| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 4:45:07 PM | I think many think chemistry and lust are the same thing, I don't happen to. Chemistry is the electric side of compatibility, while lust is either wanting to get laid and hey that person looks doable or seeing someone who happens to look or act in a way that turns you on. But it's not much to build anything on other than some hot times. I have zero idea how I could possible know if I have real chemistry with someone in 5 min. heck 5 months might not be enough, I'd first have to get to know the person in all kinds of situations. People make up stuff just to cover their basic need to get laid, I think this 5 min. stuff is just part of the excuse pattern.  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 4:48:53 PM |
So, what says the POF community? Are you looking for that "first 5 minute fireworks" and is it a total showstopper if its not there that quickly? I can tell within the first 5 minutes if there will be chemistry between us. That does not mean that I will run straight to bed with that man ... it just means to me that eventually it could happen.
I do know people that need 6 months or more to find out whether or not they think they might be able to have a relationship with a person. If I needed that much time to decide such things ... well I just don't know how that would work. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 4:58:00 PM | | In my opinion, the only thing the first 5 minutes can tell you is if that person meets the minimum level of attraction you have set. Instant chemistry as in some "deep connection" just will not come that quickly. I hate to say it but yes I don't think I will say "lust" but it is a code word for attraction used many times by people who are uncomfortable admitting that the physical aspect plays such a major part in their decision. | |
|
| WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:00:14 PM | HAHAHA!!!
some of us...can intuit differential calculus! The trouble was working backwards to show the requisite work....took me a semester of flunking before i mastered the art of cooking the work.
if someone is representing themselves as 150 lbs..but are 225...THATS a "physics" rejection/attraction.
if someones oral hygiene or BO is untenable, that is biology.
if someone is uber-hot and boinkable despite the other two...THATS CHEMISTRY hahahaha | |
|
| WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:13:48 PM | if someone is representing themselves as 150 lbs..but are 225...THATS a "physics" rejection/attraction.
if someones oral hygiene or BO is untenable, that is biology.
if someone is uber-hot and boinkable despite the other two...THATS CHEMISTRY hahahaha
LOL
I might agree with this to a degree, however, he better be able to boink my mind before he even thinks about boinking anything else.  | |
|
| WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:57:32 PM | Op writes, “I find that my actual perception of someone’s physical attraction changes for better or worse, as I get to know them and their personality and who they are. And I’m a firm believer in that old saying about the primary sex organ being the brain….”
Agreed!
“All those "middle ground" meetings for me, are worth meeting at least 2-3 times to get to know them and see how feelings do or don't develop.”
Sorry, I don't agree with meeting 2 - 3 times...etc. This past winter I met someone from POF and we had a strong initial mental chemistry, but truth be told, I wasn’t attracted to the person’s picture. We met for coffee one night and later the same week met for dinner. In doing this, I finally put to rest (at least within me) the acknowledgement that if the attraction doesn’t exist in all areas, despite the importance to me of a mental connection – it really would be next to impossible for me to change on this later. I really should have declined the 2nd date as I knew then that those feelings were never present and would never manifest, but I wanted to give it a chance.
As a result I’m now dating much less but much more discriminately, as I do not agree to go on a date or meeting anyone with whom I don't share an attraction on all levels prior to meeting. Meaning, if I’m on a date with someone now, I find them attractive, ‘on paper’ and through our initial email/phone interactions. And yes, contrary to your perspective, chemistry can come on just like that!! Usually within 5 minutes or less I have an idea of whether or not romance is possible. This may not necessarily suggest that this person will even be a romantic interest---just one that I could proceed to get to know romantically. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:13:25 PM |
Begs the question lateef...how do we determine which relationships are NOT based on some little-understood "chemistry" phenomenon?
And then...do THOSE relationships (if they could be identified as non-"chemistry" based attraction) last longer?
complex question indeed...how would such be proven using scientific/empirical/repeatable/observable methods?
Difficult designing such a study.....
