|
|
|
|
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:16:09 PM | I took at the dear man part, now didn't I. 
Yeah, I saw you laughing, but not sure WHAT you were laughing at. You got pretty serious in this thread. Glad to see you have a sense of humor as well.
Good luck everyone! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:20:00 PM | verygreen: You started the insult train saying I'm the so called sad one. I suggest not saying anything if you're supposedly so easily wounded by someone else's opinion. Sorry if I wasn't aware that I have to turn the other cheek every time one of you directs smart as* comments at me.
What I posted was:
Sad to see that being mentally mature takes all of the fun out of falling in love.
Maybe I should have said, "It's sad to see........" If you take this as me calling you sad ~ well, so be it. Maybe I just find it sad to think within the confines of "maturity" as you stated it. I won't ever lose the "kid" in me. Mature??? I wrote that book. I had to be mature at a very young age, I still value being young, wide-eyed, in awe and alive (in all regards.) NO WHERE did I state you are "sad." 
~OT~ Speed dating....hmmmm, maybe that is what I need to try. Too bad I live in a geographical area where it's not likely something people do. I wonder if you can find instant chemistry in the grocery store, since that is about the only place I go anymore. Must evaluate this futher.  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:32:30 PM |
Kinda wonder why you're all here, instead of going to weekly speed dating events
All ridicule aside (and MizQ's reply that those are virtually blind dates), you may be onto something. My ideal setup would be a big singles event where every 'candidate' gets to say something about him-/herself, perhaps even gets quizzed by the event host about some topics, and where you have some mingling interaction afterwards (like a****ail party, not with tables and a clock). Eventually you could write down a 'score' for each member of the opposite sex, and the host could match those up anonymously and arrange for couplings that beat a certain score. I am just brainstorming, but if you know of something like this, I'll gladly leave this site and give it a shot. I am sure that those who 'click' would find each other that way.
Another thing that comes close is a beginners' dance class. You rotate partners and interact with them - they should have that for singles only...
I may be looking in all the wrong places, but at least I am looking. Speed dating would not be for me. It seems repetitive and rather non-selective. As a result of this thread, I am considering a second date with someone with low chemistry, how about that? | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:37:27 PM | Joe****r,****r spaniel,****doodledo,**** behavior...
Just testing, I was not aware of the censorship. I meant a "coketail party". | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:57:04 PM | On line dating is obviously different that meeting in the real world....I may give I guy a shot if I have seen him at the gym several times and chatted, or kept meeting him at a friends house where there was no implied pressure.( where I may not have found him attractive upon first meeting him) Lets face it people this is a dating site...dating mean you are attracted enough to see this person on a repeated basis.....now that attraction may mean a plethora of things to many people. With on line dating if you accept a second date you are usually saying hey I like you and attracted...it rarely happens
I know pretty quickly if this is a guy that I would want to see a second, third etc...times. If they guy had a way of putting me at ease so I could be myself, if he was genuinely funny and if he was attractive to me. I have dated all shapes, sizes and colors.....I will qualify that I am mostly attracted to men that take care of themselves physically and mentally and we can communicate well with each other. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:08:23 PM |
My ideal setup would be a big singles event where every 'candidate' gets to say something about him-/herself, perhaps even gets quizzed by the event host about some topics, and where you have some mingling interaction afterwards (like a****ail party, not with tables and a clock). Eventually you could write down a 'score' for each member of the opposite sex, and the host could match those up anonymously and arrange for couplings that beat a certain score.
Wow, to each their own, but that sounds absolutely awful to me. Every candidate gets up and gets to say something about him/herself, and perhaps gets quizzed by the event host? It sounds like some kind of weird cross between the personality portion of the Miss America pageant, and a trade show.
