Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 155
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demandPage 4 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
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.
 silibus
Joined: 4/8/2008
Msg: 156
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"?
 silibus
Joined: 4/8/2008
Msg: 157
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.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 159
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.
 ExplosiveSheep
Joined: 9/22/2007
Msg: 160
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.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 161
view profile
History
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.
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 162
view profile
History
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.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 163
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.
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 165
view profile
History
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).
 ExplosiveSheep
Joined: 9/22/2007
Msg: 166
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.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 168
view profile
History
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.

 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 171
view profile
History
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.
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 176
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/5/2008 1:48:37 PM
Actually, I've never had it as an adult because love and sex are more complicated than "butterflies" once you grow up. The "instant chemistry" deception happened all the time until I mentally matured in my late teens. If you think it's some sort of sign that you've met "the right one" then you're deluded. Obviously, people need to learn what constitutes a serious relationship.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 180
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 3:59:57 AM

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.

LOL! well....you have to expect that when trolling/self pity and redundant posts make it past the initial screening process.

BUT: I would say, that you've pretty effectively PROVEN exactly what you were attempting to DISPROVE. (and in less than 5 minutes too!) LOL!


Psychologist Robert Sternber found that love consists of three primary components:
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".)

DEFINITIONS OF "CHEMISTRY":
an expression which states the number and type of atoms present in a molecule of a substance.

A chemical formula is an easy way of expressing information about the atoms that constitute a particular chemical compound, and how the relationship between those atoms changes in chemical reactions.

From Dr. Neil Clark Warren (you know....the EHarmony guy)
Having said all that, I do believe that physical attraction is germane to a healthy, successful relationship. I actively discourage relationships between two people who get along great, appear to be compatible, and yet have no “spark.” I believe that building a great marriage without the excitement and attraction that comes from passionate love is impossible.

Remember, a “great person” is not a “great person for you” unless they meet your needs and desires in a partner. You needn’t feel guilty about your lack of physical chemistry with this person. In fact, I believe you will be acting compassionately by letting this person find someone who does find him physically appealing.

And now...the definitions of "chemistry" as they specifically apply to this topic:

3. the interaction of one personality with another: 4. sympathetic understanding; rapport: 5. any or all of the elements that make up something: the chemistry of love.


No one here has said, implied, or pretended that - so please quit putting words in people's mouths for the sole purpose of argument.

That would be your definition; it's already established that different people have different definitions of 'chemistry'.
Plese stop "redefining" terms which ALREADY have a widely accepted definition that is available to ALL who can open a dictionary and have a common point of reference on which to DISCUSS a topic. Such "redefining" is counter productive to understanding "WHY". Manipulation of definitions is solely for the purpose of producing an argument in which anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint will be automatically wrong regardless of any logic they attempt to interject.

"Chemistry" whether in the physical world, or the emotional one, IS and expression of the NUMBER and TYPES of elements present in a "relationship"....whether it's atomically...such as electrons and protons.....or emotionally....intimacy, passion and committment. Chemistry is the MIXTURE of components.....NOT the isolation of ONE component. (lust). If you STILL disagree, then bash Webster's. (I'm just the messenger)

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.
Agreed!
5 minutes? No..more like 15 minutes. That gives you a little time to figure out whether the person is genuinely interested in you OR genuinely interested in what they want to do to you.
LOL! Agreed again! I'm pretty open minded...so I'm even willing to give it a couple of weeks, but if it's not there by then...it's never going to be

chemistry is about MIXING...ENERGY....will the two of you MIX and blend...??
to produce soemthing new..dif...maybr even an explosion..
THANK YOU Gypsy Queen!!! (how nice to have someone who actually KNOWS what they're talking about...and not just manipulating phrases to gain sympathy.

Its not a demand but it is nice to feel a wee spark when you meet someone, I have only ever had a chemistry with 2 guys but sadly they didnt last long, so maybe it was just lust for them! There has to be something tho when you meet someone lets face it, yes personality does change how you feel about someone and pictures doesnt show how their eyes light up or how cheeky a grin they have. Its about personality and how you treat one another lets face it
YES! That's exactly what "chemistry" is about.....personalities meshing and how you treat one another. That high pressure used car salesman tactic used to guilt trip someone into taking you for a spin when they've already determined for whatever reason that you just don't give them a "spark" is a pretty shabby trick. LOL! it reminds me of this past January....my parents tried....REALLY tried....to talk me into buying a new "luxury" Buick....and my mind was SET on a new pick up! LOL! There was just NO chemistry between me and those leather seats (they felt it.....I didn't!) My granddaughter laughs at me because I tell her to be silent for a minute so I can listen to my truck when I start it and I say....."YES!" I LOVE my truck! LOL! I suppose I should search the forums to see if any Buicks have registered a complaint against me for not feeling any "chemistry" toward them!
 WeAre1
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 181
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 4:41:14 AM
booboo says -

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.