Actually it could be studied scientifically. But, most of the data would be based on anecdotal stories. Which is what I base my opinion on.
My mom had no "chemistry" whatsoever with my dad. She though he was the biggest bore she had ever known. He kept after her until she went out with him. It took time, but her feelings grew. She always said she never thought she'd love a man like him. But, she is so glad she gave him a chance because she never loved a man like she loved him. They were together till he died. I've heard similar stories from quite a few people who've been married "till death did them part."
Now, of course I'm not talking about people with bad hygiene or something like that. I'm referring to that old saying, "He (or she) is cute. There just isn't that spark."
And to the poster who doesn't define a successful relationship by marriage, thats fine too. But, I think you may be in the minority with that one. And if you are not in the minority, then I think it says a lot about the current state of romantic intimacy in this country. To me, if you're not shooting for the eventual goal of marriage, then why date exclusively? In reality, you are only in it as long as the situation is convenient for you. Thats not the kind of commitment I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind of commitment that makes you find a way back to each other even though you have grown apart. I'm talking about the kind of devotion that makes you find a way to stay in love with a person you cannot stand the site of anymore.
Of course, I'm not talking about staying in an abusive or unfaithful relationship. And for that kind of devotion to work, both parties have to be committed to making their way back to love. But in the end, that is the kind of love that endures and "instant chemistry," as it is defined here, has nothing to do with it.
I'll ask this question; How has that whole "instant chemistry" thing been working out for you? Why is it that the majority of people who rely on "chemistry" are in their thirties or older, divorced or bouncing from relationship to relationship? I've heard it said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, but expecting a different result.
Lateef | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:32:49 PM | I know what you mean, it seems like everyone's looking for the instant skyrockets and fireworks, and if that isnt there in the first half hour, SEE YA. That's ok, though, because it weeds out the flakes and the dimwits. I can't tell you how many times I hear someone say "we fell in LUVVVVVV on our first date, but now he's being so distant!" Well DUH, the only thing you fell into on your first date was the skyrockets. Skyrockets eventually fizzle, and if that's all you are looking for, you have to keep looking for them with someone new all the time!
The kind of chemistry those women are referring to in their profiles has nothing to do with a relationship..."Chemistry" is fun and exciting, but if that's all you have, what's left when the "new" wears off? | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:44:40 PM | "To me, if you're not shooting for the eventual goal of marriage, then why date exclusively? In reality, you are only in it as long as the situation is convenient for you. That’s not the kind of commitment I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind of commitment that makes you find a way back to each other even though you have grown apart. I'm talking about the kind of devotion that makes you find a way to stay in love with a person you cannot stand the sight of anymore. "
".... But in the end, that is the kind of love that endures and "instant chemistry," as it is defined here, has nothing to do with it. "
Your points are interesting and well made lateef.
However, I'm of the opinion that in my case, I'll spend more time at the 'front end' of the process -- getting to know the person on a few more levels -- gauging compatibility and romantic potential. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:59:56 PM | ^ ^ ^
Sorry, I don't agree with meeting 2 - 3 times...etc...I really should have declined the 2nd date as I knew then that those feelings were never present and would never manifest, but I wanted to give it a chance...Usually within 5 minutes or less I have an idea of whether or not romance is possible.
and
However, I'm of the opinion that in my case, I'll spend more time at the 'front end' of the process -- getting to know the person on a few more levels -- gauging compatibility and romantic potential.
I'm feeling a bit ditzy today, but the above two quotes seem to be in conflict. I'm lost. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:13:42 PM | For myself....I know immediately the second I set eyes on you as to whether or not I might REMOTELY ever want to sleep with you.
But it is what you SAY after the first second that will determine if I ever date you.
My experience has been...unfortunately....that most often, the prettier the man, the less one wants to be around him. I find this to be a conundrum....for I either have to settle for someone I'm not remotely physically attracted to.....or I have to accept that the physically attractive man is about as interesting and enjoyable to be around as a cow pattie.
