|
|
|
|
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:19:44 AM | Dallas I don't know about you brother, but I can't be bothered to read through the 12 pages of cow manure you and another female poster have bothered to post in here.
If you can actually find a way to take offense to my fairly level-headed post, you have been ranting on here far too long my friend... 
I even went so far as to say instant chemistry isn't infallible because relationships can be recategorized over their lifetime. However each person has their own personal limit as to how much time they're willing to put in before INITIAL (and by no means final) classifications are made. Some people take seconds, some minutes, some hours, some days, and yes some even take the dreaded "months / red-herring"... 
I don't have any more time to waste today trying to persuade you of this simple compromise - I actually have some real dates to go on that I met in the real world, which beats the heck out of this online crap in my humble opinion. I simply leave this profile open as a convenient self-renewing lottery ticket in the off chance the future Mrs. Woods happens to stumble across my profile and get a laugh... Only a fool would put all of his/her eggs in this fickle and often deranged basket we call online dating...  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:21:21 AM |
Only a fool would put all of his/her eggs in this fickle and often deranged basket we call online dating...
Some people will never understand this. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:44:46 AM |
Dallas I don't know about you brother, but I can't be bothered to read through the 12 pages of cow manure you and another female poster have bothered to post in here.
Tiger, looks like reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit today. First of all, generally its a great indication that someone has run out of good arguments when they are forced to stoop to the old name-calling tactic (cow manure.) Secondly, if you bothered to read before posting (which you admit you didn't) then you'd know it was more than two posters. And third, you say "you and another female poster, which would seem to think you believe I'm female. If you haven't yet figured out how to sort out the male vs. female posters/profiles here, then I do understand your issues with this online venue. 
I don't have any more time to waste today trying to persuade you of this simple compromise - I actually have some real dates to go on that I met in the real world, which beats the heck out of this online crap in my humble opinion. I simply leave this profile open as a convenient self-renewing lottery ticket in the off chance the future Mrs. Woods happens to stumble across my profile and get a laugh... Only a fool would put all of his/her eggs in this fickle and often deranged basket we call online dating...
Only a fool would ASSume that others are doing such, when absolutely no indication of such has been made. But then, I also have enough self-identity and worth to not have to use some famous person's name as my online dating identity too. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 11:38:25 AM |
Dallas Fischer went on to state:
Tiger, looks like reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit today. First of all, generally its a great indication that someone has run out of good arguments when they are forced to stoop to the old name-calling tactic (cow manure.) Secondly, if you bothered to read before posting (which you admit you didn't) then you'd know it was more than two posters. And third, you say "you and another female poster, which would seem to think you believe I'm female. If you haven't yet figured out how to sort out the male vs. female posters/profiles here, then I do understand your issues with this online venue.
(1) Not to go third-grader on you or anything (I know I'm younger than you), but didn't you basically liken my post about months of waiting as a tired and sorely abused "Red Herring" excuse? It would seem to me you threw the first slight my good man...
(2) I did in fact say I have not read the entire thread. I DID however read the OP when making my original comment on page 7, and then I simply scanned pages 7 through 12 inclusive and noticed how many times you and Merrylass (the female poster I was referring to) went on to berate anyone that disagreed with your opinion. 
(3) I did indeed make an atrocious grammatical error when I typed "you and another female poster"... That is my mistake, which I introduced during a quick edit. Originally I was going to mention some of the thread-monopolizing posters by name, namely you, MerryLass, GrandmaBooBoo, but as I scanned more of their posts I decided to drop names. However in my absent-mindedness I forgot to amend the plural female statement. I was not implying you were a woman, my apologies if you interpreted that as a slight... 
Only a fool would ASSume that others are doing such, when absolutely no indication of such has been made. But then, I also have enough self-identity and worth to not have to use some famous person's name as my online dating identity too.
(4) Once again I am fascinated how this thread and anything posted in it is invariable ALL ABOUT YOU... I didn't realize that every sentence of every post is necessarily speaking to you directly... I'll be sure to shout and spit the next time as well so it hits the mark 
(5) After flagging me on name-calling you go on to cast your own insinuations on my username? You are a living contradiction at that... 
Did you ever think I might simply be a golf fan? Or perhaps people have commented I look like the dude in the past? I didn't realize my username was riddled in such insecurity | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:36:29 PM |
berate anyone that disagreed with your opinion.