"Why yes, I'd just like to say that what I think is most important is world peace and everyone living in harmony. Thank you, thank you very much."  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:27:00 PM | "Miss America pageant"
Yes, but with a few twists: You don't have to wear a bikini (please don't), it is not just the women in the spotlight, and - most importantly - you are both judge AND contestant. And unlike the Miss America event, you don't just have one winner, you can have as many winners as couples match up. My idea would have one advantage: You don't have to repeat your 'stats' over and over again, one of the horrors of dating. You say it once for everyone to hear. The quizzing part I meant to be like a short personal interview, not a true quiz like 'who wants to be a millionaire'. I can see that shy people can be intimidated, so it is not for everyone. The Houston Natural Museum had a singles event after hours once (or perhaps more often). Great idea, but there was no guidance and no 'go to' person. The communication part did not go over too well, although lots of people showed up.
Perhaps you are right and the idea is not good, but it would surely beat sitting at home watching TV, and the odds of meeting someone would be significantly higher. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:54:06 PM | Instant chemistry is way too hard to explain but really does happen. I was at a Crystal Castles concert 2 nights ago, and me and a girl near me just stared at eachother by accident, I thought she looked adorable and we just smiled at the same time. Maybe we liked eachother's style, maybe we liked the show, who knows but it was there and we just started talking, and I felt like even if I was sounding like a goof, I could say anything to her and feel comfortable.
Now I will admit she was physically my type, but that's my type, not every other guys type, and I'm sure she felt the same way about me, but still chemistry is chemistry.
Maybe it's going to continue for a long long time, maybe not, but we're going out tomorrow night and like instant chemistry, it always happens when you least expect it, and it's the coolest thing ever.
I personally enjoy instant chemistry it's un-explainable but in my situations I've always followed my instincts and had some great turn-outs because of it.
As for online, I don't believe in online chemistry one bit, yes you might get to know someone, but real attraction can only be made by physically being there with them. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:19:29 PM | So, let me get this straight. You looked at each other by accident, you thought she looked adorable, you smiled and she was physically your type. Yep, that pretty much sounds like lust to me!  | |
|
| |
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:40:49 PM |
Yep, that pretty much sounds like lust to me!
I would define lust differently, but perhaps that is just me..Just let the poor lad enjoy his instant chemistry, will ya!  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:10:52 AM |
I agree that most mean "lust" when they say chemistry - but if there's no lust/attraction, then chemistry...which includes lust, is worthless to pursue, because it cannot exist for most people with that missing...you must first be attracted to take it any further. And my point was that if you don't need attraction to date, then you can date just about anyone, which would make being single questionable if your goal is to date/settle down. It'd be as easy as just dating the first person who shows interest in you...
well ofcourse there has to be attraction to take it further..BUT as I've been saying sometimes attraction does not develop right away, so as far as i'm concerned you are being close minded. To say if ther eis no attraction within the first few minutes etc. and not want to see teh guy again is being close minde dto me.. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:18:25 AM | ......lust can be felt via the eyes but chemistry happens when you are speaking to one another,liking what you hear and thinking " I could kiss that mouth, no problem!"....... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:28:34 AM |
So, what do all you lovely people that do not believe in the validity of instant chemistry suggest? Should we should just continue to date someone until we realize how fabulous they are? How long do you suggest we do that? A few months, forever?
Its simple...you dont need to wait a few months or what have you..BUt tthere is no way you can truly know someone by a matter of minute sor hours..or even one date sometimes..but usually if you spend quite a bit of time with the person..lets say 5 or more hours a week...within a 3 weeks (or there about) span would be a good idea to know if that person is someone you attracted to and could see yourself dating..if it takes you longer than that to figure that out, then I would say there is nothing there between the both of you..but its rather ridiculpus to figure that out withing minutes/hours..that's absurd.. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 4:36:09 AM | So, for the "instant chemistry" defenders, it would seem that the PERFECT way to find that special person would be the "speed dating" meetings, where you have 5-6 minutes with each person and then are forced to move to the next - and make a decision at the end of the evening who you want to date. Kinda wonder why you're all here, instead of going to weekly speed dating events.
You're quite right - it takes 6-8 minutes to know if I want to know more, so it'd be perfect. If I ever feel the need to actually search out a mate and they ever start having more of these in my area, yeah - it'd be exactly what I'd do.