Which is why I am single. And not looking.
In the OP's case...it is more that if a woman meets him and cannot see herself having sex with him, he never will get past square one. Period. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:32:05 PM |
My experience has been...unfortunately....that most often, the prettier the man, the less one wants to be around him. I find this to be a conundrum....for I either have to settle for someone I'm not remotely physically attracted to.....or I have to accept that the physically attractive man is about as interesting and enjoyable to be around as a cow pattie.
In some cultures, cow patties have their uses ...lol
In the OP's case...it is more that if a woman meets him and cannot see herself having sex with him, he never will get past square one. Period.
Thats my point. If a you are basing a potential mate on weather you will have sex with him or her, you are setting yourself up for problems. That's not to say a person should be with someone they find repulsive. But, if someone's just average with an OK personality, there could be things about that person, that if you took the time to really get to know them, would make you go "Wow! This guy/girl is great!" They may have traits that you didn't even know you wanted. Traits that you would be hard pressed to find in anyone else.
Lateef | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:42:44 PM |
I find this to be a conundrum....for I either have to settle for someone I'm not remotely physically attracted to.....or I have to accept that the physically attractive man is about as interesting and enjoyable to be around as a cow pattie.
Hmm, most of us are farked then.
I think PoF would be well served to have a "Chemistry" data field like "Do you have children." Choices could be "Under 5 mins" and "5 mins or more" - that would allow users to filter people by chemistry. On attempting contact, folks with incompatible views on chemistry would then see something like "You must want chemistry in under 5 mins to contact this user" - should save heartburn on both sides, I would hope. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:52:35 PM | Mr. Lateef has it all figured out. I am immature, because I believe in chemistry. Nice name calling. Then he dismisses 14 years (another poster) as proof for chemistry on the grounds that it ended and therefore did not work out. In my book, 14 years is a significant time of your life, so I take that as proof. I wonder what he'd say, if it worked and they lived happily after (which by definition you probably won't find on POF). Is the sample size of 1 too small for proof? I guess those of us who believe in it cannot win against his reasoning.
How about we all get off of POF and ask a trusted friend to arrange for a marriage? It might be a longer-lasting one. But even if not, since it is more boring it will certainly FEEL longer. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:06:54 PM | HI, I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE SUBJECT, I THINK IF YOU EVEN "LIKE" TO BE WITH THE PERSON, RIGHT OFF, THEN YOU SHOULD PERSUE IT, (EVERYONE IS IN SUCH A RUSH THESE DAYS... ) I JUST DID A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, AND WAS VERY SURPRISED TO FIND THAT I REALLY AM ATTRACTED TO THIS MAN, HIS SMILE HIS ACTIONS, (HE IS AN OLD FASHIONED GENTLEMANLY GUY) AND CARES ABOUT MY FEELINGS AND LIKES/DISLIKES. ITS HARD TO PUT ON YOUR PROFILE, THAT YOU WANT LONG TERM, BECAUSE YOU JUST DONT KNOW IF IT WILL BE. ANYHOW I AM STICKING WITH THIS ONE, AND SEE WHERE IT GOES. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 15 YRS I AM THINKING OF PERMANENCE!!! (I WAS WIDOWED THEN AFTER 5 YRS I MARRIED A CON MAN) WATCH OUT FOR THOSE SWEET TALKIN S.O.B'S GIRLS AND GUYS TOO... MINE CHANGED ''' AFTER WE WERE MARRIED, AND WE WENT OUT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, SO GIVE IT TIME..... GOOD LUCK DALLAS FLIER! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:09:50 PM | | If you are basing your relationship on chemistry than you need to understand that everyones chemistry changes over time. It is the deeper things that matter if you want a long lasting relationship. Character, honesty, care, qualities that you find appealing, etc. Those are the things that make for sustaining deep relationships. I agree there needs to be a spark on the physical side of things, but IMO if its all chemistry it will only be a matter of time before that chemistry changes. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:20:02 PM |
pinciperro:
OMG! You equate chemistry with lust! Wow.. that to me is not at all what chemistry is, it is endless conversation that goes on effortlessly, laughing at the same kooky things, having common interests and yes, there is that elusive attraction that has more to do with the endorphins you release than the actual physical characteristics you find aesthetically pleasing to your eyes...
