|
|
|
|
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 4:57:43 PM | | I totally agree Explosive. So called "hot" girls are usually a major turn off. Most of them always seem to have a constant sour look which either makes you want to turn around and run or deck them. Maybe when you're too nice looking it causes some kind of pain or something. lol | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:05:10 PM | I don't agree that you can know in 5 minutes if there WILL BE any "chemistry"....but I do strongly believe that you can tell in 5 minutes if there will NOT be any chemistry.
My thoughts are that 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 disagree. Some of the things that I consider in the "chemistry" department are, what they talk about, how easy it is to participate in a conversation with them, the degree of extroversion or introversion, whether they're arrogant, conceited or if they have a chip on their shoulder.
To the issues of "compatibility"....I have friends that I'm quite "compatible" with...but without any attraction, no, of course I wouldn't consider them for any sort of romantic relationship. I have friends that are very physically attractive....but once again, wouldn't consider them for a relationship because there is no MENTAL attraction.
I don't say that there aren't people who can develop a perfectly wonderful relationship based solely on "compatibility" without "chemistry", I just don't happen to be one of them. Basically, I tend to think that the "chemistry" complaints are usually made by those who take "rejection" way too personal. To me, it kinda comes off like them saying.... that you criticized them for a fault....when in REALITY...it was nothing more than that they stated a personal preference and you overreacted to it. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:07:12 PM | I do Not like (first)meetings where the woman I am meeting expects you to empty your soul onto the table over coffee. My soul is a very safe, secure sanctuary that does not care much for intrusions. Personal questions on a first meet? Not. Now exploring that other person after a third or forth meeting may be different. I would rather go to a park or beach or somewhere and share an activity that both relish, then after a bit of this then maybe by the third meeting go to a movie or something but to get personal right of the hop? No I don't think so. Maybe when you're 18 or 20 years old might be different. Yes some teenagers can so differentiate between sex(physical intimacy) and love(emotional intimacy). I used to be a teenager and have a good long memory.
This world is travelling way too fast. I do not eat fast food and I prefer 'slow' food.
Same goes for love/friendship and sex. No wonder so many people are displeased with the sex they have been having. We compare former lovers, we demand. "Demand" is not a good thing to do outside of a relationship so why demand "instant chemistry"? | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:16:31 PM | Look at how we make friends today. We concentrate on the things that make us different rather than the things that we share, things that make us alike.
We as a society have much to learn. We want lovers but are not tolerant enough to make friends? And for the record, looks do not qualify a person as a "lover".
What? Nobody here hangs with "not so attractive" people? Nobody here has "not so attractive" friends? Well I must be the odd ball of the planet. Friendship and love know not of colors. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:00:29 PM |
...but I do strongly believe that you can tell in 5 minutes if there will NOT be any chemistry...[text]...Some of the things that I consider in the "chemistry" department are, what they talk about, how easy it is to participate in a conversation with them, the degree of extroversion or introversion, whether they're arrogant, conceited or if they have a chip on their shoulder...
Wow! Nothing new or unusual was expressed there and I've heard it before, but I just wanna say WOW again. No room for first meeting jitters or any such. To be able to gauge all that within 5 minutes - that's an impressive ability I wish I possessed. Almost makes the process of meeting people seem like a qualifying race for the Olympic Games 100 metre sprint. 9.x seconds or bust. I would imagine folks with such abilities would find speed dating extremely beneficial, to say the least, since the very essence of speed dating is 9.x-second chemistry. I've never done this - I should research the web for speed dating success statistics.
Basically, I tend to think that the "chemistry" complaints are usually made by those who take "rejection" way too personal...
How "personal" one takes it depends on how "serious" one is about this whole game. Everyone has different priorities - perhaps some just happen to place a higher premium on finding a companion/date. Does not make them right or wrong, just that they are at a different "spot" in life. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 9:09:26 PM | Yes, and Merrylass' contention - and she's right - is that your own personal experience, or even that of some of your girlfriends, does not give you grounds to flatly say "This isn't a common occurrence with women." You can say its not common FOR YOU, but not that its not common WITH WOMEN IN GENERAL.
I didn't say in general. I said with women. Period. I didn't specify 20 or 2000. But I can narrow it down for you.
Fine, of the 400 or 500 women I've come in contact with in my life including my friends, relatives, co-workers and women I have talked to while in both the radio and nightclub/bar/concert/hospitality industries - plus the many many things I have read by women in books, blogs, and in these threads and other message boards, it's not a common occurence. That better? The rest are all no doubt 10 year works in progress on the chemistry front - we should know any day now what the results are.