I do this in everyday life....going about my business. I have attraction to someone, I talk to em. I don't I either don't notice them, or don't bother talking to them. Not as structured as speed dating, but same idea. Same thing I have done for years - long before online dating was going on.
My problem with online dating is that you don't know about attraction until you meet someone, so yeah - talking to them for a month or more can be a waste of time (well for them anyway, I have no problem being friends with someone I get along with but wouldn't date - but many men want dating or nothing). So I tend to do most of my dating (what little there is) offline.
well ofcourse there has to be attraction to take it further..BUT as I've been saying sometimes attraction does not develop right away, so as far as i'm concerned you are being close minded. To say if ther eis no attraction within the first few minutes etc. and not want to see teh guy again is being close minde dto me..
It shouldn't be closed minded to you just because you're wired differently. I just know if I am attracted to someone within about 5 minutes. I don't develop attraction over time if it's not there to begin with - it's either there or it's not, and I should know - I've tried the over time thing with men I WISHED I had attraction to; never works. Others may be wired differently, but for me, that's the way it's always been.
How about those of you who don't know right away NOT condemn those who do? To each their own....it's not a right and wrong thing, it's a "we're all different" thing. What do you care? Long as you do things in your life your way, it doesn't really matter what everyone else does.
And it's obvious you can't know someone completely in 5 minutes, but for those of us who experience instant attraction (or not) we know enough to know we don't NEED to know any more about them. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 5:01:49 AM | op, you posted,
So, let me get this straight. You looked at each other by accident, you thought she looked adorable, you smiled and she was physically your type. Yep, that pretty much sounds like lust to me!
i disagree with you....
the word adorable does not conjur up incredible sex, does it?
now if they had said, 'she looked 'hot', that would bring the idea of lust to my mind.
nope, to me she touched his heart and he just checked she was also his type so he didn't think of her as a child, perhaps, or something like an adorable kitten, or puppy.
now i can see, OP, perhaps, where some of your distortions are coming from. seems you are the one that sees everything with lust...and if so, are you demanding instant chemistry? do you define 'instant chemistry' purely in terms of lust factor? seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject.  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:02:11 AM |
seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject.
Yep, that's pretty much what several people have already said. A suggestion was made that POF add some sort of 'do you believe in instant chemistry' question to the personal description area of the profiles so that the 'believers' could find each other. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:09:07 AM |
but for those of us who experience instant attraction (or not) we know enough to know we don't NEED to know any more about them.
And there you have it, posters, modern dating in the internet age! "Hey, I've already spent 5 whole minutes of my time on you, I don't NEED to know any more about you!"
now i can see, OP, perhaps, where some of your distortions are coming from.
Earth to WeAre1: Disagreeing with your opinion doesn't mean my thoughts are "distortions." | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:11:25 AM |
It shouldn't be closed minded to you just because you're wired differently. I just know if I am attracted to someone within about 5 minutes. I don't develop attraction over time if it's not there to begin with - it's either there or it's not, and I should know - I've tried the over time thing with men I WISHED I had attraction to; never works. Others may be wired differently, but for me, that's the way it's always been.
How about those of you who don't know right away NOT condemn those who do? To each their own....it's not a right and wrong thing, it's a "we're all different" thing. What do you care? Long as you do things in your life your way, it doesn't really matter what everyone else does.
And it's obvious you can't know someone completely in 5 minutes, but for those of us who experience instant attraction (or not) we know enough to know we don't NEED to know any more about them. Agreed DJ. As I stated much earlier....I can NOT tell if there will be "chemistry" in a short time...but I CAN tell whether there will NOT be any. LOL! in fact...the last experiment lasted almost 25 years.....I was attracted, compatible...but the "chemistry" never happened. We corrected that mistake (with a divorce) and are still best friends....we just no longer pretend to feel something that doesn't exist. (and never did)
now i can see, OP, perhaps, where some of your distortions are coming from. seems you are the one that sees everything with lust...and if so, are you demanding instant chemistry? do you define 'instant chemistry' purely in terms of lust factor? seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject. I'd say that you've pretty well nailed it down WeAre! When a person sees everything in terms of "lust", they tend to think that everyone else thinks the same way. Indeed the key would seem to be in finding another who agrees on the subject. When someone who has no problem feeling lustful about everyone they run into; others who don't get those feeling quite so easily would seem odd to them.