Perhaps you OP were emitting some signal that cued them onto your values, ie., SEXUAL CHEMISTRY!
The "chemistry" that I described, and that I posted the quote from a profile, is much different than that of which you speak. So yes, as some have pointed out, there are a lot of different definitions and thoughts of just what "chemistry" is. When you say "endless conversation that goes on effortlessly, laughing at the same kooky things, having common interests...", that's more the definition that I myself would use for attraction or "chemistry." But its obvious that you can't have "endless conversation that goes on effortlessly" in 5 minutes or less, and its the "5 minute or less chemistry" that I maintain is nothing more than animal lust, pure and simple.
I do think that EVERY relationship proceeds based on "chemistry" of one sort or another. I doubt you could find a happy couple who have been together for any length of time who wouldn't say that they have "chemistry." So, again, I'm not arguing against "chemistry" but I am arguing against "5 minute or less chemistry."
As far as me "emitting some signal", the profile I quoted is from a woman I haven't had any contact with in any way, and that statement in her profile seals the deal for me - I won't be contacting her. So we're not talking specifically about any signals I may be putting out, but rather in general whether "5 minute or less chemistry" is a valid reason to pursue a relationship, and if lack of same after 5 minutes is a valid reason to reject the person. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:30:17 PM | | If you are basing anything to be go or no go based on 5 mintues of it there or 5 mintues of it not, you are a pretty shallow person. | |
|
| |
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 9:49:58 PM |
Hmmm... I have jokes that take longer than 5 minutes to tell...
I would save those jokes for the second date. And I would make my screen name a little bit more appealing to the dating pool. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:19:46 PM |
I would save those jokes for the second date. And I would make my screen name a little bit more appealing to the dating pool.
You don't know me. By the time we got to the first date, she would be expecting at least one good long joke. 
And as if "wolftx" was any better? Sheesh! | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:29:18 PM | I believe the real chemistry we seek (aside simply from "evolutionary" procreative/hormonal "lust" based physicality's )
is a subconscious and immediate "switch". We may not know what we like, but when we SEE
her (or him)...its ALL SYSTEMS GO
I would tend to agree with the above.
But the older I become, the worse it gets. I almost force myself to use my thinking, when it is obvious that it is the unconscious that knows what the conscious part of me doesn't . Maybe I am deluded. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:52:06 PM |
And as if "wolftx" was any better?
"Wolf" is part of my real name and "TX" is for Texas where I live. "Hitman" sounds intimidating, that was my only point. If "wolf" sounds intimidating, too, I may need to reconsider my screen name... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:51:04 PM |
Not picking on those two posters in particular, but just picked out those two statements to make an observation. If that "intuition" and the "instant chemistry" that a lot base instant decisions on when meeting someone were really reliable - then likely we'd most all (me included) still be happily married, rather than here on POF
You could turn it around on its head OP, and say that (some) of the people on POF HAVE learned through experience not to let anyone 'persuade' them into liking them, and that's why we're still single rather than stuck in a miserable relationship. We left the miserable relationships behind and have decided this time we're going to hold out for a good one. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/30/2008 12:58:34 AM | This chemistry stuff has always confused me, so much so that I usually only lurk threads like this one, lol
Wowzer chemistry has usually, with I think just two exceptions, been a blind alley for me. So even when it HAS been there I 've counseled myself to kinda hold on and see where things go in the fullness of time.
The majority of my relationships were slower builds; as I get to know someone they become increasingly more. More everything.
Attraction, interest in getting to know them and having long conversations... that seems to be my ticket. | |
|
Home
login 