Nowthen, back to the thread. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/3/2008 10:25:33 PM | | I've had lust and no chemistry, though if there's chemistry there's gonna be some lust usually. So I dunno, but that's not true that instant chemistry just = lust, I don't know what chemistry is entirely, but it's not just lust. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 3:54:24 AM |
Wow! Nothing new or unusual was expressed there and I've heard it before, but I just wanna say WOW again. No room for first meeting jitters or any such. To be able to gauge all that within 5 minutes - that's an impressive ability I wish I possessed. PROOF!!! Some people have a better grasp of the blatently obvious than do others. Example: The use of the "5 minutes" was in direct contrast with the statement made by the person representing one view....but not allowing the other person to use the same criteria to to also make an assessment. The inability or refusal to take things in the spirit in which they were intended, to take everything the other person says in a very literal way...but expecting great leeway to be granted to any slightly exaggerated (for the sake of making a point) statement made by themselves. This of course also goes to the ease or difficulty of conversation, combativeness, pettiness, nitpicking, etc.
So, using a more realistic time frame....which will of course by some be criticized as not being the same as the original time mentioned by those who suggest that "no chemistry" CANNOT be determined in 5 minutes.....I'll go with "no chemistry" CAN be determined within 60 minutes.
No room for first meeting jitters or any such. Such things which I believe do NOT fall into the forgivable "first meeting jiggers" are....swearing every other word, rudeness to a server...or slapping her butt as she walks away with your coffee order, for men of course, there's the "being asked what you do and how much you earn" that is WIDELY accepted as fair grounds for ending a date in less than 5 minutes; but this is not an acceptable reason for a woman to "reject" a male.....as men are ALWAYS of the highest integrity and therefore if THEY ask such questions.....then they're just defending themselves. Continuing with things that are NOT easily attributed to "first meeting jitters"....there's....4 front teeth missing, the realization that you have extremely opposing religious or political views, your German Shepherd has BETTER table manners, they spend the first 30 minutes of your meeting answering cell phone calls from other women/men (neither business or urgent), you find that when they're away from their computer and don't have their list in front of them.....they can't remember which lies they told you in email so you find out that none of your interests are similar, they're actually 20 years older than the photo which they said was "recent". etc, etc, etc.
How "personal" one takes it depends on how "serious" one is about this whole game. Everyone has different priorities - perhaps some just happen to place a higher premium on finding a companion/date. This was however EXACTLY my point!!! That some people place such a high premiun on finding "a companion" or "date" that they're desperate to make ANY person fit that mold.....regardless of instant turn offs. That thinking is probably the greatest contributor to short term relationships, divorce, serial dating....and justifying ones own "victim" mentality....about why they just can't find a nice person to be with....because they're sooooo very tolerant and accepting of other people's imperfections.
I have found that it is not possible to "break in a new pair of shoes" no matter how pretty they are. If they hurt too much to wear, you're not likely to ever wear them long enough to "break them in"....so why not choose another pair that are a better fit to begin with?
Another problem with people who complain about being "rejected" for what they consider unacceptable reasons is....that I do NOT believe that THEY themselves have NEVER rejected (or would ever reject) someone else who didn't live up to their criteria. This just seems to me to be somehow wrong that THEY believe that only they have the right to "reject" someone (for whatever reasons) but that NO ONE has the right to "reject" them for ANY reason. Sounds a little narcisisstic to me. | |
|
claral
|
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 184 | |
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 4:28:05 AM | Whats wrong with lust it may not be good for the long term but its good for the short term
Women like men tend not to do charity..if you dont want to (xxxx) them whats the point. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:59:06 AM | | claral: Not sure why you're attacking me when I haven't directed any comments towards you but I guess it's good in a way since it shows people what a complete b*tch you are. I wouldn't be talking about the way people look if I were you. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 7:33:04 AM | I'm with Grandmabooboo on this all the way...agree with everything she said, and she put it in a way that makes sense to the way I see it.
I feel that this chemistry thing has always been the way things were, but because of the internet age, it's just more obvious. People have been determining what they like in 10 minutes since the beginning of time. It's just that now that two people can talk before they meet, it seems a bit more unforgiving than it used to, because instead of a reason to talk to someone in the first place, it's become a qualifier to keep talking to someone. Those who are sensitive or overly hopeful get caught in this and it's hurtful....but it's still part of the process, always has been.
If chemistry wasn't important, most here would just choose who to date based on common criteria and pair off with no problem. More people would match based on stats then actual interest.
I also agree that those who are going on and on about this and see it as a problem are the ones who feel they are most likely to get disqualified by it. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 7:46:53 AM | | Well, we all have to admit that this person will be someone you will probably have to become intimate with at some point. If I meet someone and after a good look could not possibly find myself ever kissing that face or making love to them due to the way they look maybe they have big moles on their face, rotton teeth, grossly overweight, or some other thing that turns me off I will retreat. This usually does not take more than 5-minutes. If, upon first glance, I find this person's looks satisfactory (and I do not require perfection by a long shot), I will then begin casual conversation in order to determine if our interests, beliefs, and activities are similar. Someone that slobbers like a pig while eating, snorts, picks his nose, constantly grabs his crotch, constantly talks about how great he is, constantly refers to his ex, money, sex, his church, sports, killing animals, etc. will have me running. None of this takes very long to do. The first meeting is two total strangers deciding if their is enough mutual interest or attraction to actually go on a date. If this mean I am shallow or picky, then so be it. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 1:42:23 PM | 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.