Sigh. It's bizarre that when someone clearly writes 'that is an immature attitude ', someone reads it as 'berating the poster'. You can change your attitude, therefore it's not a critical part of your identity, nor is it 'you'. Now if I posted, as someone else here did, that the op was 'ugly', that indeed is berating the poster. Nobody, however, took that poster to task. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 1:05:28 PM |
Sigh. It's bizarre that when someone clearly writes 'that is an immature attitude ', someone reads it as 'berating the poster'. You can change your attitude, therefore it's not a critical part of your identity, nor is it 'you'.
What I find "immature" is the presumption that the OTHER person's attitude is automatically the one that needs changing if it differs from another...
The philosophical aspects of morals and ethics often states that in the world of morality, there are few absolutes, almost everything is relative and subjective to the observer and the observed. About the only thing we can morally agree upon as a multi-cultural/religious society is The Golden Rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
This basic tenet implies that one can go about one's life with clear conscience so long as they're willing to subject themselves to the same manner in which they treat others. So if I subscribe to the belief that people can tell if they're interested in me within a brief period of time, then I should have no qualms sleeping at night if I subject them to the same principle...
Living according to one's own ideals (whatever they may be) without griping about the consequences is the truest measure of maturity in my books. But then again I'm only 28, so my naivety will probably go unheard of on here anyway... Oh how gray hair can't come soon enough in my case!
P.S.: Dallas my apologies for misspelling your user name (Dallas Flier, not Dallas Fischer), I guess we can add lexical oversights to the illiteracy and insecurity assessments of my character... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 4:45:24 PM |
If you can actually find a way to take offense to my fairly level-headed post, you have been ranting on here far too long my friend... I have always found this members posts to be as he describes....sensible and fair....even on the occassions that I have disagreed with them.
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. Totally agreed!
My impressions from the beginning have been that the thread was not to invite "discussion" but "agreement" only. I find it absurd to accuse one member of being incapable of reading what another was incapable of writing! Such blatent contradictions have proceeded throughout the thread and the makers of such have been unwilling to clarify, correct, or even amend their conflicting statements. Stating in the beginning that the post was NOT a generalization, (on one word) but then continuing to do exactly that with another word was, I suppose, intended to keep us from noticing the rash generalizations.
I'm not one to generalize, so will never say "all women" or even "most women" so lets just say that quite a few women I've met in my online dating experience and then
what most define as the (instant) chemistry they’re looking for is just another word for “lust” and has little to do with long-term compatibility.
I stated in my first post (message 177) that I AGREED with the original statemement...and ended up STILL being bashed for it....simply because I didn't agree with the more extreme notion that "chemistry" and lust were synonomyous. That would make it pretty clear that there was going to be a 0 tolerance for any deviation from the extreme.
My apologies to all if I seemed to be monopolizing.
I was going to mention some of the thread-monopolizing posters by name, namely you, MerryLass, GrandmaBooBoo, but as I scanned more of their posts I decided to drop names. As is appropriate in following forum rules. I would however like to note that while I did indeed take the flame bait Message #188
Both Grandmabooboo and Wonderingoutloud have cited extremes in their examples. Really, why bother. Of course nobody means that you should spend more time with someone who is obviously a boor right from the start.
What say we drop the extremes, which do nothing to forward this discussion, and deal with the more usual situation which is that you meet someone who does not make your heart (or loins) all tingly right at the start but who is seemingly a normal person, has all the front teeth, is neither hideous nor stunning but a regular average-looking normal human. and no less than 3 other events of having falsely quoted (credited by name [inappropriate and against the rules]with something that someone else wrote) and addressed the attacks directly in post # 215. You may also note that no admission or apology was made for falsely quoting or attributing to me personally what someone else said. But, such is to be expected when a hypothesis is on such shaky ground from the get go.
Perhaps had the argument been written in a less inflammatory way from the onset, much name calling could have been avoided; but then...that may have been the intended goal.
What I find "immature" is the presumption that the OTHER person's attitude is automatically the one that needs changing if it differs from another... LOL! Now, I agree with this statement SO wholeheartedly that even though I began reading this thread and essentially agreeing with the OP...that I have been persuaded to adopt the view that there must indeed be some earnest validity in this "instant chemistry" thing.....and I may in fact change my own profile to reflect it as one of my demands. It would seem that I am less in disagreement with the "instant chemistry" demand than I am with the arrogant accusations of those who deny it's existance and who do so by insinuating that those who do believe in it are sluts and morons! LOL! Tiger....you should give up golf and become a lawyer! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 5:13:23 PM | actually, gmabb - i'm thinking you should give up ------ and become a lawyer!! (seriously)
and, OP, i used the word 'distortions' in that post about your lustful views because, to me, they are.....just as I imagine you think my views are distortions too - compared to yours....that is if you read my views as I wrote them, or through the distorted lens of your perception.
