seeing stars!