LOL! Personally....I can't tell a thing about "chemistry" until the first kiss, but I'm not so narrow minded that I'm going to ridicule someone who may very well have much better tuned intuition than I have myself.
I seems rather pointless to argue about how some does...or doesn't feel about someone else. Do the reasons really matter....particularly if you only know them for 5 mins to 5 days? I would tend to think that if I were confident that I exuded sexual charm then I wouldn't worry about meeting someone with the "instant chemistry" demand. If I did not feel that I had those qualities...then I would simply forgo meeting them. What I wouldn't do.....is criticize their right to pick and choose by whatever methods seem to work best for THEM. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:16:46 AM | And there you have it, posters, modern dating in the internet age! "Hey, I've already spent 5 whole minutes of my time on you, I don't NEED to know any more about you!"
Nope, it's not modern at all, or internet related (which I already explained more than once). It's been like this for me since I can remember. It's life. IRL it's the same thing, except I don't talk to them in the first place if not attracted, cause - well, what's the point (romantically, anyway)? If I am interested I know with a brief conversation from a stranger I see out somewhere...in about 5-10 minutes I know if I have any interest in knowing them further.
Again, people only notice this now with the online thing, cause it's backwards here - they talk BEFORE meeting. If they met first there simply would just be no conversation if one wasn't interested...at least not leading to anything resembling a date. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:25:30 AM | Well, the first meeting has to be the start of the ice breaker. If not the ship will sink. I believe that chemistry has to be there from the get go and that includes lust for the person your are meeting. From there you build on the relationship if it goes that far. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:02:03 AM |
Nope, it's not modern at all, or internet related (which I already explained more than once). It's been like this for me since I can remember. It's life. IRL it's the same thing, except I don't talk to them in the first place if not attracted, cause - well, what's the point (romantically, anyway)? If I am interested I know with a brief conversation from a stranger I see out somewhere...in about 5-10 minutes I know if I have any interest in knowing them further. You probably don't even realize HOW right you really are about this DJ! It is NEITHER "modern" nor "internet related". My own grandparents met at church, and were married 6 days later. LOL! And my awesome Grandma....had to mail back the engagement ring to the fiance she broke up with to marry my Grandfather. Their "instant chemistry" didn't work though....the marriage only lasted 70 years.
A man I worked with years ago told me some really interesting stories about living in Italy, France and Belgium shortly after the end of WWII. I was rather amazed by their perceptions of "finding The One", but his logic seemed pretty sound. He came to the US in 1957 and found the "long engagement" thing really strange. It seemed that in post WWII Europe...with a lack of transportation, it was vital that they find "instant chemistry"...and in fact didn't "waste" any time if it was not present. The reason was that if (per his story) if you met a girl and things didn't click right away...it was too inconvenient to persue the matter further....as it was difficult to find transportation to meet someone...and most of the time he would have to walk 10 or more miles to meet a girl and wasn't going to make the trip more than 1 time if there was no "fireworks".
I actually think that it's quite the opposite of what the OP is trying to peddle....that is is the modern way....and due to internet availability that tends to lengthen the process, partially due to the fact that there might be something better waiting around the corner....so don't commit to admitting any "spark" too soon.....keep dragging things out as long as you possibly can. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:06:40 AM | I'm completely in agreement with DJChickie401 on this one.... I have met men and thought wow he is great looking...even HOT if you will....but after a conversation with him it went downhill and was not so good looking after all. I have met men who were not nearly as attractive but there was something unexpainable to me that I wanted to get know this person better.....Unless you have experienced chemistry its really hard to define...it is what it is. There have been men that I have dated that were nice looking and even really great...but that spark was missing...wanted it to work just didn't feel it and know amount of time would have changed that feeling.