i'm sorry if you took that word as a direct insult, for it seems you thought it was then valid to return one to me. ('earth to weare1'?)
i guess, once again, the fora comes through to show our true natures when our beliefs are challenged......what a shame we act like children so much and so obviously. (me included) | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 6:50:04 PM |
and no less than 3 other events of having falsely quoted (credited by name [inappropriate and against the rules]with something that someone else wrote) and addressed the attacks directly in post # 215
Wow. I have zero idea how you manage to read all that into what I write. You have the most amazing ability to infer things which have never been implied. It is you who are on the attack with all these fallacies and I'd appreciate it if you'd cut it out.
| |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 7:38:26 PM | back to the subject.
to me, asking for instant chemistry is like winning the lottery. the odds are against it.
better to be patient and take your time and wait for the chemistry to develop. people who are impatient are horrible partners to live with at times.
forget I.C.
be patient...it pays off!! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:25:54 PM | Just to steer the concept of 'instant chemistry' in a slightly different direction, both my best friend (male) and I (male) had instant chemistry with my neighbor (male), and we are all straight. We just instantly decided to have BBQs together, we liked each other's humor, and it was certainly neither about looks nor lust. Perhaps the term can be changed to 'instant connection', if chemistry is the wrong word.
Another example, why is a child adamant about one particular cat or dog out of the litter, when they are all born at the same time and look more or less the same? I could not tell one from the other, yet my son would spot his favorite from a mile away. It is hard to explain this with looks or lust, and he certainly did not spend the time to get to know them all better.
I liked the other poster's comparison to the stream with forks. And congratulations to yet another poster's grandparents, even though it was just a short seven-decade flash in the pan... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:59:48 PM | Chemistry is just that chemistry ...........and if you are good at science you can create attraction,actors do it all the time and it is not rocket science. Alot of women yatter on here about the timing of their retina zizzle with a first date but truthfully you could see zizzle that may not be there in the man you make eye contact with. If you both feel sexual, you feel sexual, that may not mean he is sexually attracted to you . Serial killers claim to have had great chemistry of sexual eye contact with their victims before they murdered them............ so chemistry can be lethal.
Actually if you have a good education in the brain then you can exercise and strengthen your sexual brain chemistry,it all begins in the left central hemispheres of the brain in the hippocampus. Both Discovery and Psychology Today have done articles on this subject and the ability to enhance the chemical connection between partners into something incredibly deeper .. it is not just there, it can develop thru knowledge,heck let's hope so or we would not develop long term mating processes. ( Individuals who act with impulse on instant chemical attraction are impulsive people who scare me, if I reacted to every guy that felt instant chemical attraction to me I would be six feet not six inches under. ) Chemistry as in instant attraction is not all it is cracked up (pun intended) to be . | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 10:43:22 PM | I always give it 2-3 dates/encounters before giving up. And for those guys you just feel like an idiot for not falling for, well, then it might go 6+.
But I'll be honest. I've never fallen in love with a guy that I didn't have that "instant chemistry" with. Dammit I've tried, but to no avail.
I don't think it's lust either. Lust fades. This type of chemistry doesn't seem to go away. I know I still get sparks with almost all of my ex boyfriends. We just seem to be on the same wavelength for a lack of a better word. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 11:42:13 PM | Well GrandmaBooBoo, You have just dumped years of "scientific" research and data, in favor of a "philosophy" on love. You are the learned one. Furthermore, what you are referring to is an approach to the emotion of love and relationship, not its stages, And by the way, Sternbergs theory on love, is used repeatedly in textbooks in universities world wide. So I don't think its been kicked to the curb, just yet.
You commented, "YES! That's exactly what "chemistry" is about.....personalities meshing and how you treat one another." I think that covers at least two of the tenents and very possibley three in Strenberg's Love Triangle...i.e. passion, intimacy, and commitment. When you are getting along with that person there is passion, and there is certainly intimacy, because when you are "meshing" with that person you are sharing initmate details about yourself, you are open. The final part of your statement, "how you treat one another, I think covers commitment. Let's face it, when you are commited to a person you do care how you treat that person and how you are treated.
Oh, and one other thing, "manipulating phrases." Did you ever think about being a tele-evangalist. I think you have future there. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 4:51:38 AM | WHOAAAA Nellie!!!! Please re-read the comment I made Isthison!