Now do you contend that in a few minutes you 'know' whether you can go forward or not? If yes, how do you know? Once again, examples of people with extreme flaws are bogus and irrelevant since that's obviously not what's meant here (or should be obvious). | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 4:34:04 PM | Claral is pumpin out the hate! Damn haha. Oh and in a direct response to "can't lust be enough? If you don't want to f*ck them what's the point?" wow... yeah you gotta want to touch em, but if that's the single most important guage you use to justify dating someone.. If someone held that comment against you, I'd feel kinda alright about that.
Oh and just to the other guys on this page, I give it 3 dates. If it makes it to 3 dates, I have and will tell them if I ain't feelin it. It's a weak ass conversation by the way... seriously. Nobody likes to hear that they don't meet the "spark" requirement. Nobody even knows what it is. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 5:37:16 PM | | You tend to feel something within a relatively short time, or you feel nothing, it's like that yearning for more cake once you've had a slice that could down a diabetic in his tracks. Now, this isn't to say, I've never gone "oh, hmm, nothing" after 10 minutes of talking and gone off looking elsewhere, I'm guilty of it, but you ultimately have to be honest with yourself. What are looking for? Is the person you've messaged, arm candy, or brain candy? if you said arm candy, move along sunshine you'll not find gold here. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:36:48 PM |
Both Grandmabooboo and Wonderingoutloud have cited extremes in their examples. Really, why bother. REALLY? How "extreme" is someone who chews with their mouth open, snaps their gum, is painfully shy....or the reverse....rudely forward??? How "extreme" is it that he's a liberal, and I'm a conservative? No, none of these things are anywhere out of the realm of those regular average looking "normal" humans.
Now do you contend that in a few minutes you 'know' whether you can go forward or not? If yes, how do you know? Once again, examples of people with extreme flaws are bogus and irrelevant since that's obviously not what's meant here (or should be obvious). You're basing this argument on ONE response to one specific comment which was EXTREME.....thus...I answered it in an "extreme".
Examples of people with what ANY of us might consider an "extreme flaw" are NOT irrelevant...they happen more often than not...to anyone who is out and about meeting people. Just because YOUR definition of a "flaw" and mine are DIFFERENT makes them flaws to each of us individually all the same. To ME....a guy who lives in a condo and drives a Porsche IS an "extreme flaw". While that may make YOUR heart or loins all tingly...it wouldn't do a thing for ME.
Chemistry is NOT all about sex, nor is it about fireworks...but neither is it JUST about "compatibility". It's about understanding without straining to comprehend what the Sam Hill they're talking about....perhaps even being able to complete the other's sentence....CORRECTLY. Gawd knows there are plenty who love to complete other's thoughts....INCORRECTLY...that is NOT chemistry. Just because we both look at a color and see that it's red....does NOT mean that we're each seeing the SAME "red".
What say we drop the extremes, which do nothing to forward this discussion, The purpose of this "discussion" is to browbeat those who have ever rejected anyone. Pretending that we have not ALL at some point in our lives been rejected is pretty naive. There are those who gracefully accept another persons RIGHT to have preferences which they need to explain or justify to ANYONE else, and then there are those who feel that NO ONE has the right to reject them...without the 3rd frikken degree, a bunch of whiny arguments, and then cursing that person to die a cruel and painful death for their audacity to not recognize what they've just passed up!
Geeeeezzzz, I mean....how hard is it really to say....."well, gosh, I'm sorry that we didn't click, but I wish you the best of luck!".....and MEAN IT??? I guess it would just be asking really TOO much to expect anyone here to behave with a little class ehhh?
I've had lust and no chemistry, though if there's chemistry there's gonna be some lust usually. So I dunno, but that's not true that instant chemistry just = lust, I don't know what chemistry is entirely, but it's not just lust. I quite agree. Chemistry is NOT about lust....it's the result of being attracted to someone in all the areas of physical, mental and spiritual. Physically unattractive...no chemistry, mentally unattractive, no chemistry, spiritual unattractive...no chemistry. They don't have to be "attractive" in all those areas in the 5 minutes....they simply have to NOT be "unattractive" in any of them.
| |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:41:46 PM | In my experience, I've found that rushed chemistry can lead to unwanted reactions, ruined equipment and in extreme cases, injury. So, I don't know how people figure that they can be anywhere near as irresponsible with people.
