|
|
|
|
|
| The "instant chemistry" demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:35:19 AM | 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 are looking for, expecting, and often demanding the "instant chemistry" thing; or they'll write you off. I was prompted to start this thread after just now reading yet another profile which said under First Date (and I quote): "First meeting or date (whatever you want to call it) should be short and in a public place....that way neither one will have any expectations....we'll both know within the first 5 min. if there's any chemistry between us..."
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. Personally, for me, I think its best if it develops over time, as I think its more realistic of overall compatibility that way. I’ve had a few meetings where it was obvious that we were NOT compatible, that’s fairly easy. I’ve also had a few meetings where I felt the “chemistry” (lust) but find the odds of BOTH feeling that seem to be vanishingly small – and even then, don’t necessarily spell “compatibility.” For me, the huge majority fall in the middle, “potential, but needs more than one meeting.”
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. A woman with self-confidence who “feels” sexy, will “act” more sexy, and ultimately to me will “be” more sexy.
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. Having said that, I have to say that it seems like the majority of meetings I’ve had that for *me* which fall into that middle ground – never go anywhere, because the woman is looking for the “first 5 minute fireworks” and we never meet again. 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!
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? | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:55:48 AM |
Are you looking for that "first 5 minute fireworks" and is it a total showstopper if its not there that quickly? Hell no...
I'm far more interested in comfort around the other person and compatibility. These things take time to determine if they exist between two people. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:10:42 AM | 'Chemistry' for me was feeling completely comfortable and being able to be myself when I first met him. An ease of communication. As for physical attraction, he's handsome, but very different than what I have usually gone for, but I also know that he'll become more and more attractive to me, as time goes on.
I make that call after just one meeting though (usually longer than 5 minutes!!) I go with my gut. And yes, I guess it's a total showstpper, if IT isn't there for me. I tried online dating for over a year, and went out for 'first meets' with maybe a dozen guys in that time, before I met my guy on a cycling forum we've both been on for years. It was his well thought out and helpful responses that drew my attention.
 | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:13:18 AM | I think 'five minutes' is kind of an extreme example. And people often fail to write what they may really mean.
I think the translation is more like,"If I see you and you are NOT like your pictures, that's Lie #1 and I'll be saying bye-bye quick." Add to that the addition that if you have been honest about what you look like, then in that case you just have to understand, as a friend put it recently, "The first chance is often the last chance." By the time you've met you've probably already exchanged enough info to determine if you are similar in some ways, but that is not necessarily enough to have 'chemistry'. The spark is one of the first clues that the sex will likely be good and you are not being realistic if you think women don't want great sex lives. That has to be a major part of the relationship for most people and it's normal.
Just trying to help you understand what 'within the first five minutes...' might actually mean. It's too bad people just won't take the time to explain that.  | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:13:18 AM | Are you looking for that "first 5 minute fireworks" and is it a total showstopper if its not there that quickly?
IMO many women ( not all or most ) do expect instant chemistry. For example one time I met a woman for 5-10 minutes. Then she claimed that there was no chemistry. I realize that "no chemistry" can be a code phrase for "lack of attraction". I also realize that people can look better / worse in person than they do in a pic. But I sent her a recent photo of myself and she said that I was attractive. I doubt a person who is reasonably attractive in a recent photo would be ugly in person. IMO if someone loses interest in you because there wasn't instant chemistry within 5-10 minutes of meeting, then you are probably better off without that person anyways. Because obvious dealbreakers and physical attraction, how much you can determine about another person that quickly. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:21:39 AM | Dallas, read any Harville Hendrix? He posits an interesting and rather compelling model of
the development of the human psyche, and how it "pre-wires" or sets a "template" in our brain which then becomes the primary filter used to determine mate suitability, nearly
instantly, at first sight. Derived from "imago dei" for the latin "in the image of"...
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! lol.