Good try, but you'll find that the "humanists" have pretty much dumped Sternbergs Love Model for their own watered down "Hathway" model....promoting a more "non emotional" practical "friendship" approach with has made "consummate love" rather the outcast instead of the ultimate goal to shoot for. (search threads, and you'll see that the votes run about 60% toward dumping "passion" as being considered a necessary requirement in "love".) FOR THE RECORD: I AGREED with your example of the Sternberg Model....and was....in sarcasm putting down the "humanistic" views (such as Hatfields...watered down version). I did so fully knowing that a large percentage of those posting here have ALSO posted in other threads that have supported that model as being MORE valid than Sternbergs.
Oh, and one other thing, "manipulating phrases." Did you ever think about being a tele-evangalist. I think you have future there. I did NOT manipulate the phrase, in fact....I applauded your effort, but went on to say that we're dealing HERE with a "humanist" viewpoint.....one in which those who oppose "chemistry", are the same as those who will argue with you that "Companionate love" (which LACKS the element of passion) IS THE HIGHER goal to shoot for.....above "Consummate love" (which contains all 3 elements)....because the later "love models" contend that ALL passion is fleeting....essentially denying that consummate love is even a possibility.
I DO personally disagree with them, but the first rule in delivering an effective persuasive argument is "knowing your audience".
LOL! Now....all that being said; and those who are familiar with my writing style KNOW that it is similar to that of Johnathan Swift....which uses the Rhetoric and sarcastic style which causes the read to hate me....but to have empathy for the subject. (A Modest Proposal....where Swift advocated that the Irish eat their children to solve the hunger problem) LOL! At times....when people are extremely closed minded...the only avenue in reaching them is to AGREE with them to such an exaggerated extent that they might hopefully seen the foolishness of their own beliefs.
Once again, WITHOUT any sarcasm.....I AGREE with the Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love....that without passion, the ULTIMATE style of love (Consummate) cannot exist. I do believe however that you will find that my hecklers will strenuously disagree with our accessment.
I believe you will find at the heart of their arguments is the theory that
Agapic love is self-sacrificing, all-encompassing love. Agapic lovers are often spiritual or religious people. Agapic lovers view their partners as blessings, and wish to take care of them.
Agapic lovers will remain faithful to their partners to avoid causing them pain, and will often wait patiently for their partners after a break-up. Marriage and children are sacred trusts, and sex is a gift between two people. Agapic love believes itself to be unconditional, though lovers taking an agapic stance to relationships risk suffering from inattention to their own needs.
The advantage of agapic love is its generosity. A disadvantage is that it can induce feelings of guilt or incompetence in a partner. In its deviant form, agape becomes martyrdom. Is this NOT afterall what's being pushed? To be "generous", to ignore the individuals own needs and desires (instant chemistry) in favor of giving the other person how ever long it takes them to convince you that they can inspire "chemistry"....eventually? Are not the insinuations that anyone who demands "chemistry" is morally bankrupt...thus proving that they themselves are spiritually above such things and therefore superior?
I think they end up looking a LONG time, and then if they DO find that (mutually), it doesn’t very often translate to a long-term relationship anyway. Such is internet dating, I’m afraid – its like a virtual “candy store” and there may always be *better* candy in the next display case over! If THAT doesn't sound like a televangalist prediction....then Brother....I don't know what does! | |
|
| WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:22:56 AM | some of us...can intuit differential calculus!
^^^^wouldn't you prefer a little discrete math to differential calculus.....hmm?! sounds a little sexier to me! | |
|
| |
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:48:21 AM | My last date I felt no chemistry in person, just as I felt none on the phone. He was a nice guy, but there was NOTHING there. No attraction, nothing.
^^^^funny you must have read my mind! i, too, have found if i feel nothing prior to the meet, i rarely feel anything upon meeting. there's a certain combination which has to be there for me to feel "it." often (aside from a base level of physical attractiveness & the guy having something going for him), he has to strike me in a certain way - almost as though he needs to compel me with his words even prior to the meet. i've felt it only twice online (sigh) and neither worked out (lol double sigh). hmm - isn't the 3rd time supposed to be the charm? lol | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 7:49:20 AM | | Chemistry and looks mean nothing it is what is in the inside that really counts. To the woman that say Chemistry and looks they will be single for a long time. Alot of people realize it's to late once they are in their 50s and still single and nobody wants them. I been with people overweight and skiny and I never go for chemistry and looks and never will because it is not important at all. To be excact I rather a bigger person because they don't think they are all of that like a skinny person or a stupid skiny blond that thinks her poop don't even stink which it does more than anybody elses. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:12:42 AM | It's really all plain and simple... How many men have the "5minute" expectations of a women on the first date???? OK say the guy only wants to get in your pants, at least he is willing to "get to know you" and show you a good time and make you feel good........ Where as a women will walk off after talking for 5 minutes..... Now you tell me who is the REAL "shallow one" .........(not all,but most) Women will never admit it, cause they can never be wrong or be the "bad" one..... Women can be the most shallow, cold hearted creatures on the earth. And women say that men are to "picky" and only want a model looking girl..... Women are more that way then men.... If there is only one thing a girl does not like about a guy(like "his eyebrows are to thick") she will blow him off like he never existed. But A guy is a "pig" if he does not love a fat women.  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:25:12 AM | | ^^It's a good thing you're not trying to meet any women, then - since they're so terrible and the root of all evil and all...if you were, that rant would have dropped your dating numbers dramatically. Whew! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:28:38 AM | | ^^^^^^ and you know what.... I have given up on trying to date.... it's pointless^^^^ Trying to find a girl then talk to her and make something meaningful of a relationship.... When I'm only being judged by my pic..... I do enjoy the fourms here though. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:36:14 AM | ok, OP, regarding your message 321 -seems you've gotten to the real point of your thread now and chosen finally to share your 'real' feelings here about women.....