If someone writes me off because they didn't feel like jumping on me (or vise versa) within five minutes, then I usually thank them for their company, and wish them the best of luck with their future ex. Because, if they can't invest so much as a few hours in me, then they're not worth the trouble of impressing.
Personally, I think that the term "instant chemistry" is just another way to describe an "open book"
| |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:44:50 PM | I also see a significant number of female profiles re: chemistry. I often respond
with, "Relationships form over time" "Chemistry is spontaneous and lacks longevity"
"Arranged marriages last a lifetime more often than North American marriages and there is no chemistry involved in their decision. The two people become one over time as they bond together." I found that the majority of women and men that put chemistry as a requirement put it there because they fear long term relationship committments. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:48:37 PM |
The purpose of this "discussion" is to browbeat those who have ever rejected anyone.
NO, its not, and as the OP, I have the right to state that. If YOU think that's what its for, please go find another thread to crap on. 
Pretending that we have not ALL at some point in our lives been rejected is pretty naive.
No one here has said, implied, or pretended that - so please quit putting words in people's mouths for the sole purpose of argument. | |
|
claral
|
Joined: 5/9/2008
Msg: 195 | |
| |
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 10:14:54 PM |
The purpose of this "discussion" is to browbeat those who have ever rejected anyone
Wow - how ever did you conclude that from what you've read?
Chemistry is NOT all about sex, nor is it about fireworks...but neither is it JUST about "compatibility". It's about understanding without straining to comprehend what the Sam Hill they're talking about....perhaps even being able to complete the other's sentence....CORRECTLY.
That would be your definition; it's already established that different people have different definitions of 'chemistry'. And, again, you definitely can't deduce all that about someone in a short while. It takes time to get into the sort of rhythm with someone where you can complete sentences. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 10:36:53 PM | Lateef, both of your posts are just about dead on when it comes to the reality of love and the human condition. It just so happens that major academic research bears this out. So to all of you who are determined to find that instant chemistry, you're setting yourself up for a hard fall. Read the rest of this if you want, though here are the facts which research has shown to be true time and time again. So, to those of you looking for that "Instant Chemistry" to occur, be prepared to sit at home alone and watch reruns on the "Life Time" channel.
Psychologist Robert Sternber found that love consists of three primary components:
1) Intimacy - The emotional component, based on sharing deeply personal information and feelings of mutual acceptance.
2) Passion - The motivational force behind love. This involves sexual attraction and the desire for sexual intimacy. This is where passion gives rise to fascination and preoccupation with the "loved one." It must be noted, that passion is rapidly aroused, though is also quick to fade. Especially among adolescents...I'd say this tidbit of information places the emotional development of those looking for that chemistry in the first five minutes in question.
3) Commitment - The cognitive or decisional component of love. It's when the person decides that they are in love, and as time elapses becomes a lasting commitment to the other person and the relationship.
Those are the components, though research has found there are eight different combination's of the three components.
1) Nonlove - What is experienced with friends and acquaintances.
2) Liking - Aloving experience with a person or friend where intimacy is present, though passion and commitment is lacking.
3) Infatuation - "Love at First Sight." Passionate desires for the other person, though intimacy and commitment are absent. Sound a lot like the "5 minute Chemistry buffs."
4) Empty Love - This is where commitment is present, though passion and intimacy are gone. Characteristic of a stagnant relationship.
5) Romantic Love - A loving experience where there is passion and intimacy, but, no commitment.
6) Companionate Love - Love that derives from the combination of intimacy and commitment. The love marriages where lasting marriges occur. It's where passionate attraction has died down and has been replaced by a kind of commited friendship.
7) Fatuous Love - Associated with whirlwind romance and "quickie" marriages." Commitment and passion are present, but not intimacy. Associated with Vegas marriages, and, a year later one day Mexican divorces...give or take a month or so.
8) Consumate Love - Passion, Intimacy and commitment are all present. This takes a lot of "work" by "both parties." It is much harder to maintain, that to achieve, and it doesn't just happen.
So to all of you five minute maidens...read it and weep... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/4/2008 10:49:07 PM | | Myself, I've often gone out on 2nd dates with gals I didn't feel strong chemistry with. A few times to see if things changed, other times more as a friend situation. It would be interesting to poll women. Many women have told me that they can become attracted to men over time, men they weren't originally attracted to, but I don't know how many give the guy the chance. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/5/2008 10:47:30 AM |
8) Consumate Love - Passion, Intimacy and commitment are all present. This takes a lot of "work" by "both parties." It is much harder to maintain, that to achieve, and it doesn't just happen.
IMO, I'll settle for this and nothing less. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/5/2008 12:07:23 PM | | The instant chemistry demand I insist on it.If you have never had it then you haven't met the right one yet.Its worth waiting for.If I don't experience it I'm just not interested. | |
|
|
| Page 8 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