There are times the rational mind takes over...and we do NOT pursue the ONE who flipped our switch, (maybe her husband is a linebacker?), or there is some other major deal breaker that presents some time later. But we will see HER again...and again. The physical traits (appearance, demeanor, carriage, sound...etc...and esp SMELL ) all play a role. The sense of smell particularly, as it is the only human physical sense that is not pre-processed through the brain stems hippocampus, but travels straight to the cerebral cortex. Confounding THAT...is pheromones...and artificial scents. Ever notice...how a certain sometimes unidentified odor..evokes powerful and vivid memories? Studies with smells bear this out...
And there are likely other times...we miss the signal, preoccupied with some more pressing survival task (saber tooth tiger at the cave mouth?)
In other words, it behooves us to give it some time....reassess, and increase the pool of potentials...before ruling any individual in or out summarily. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:24:36 AM | | Attraction can certainly develop over time. However, it is difficult for that to develop in an online dating site, where it only makes sense to see each other if you are attracted to each other to begin with. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:25:15 AM | I never try and put a time limit on meeting someone because if the meeting goes well, a cup of coffee could lead to a walk and then a bite to eat, or a drink could lead to dinner and more talk. It's all about getting to know someone and 5-minutes isn't going to allow anything other than to figure out if the guy wants to hop in the sack right away and if I'm willing to join him there.
I have met one person from PoF who met me for coffee, was on the phone when I got there (he was 5-minutes early) so I got my own coffee and then in 1-hour after meeting (he even told me that it had been an hour), said his time was up but we'd have to get together again. After emails/chats for a week then meeting and having an enjoyable discussion, I never heard back from him not even to acknowledge the follow-up email I sent the next day thanking him for the lovely time and commenting on his lovely blue eyes.
Pfft - totally blown off by someone who obviously "needed" to feel that spark in a set time frame, but I apparently didn't even fall into his “potential, but needs more than one meeting” group. Oh well - too bad for him. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:25:29 AM |
Are you looking for that "first 5 minute fireworks" and is it a total showstopper if its not there that quickly?
I am looking for it now but I used to settle, and that's why I'm here now. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:39:13 AM | | I won't be looking for a big bang to start our universe, but the potential has to be obvious. All of the things that go into it are way beyond my conscious mind. I do best to show up, notice how it seems, and the less I think about it the easier it is to know. Then if the potential is there, spend time together and see if it's a mutual inclination that becomes a pleasant fascination. Slow chemical reactions are fine by me. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:51:53 AM | I don't know about that sense of smell thing being all that reliable - I met my partner as he was traveling back to the depot in a tanker truck. Granted, he had stayed at a hotel the night before so had showered before getting on the road the day we met, so he smelled pretty good, LOL!
I can say we did have an instant connection, and I would also say appearance had little to do with it. In fact, I thought we would have nothing in common and this meeting was just a way to meet someone and perhaps have a cup of coffee and some conversation. Two hours later, I had found this man to be fascinating and I knew I wanted to spend more time with him. And when he hugged me before he had to go that first time, I knew there was something special there. Magic? Chemistry? I don't really know. As we have talked about this, he said he felt the same way - there was something just "right" about being together. I wouldn't classify it as immediate sexual attraction. From then on, I have had no interest in any other man.
Now, as you may have guessed from my picture, I am a bit older. I do feel that what constitutes "chemistry" does change with age. In my younger years, I remember that appearance did weigh heavily. In those days, when I was looking for a mate, I think I was responding to primal instincts to choose a mate who would be a good provider for my offspring. (Okay, so I personally screwed up on that part, LOL!) Now, it's more about common goals and companionship. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:54:44 AM | | OP, I know what you mean, but for some of us it isn't just about the physical (lust as you call it) some of us get an intuitive feeling about a person which is a combination of both looks which we find appealing, and a fantastic strength of character, and it's almost like you can see the child in them. If you don't, then the chances are you're never going to, no matter how hard they try to convince you, or how many times they tell you you're being shallow for not wanting to wait and see how it progresses. Better to know you don't want a person, and to let them move on and find someone who does want them, than to go along with them just because you feel pressured, leading to the eventual misery of both of you. Live and let live. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:02:41 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 think that people are able to tell pretty quickly whether they are attracted or not. This initial attraction is based on appearance and personality.
Perhaps one way of looking at it is that after a few minutes people can be put into one of three categories:
1.) Definately not attracted - this is fairly common.