I use to know this girl and she has dated quite a bit and she was the type that always liked having a boyfriend in her life whether they lasted a few months or it lead to marriage ( engaged 4 times...married twice.....and 6 live which did not inlcude the marriages or engaged guys...she is 44) She never experienced chemistry it was always about finding a guy...this one weekend she had three on line dates....she was determined to make one a boyfriend which she did do for a matter of about 2 months.
She is now engaged again.....and thinks this is the real thing....she has NO IDEA!!!!
She is "In Love with the idea of being In Love" as are many others. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:43:37 AM | I can't believe the range of arguments going on here, and how little people seem to be willing to consider the alternate side of the coin, even as a REMOTE possibility without dismissing it as "juvenile", "immature", "shallow", etc.
I agree with DJ Chickie's posts, so allow me to attempt an analogy to explain the "Instant Chemistry" position:
Imagine life as being washed down a strong stream, which forks at numerous points along the way. Each time a fork is encountered, you have the limited ability to either steer yourself left or right, not knowing where you ultimately will wind up until you get to the end. All you know is that there are multiple exit points at the end of the rapids: some that will leave you crushed and broken falling upon the rocks, others that result in a calm yet isolated lake, and a rare few that wash upon the shores of a beautiful beach.
These forks we encounter are the decisions we choose to make, be it 'yes' or 'no' to the people we cross paths with in life. We have no way of knowing where we'll wind up down the road; even people that travel a path together for years sometimes haven't a clue and wind up failing together, or a hard fork in the road forces them apart.
Where instant chemistry comes in to the argument is in that INITIAL decision at the first few forks in the road: left (no) or right (yes)? These initial yes/no answers allow a personal to INITIALLY classify what kind of relationship/connection they are attempting to establish with the other person:
(1) romantic interest (i.e. dating)
(2) fornication (i.e. purely sexual interest, the dreaded "nice shoes, wanna f^@k?" come-on)
(3) friendship (seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not sexually-desirable)
(4) network contact (they may prove useful to you in some way, business or personally)
(5) casual acquaintance (the annoying neighbour you nod to each morning to acknowledge their existence out of politeness)
(6) no relationship at all (i.e. you can't stand to be near them a moment longer)
I am of the belief that the physical attraction question ("would I or wouldn't I...") steers you into categories (1) & (2), or puts you in the groups (3) to (6). This is one aspect a lot of people CAN decide within the first 5 minutes.
However note that none of these categorizations are fixed in stone for the duration of your relationship. People grow and so do their relationships, and things can certainly shift (e.g. a friend that betrays you and becomes someone you never want to see again; or a friend you discover you've fallen in love with).
As we get to know the person over time (be it hours, days, weeks, months or years), the things we discover about them can shift their status as well. But I don't think most of us are willing to put in months of ROMANTIC effort with someone if we haven't at least classified them as romantically-desirable at the onset. Since this initial classification depends on attraction to at least SOME extent, I think it's fair to say that a portion of said romantic chemistry begins with the eyes (looks), proceeds to the ears (personality), and finishes with the heart (spirit/vibe/energy/aura etc.).   | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:03:03 AM |
But I don't think most of us are willing to put in months of ROMANTIC effort with someone if we haven't at least classified them as romantically-desirable at the onset.
I just love how many of you arguing for the instant chemistry thing feel the need to dramatically exaggerate in an effort to make the opposing argument sound bad. Absolutely no one has advocated that anyone put in "months of romantic effort" and in fact the only one mentioning any requirement of "months" of effort is from one of the instant-chemistry admirers who demands 4-6 months of email effort from the other party before showing up for a first meeting to make her 15 minute decision - so it would sure be nice if you all would quit bringing up that "months of romantic effort" red herring - its really beginning to stink. | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