and you're on a dating site why?
"Now you tell me who is the REAL "shallow one" .........(not all,but most) women will never admit it, cause they can never be wrong or be the "bad" one..... Women can be the most shallow, cold hearted creatures on the earth...."
from my life experience, i have learned people - both men and women, are capable of being shallow and egotistical, believing they are never wrong....and, thankfully, people - both men and women - are capable of being incredibly compassionate and loving and accepting of others and aware of their own and others' faults - though instant chemistry awareness (or not) to me is a gift and not a fault.
and why fault each other anyway? clearly the women here, i thought, were saying that it is not really in their control that they have found that illusive thing called chemistry is something that makes a difference to them - for me it's intuition - just something about the other's energy, as i said early on in a post here. and for me it's just self protection - i've been around enough negative and positive energy to know the difference and to know what i choose.
another exaggeration i think you seem stuck on is this women will walk away in 5 minutes....hmmm, many posts i read here by 'those' women actually said no, more like after the first date, or maybe two weeks, or at least an hour....but you keep repeating this like a child who just can't hear any truth that is not part of your preconceived and incredibly closed minded and hearted views.
i can see now why you started this thread - as a spring board into your expressing how much you can't stand this aspect of women....and all other aspects of women you don't like, while you're at it.
well, sir, it's been done before - over and over again here.
to me, people are people and all are capable of many things - from superficial impressions, to an intuitive knowing about others, even in the early stages of meeting. for example, i had a feeling you were really just as you are - a negative man with negative views that seem to be covering up your real pain - you've been quickly rejected by women and from your attitude, i can see why - you're not a nice person.
but instead of you looking at what in you might need improving, instead you get on here for pages and pages and bash women for what you believe is wrong with them.
well, sir, your attitude is nothing original to these forums and it's getting old, really...which is quite sad to me that so many share your views.
so again i ask - why in the world are you on a dating site? to dump all the shyt you've felt for years and here you think you found the perfect place?
well, it's perfect for it is showing many women to stay far away from you....and what's so ironic to me is you are showing exactly why women do reject you in 5 minutes - that in showing your true colors, you're actually proving your point of why some women treat you like this. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 8:54:11 AM | I'll say it yet again. Simply put, those who are yelling the most about people being shallow and not giving anyone a chance (chance for what I wonder?) are usually the ones on the recieving end.
And most of those people have been on the other end and NOT dated someone they weren't attracted to. And whether or not they tried to get past it, they probably knew they weren't pretty quickly.
Sure, some become attracted over time, but even those people see something about that person in the beginning that makes them want to hang around. Either way, how some do things is not how others do things.
well, it's perfect for it is showing many women to stay far away from you....and what's so ironic to me is you are showing exactly why women do reject you in 5 minutes - that in showing your true colors, you're actually proving your point of why women treat you like this (though i would never get so far as to meet you at all, so rejection in 5 minutes is really a moot point).
Thanks, WeAre1...my second point is that usually the person complaining about being judged has a crappy attitude and expects people to judge. Self fulfilling prophecies usually work...are you all sure it's your appearance/photo that's turning people off?
I've met many attractive people who think the world owes them something. That's just as ugly... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 9:06:42 AM |
ok, OP, regarding your message 321 -seems you've gotten to the real point of your thread now and chosen finally to share your 'real' feelings here about women.....
and you're on a dating site why?
Ouch! Message 321 is NOT from me, the OP! Please try to read a bit more carefully, huh? | |
|
|
| Page 13 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