2.) Acceptable - This happens quite frequently
3.) Definately attracted - This is less common. This is the "fireworks" case. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:23:47 PM | "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."
Yes. I agree. as others have said though.....saying you are 6' tall and show up and are 5' 6", then I would want to leave as well....and seriously, you have to realize that there a lot of men trolling on this site and a woman has to be more careful... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:32:46 PM | | Darn right I am looking for instant chemistry! And if it's not there right away I move on immediately! And I make no apologies. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:38:36 PM | You and I think a lot alike OP. I don't pay much mind to bells and whistles going off right from the get go cause I understand that's animal attraction. They're cool, but they won't hold me for long. And I don't look for them to go off, either. But I do need to feel something fairly quickly, even if it's only a feeling that we "get" each other.
In my relationship, I didn't feel all that much over the first couple encounters, yet he was spell bound. (Tho the first kiss was knee weakening and made me scoot on home quickly, lol, but that wasn't that important to me right then.) I didn't show my concern over the way he felt because I didn't want him to become conscious of his actions; I wanted him to feel free to just be himself so I could actually get to know him. It didn't take too much longer to begin to feel a connection and a growing interest in him, but I needed to explore him/us a lot more to determine if it was the good stuff or not. I kept our encounters very intimate and cozy...no real "going out on dates", because I wanted us to feel comfortable. We stayed in and watched TV (it was great for bringing up getting to know you topics and making observations) and just talked. Within a very short time, I caught up to him, so to speak, and looking back, I'm happy that I approached it in such a relaxed way. Piling so much onto the first few encounters just muddies the waters and causes us to move too fast. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:48:02 PM | Interesting, so far the only two who have outright agreed with my thoughts are pssstt and FunnyGirl; while quite a lot admit that they're in that group looking for INSTANT chemistry.
for some of us it isn't just about the physical (lust as you call it) some of us get an intuitive feeling about a person which is a combination of both looks which we find appealing, and a fantastic strength of character...
Darn right I am looking for instant chemistry! And if it's not there right away I move on immediately!
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 looking for someone to date and develop a relationship with. Lust, animal attraction, chemistry, or an author's lofty treatise on the subject aside - the evidence - in terms of divorce rates - would seem to indicate its not a real reliable predictor of long-term relationship success.
By the way, psssst, no I can't email you on this site for some reason I don't comprehend. Whenever I try, I hit "send" and it disappears - not in my "sent mail." I've only had it happen with you and one other on the site, just weird. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:56:04 PM | I don't really believe in "instant chemistry", I mean, I can certainly tell if there's a physical attraction there (she's cute), but it doesn't have to be "instant lust" for me to want to pursue it farther. Face it, first dates are usually a little awkward, a bit of nervousness to start, usually everyone is trying to "put their best face forward", etc...
*But*, there is "instant turn-off", if I don't find her at all attractive, or her attitude/personality just sets off alarm bells in my head.
If by the end of the first date I'm comfortable and there's no major turn-offs, the second date will tell me a lot more (having met, there'll be that comfort level from the start). | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:00:33 PM | | I completely agree that powerful chemistry is not a reliable predictor of long term relationship success. Only time tells. But that chemistry is certainly essential to starting a relationship. If I am not thinking about getting a man in the sack right away, I don't want to have a relationship at all! A friend...maybe. A lover? Never. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:03:24 PM | 5 minutes? OK, if I am twiddling my thumbs for 4 minutes and 48 seconds...
Chemistry is not a guarantee for success, but the lack thereof is an indicator for certain failure. If you are not attracted by something in the other person and want to pursue a relationship anyway, you must be very head-driven. In that case you might as well form a partnership and go into business together.
Yes, some chemistry must be there right away. In the first five seconds I need to be able to see myself with her. Another seven seconds and I know what features I like about her. She has to have something I find cute (smile), beautiful (eyes), sexy (insert your favorite fetish feature) or just different and interesting (a mole?) about her. I can have chemistry with an average looking woman, and likewise a beautiful women could come across as boring. I have to like the face though, because I'll be looking at it a lot, if things go well.
I would like to point out that in addition to chemistry, there may be showstoppers that extinguish any chemistry like a gallon of water puts out a lit match. Those showstoppers can take longer to surface, perhaps three or four entire dates. After that I feel more comfortable getting to know the person better - if she is still around after four dates and I want to see her, too, it could be the start of something good... | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:13:54 PM |
I completely agree that powerful chemistry is not a reliable predictor of long term relationship success. Only time tells. But that chemistry is certainly essential to starting a relationship. If I am not thinking about getting a man in the sack right away, I don't want to have a relationship at all! A friend...maybe. A lover? Never.
Circe, I'll agree that its certainly essential to "starting" a relationship, its the "instantaneous" part I disagree with. You said:
Darn right I am looking for instant chemistry! And if it's not there right away I move on immediately!
Personally, if I don't have the "instant turnoff" that others have spoken about, then I'm willing to give it 2-3 meetings. I don't think that's too long to spend seeing if there's chemistry worth building a relationship. I just think that your contention that it must be instant potentially results in you rejecting a lot of potential partners with whom you just might end up having a better long-term relationship with than "Mr. (or in my case Ms.) Instant Animal Lust. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:17:10 PM | lol dallas; the proffered humble theory....has a lot of depth, and helps WHY "chemistry" doesnt often work in the longitudinal.
Fact remains, whether we are cognizant or uninformed of the factors behind the "chemistry",
it seemingly does offer somewhat elegant basis. Meets Ochams razor for sure.
I believe we probably act on "chemistry" whether we know it or not.
Understanding better what that chemistry might comprise...surely can help to manage the effects and ensuing behaviors/motivations. Is it strictly pheromones? Base "attractiveness" in the eyes of the beholder?
Deserves further scrutiny imho...ever heard someone say of a spouse or X.... "they were just like my father" (or mother)...0? When you hear the same refrain from them after a 3rd..or 4th marriage later....
no doubt...the "chemistry" is persistent, and affects ensuing relationships. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:23:51 PM | Damn, you beat me to it. I was going to post this very subject later today. You, Sir, are a brilliant man.
Anyway, I think people who base their dating lives on "chemistry" are immature. I also disagree with the idea that chemistry is an initial ingredient to start a relationship. Plain and simple. Thats high school thinking. You might as well write a note that asks "Will you go with me" and have boxes for yes or no. ...lol It's been my experience, that most of the successful relationships I've seen (marriage till death, no divorce) happen in spite of chemistry or even when the there was no initial "spark." Off course there are exceptions to every rule, but looking at my grand parents, parents and my own experiences, true lasting and deep love grows over time. Mature, thinking individuals make relationship choices based on getting to know a person and finding those rare nuggets of gold that would otherwise been missed. Those nuggets of gold are what turns into the jewels of a true soul mate.
Most of the women who say, " I'll know if anything is there in the first five minutes." or "If there is no chemistry on the first date, I move on" are the ones who end up being chronic daters, always getting hurt and becoming ever more bitter with each relationship. Often, they end up old and alone or on a constant wheel of "I met this great guy!." This woman sometime evolves into "The Cat Lady" down the street. This happens with men too, but not as much.
The male version of this is wanting to start a serious relationship with any cute (and sometimes not so cute) girl who shows them attention.
Lateef | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:28:00 PM | | Well if you're willing to wait for chemistry then that is a wise thing to do. You will certainly widen your options. And you're right...I am sure I have rejected men that I could have had good relationships with. But you assume it's a choice. It isn't....I simply cannot become interested in a man as a potential mate if I don't lust after him. And my experience is that if it isn't there right away, it's never going to be. | |
|
| The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:32:56 PM | It's a bit daft to think one could hope to experience emotional chemistry in 50 minutes let alone 5.
Love to me isn't a bonfire, brilliant and hot in the beginning but burns out rather quickly, it is a slow but intense coal burn (Hows that for a BBQ love analogy?).
Somepeople need constant stimulus..they need someone to keep their synapses firing at a high level. I contend that great relationships are formed when the chemistry hits you from left field. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