I think this is maybe one of the clearest and non-judgemental ways to try and put into words this concept that, for me, really is an intuitive feeling... so logical and reasonable explanations are hard for me to find.
But I agree with the way it's expressed here - I would add also if someone is also emotionally unattractive, no chemistry for me either.
I think it helps to be quite clear what you are looking for, or what you know would be major aspects in another that would more likely be compatible with you. For example, for me I am not settling for anyone I don't find attractive in all four areas - physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.....now that does not mean I can tell if we would be compatible in all four areas in the first meeting (5 minutes I believe was another exaggeration that seemed to be adopted by this thread).....but I can usually tell if someone is not attractive to me in at least one of those areas from the first meeting...
and very often there is something in their energy almost right away that comes through to me that gives me a clue as to whether the first meeting is going to be genuinely something I really care about, or whether it will just be a nice cup of coffee and conversation.
I also totally agree with booboo when she says if there is no chemistry and you say that and wish the other good luck sincerely, that is to me something that is showing honesty and compassion.
The back office topic of this subject, perhaps, is how do you know and how do you let the other know further contact is not gonna happen....or is going to?
It seems strange to me that some here seem to think there is something very wrong with people if they have these strong feelings from very early on - from practically the beginning of meeting each other in person, that there isn't any chemistry.
What a person feels, they feel. To argue and accuse and become negative and judgemental about this seems pretty crazy to me. Are those not happy with this reality thinking they are going to change what another feels if they get angry enough about it?
i think is seriously needed by all who believe another's intuitive feelings or logical principles should be argued with....and that is for all here (from both sides) who seem to have taken this subject way too personally (imo).
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 183
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:21:32 AM


Good try, but you'll find that the "humanists" have pretty much dumped Sternbergs Love Model

Indeed. And who declared these so-called 'humanists' the arbiters of the final word on relationships, pray? Go have a read of John Gottman.

You quote Mr. eHarmony :


I actively discourage relationships between two people who get along great, appear to be compatible, and yet have no “spark.” I believe that building a great marriage without the excitement and attraction that comes from passionate love is impossible.


Not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding or what. Nobody has said that people who NEVER find chemistry together should stay together anyway. At all. What we are saying is that demanding there be chemistry in 5 or 15 minutes or the first hour is shallow and immature. Note that your Dr. eHarmony doesn't anywhere indicate that chemistry needs to be apparent immediately.

In the second paragraph, you quote (note my emphasis)


Remember, a “great person” is not a “great person for you” unless they meet your needs and desires in a partner. You needn’t feel guilty about your ****lack of physical chemistry***** with this person. In fact, I believe you will be acting compassionately by letting this person find someone who does find him physically appealing.
He's clearly indicating that PHYSICAL chemistry is what he's talking about.

Immediately afterward you contradict your own quote:


And now...the definitions of "chemistry" as they specifically apply to this topic:



3. the interaction of one personality with another: 4. sympathetic understanding; rapport: 5. any or all of the elements that make up something: the chemistry of love.

Plese stop "redefining" terms which ALREADY have a widely accepted definition that is available to ALL who can open a dictionary and have a common point of reference on which to DISCUSS a topic


While you've got your dictionary out, go hunt up 'semantics' and note that it is about the INTERPRETATION of meaning. You can wave your dictionary all you want, but you see right in this thread that many people have specified what they interpret as 'chemistry' and the interpretations definitely differ.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 184
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:34:38 AM

Indeed. And who declared these so-called 'humanists' the arbiters of the final word on relationships, pray? Go have a read of John Gottman.
Well, color me confused....WHY are you arguing this point if you agreed with me....that indeed....the "humanists" are NOT the final word on relationships?

He's clearly indicating that PHYSICAL chemistry is what he's talking about.
My crystal ball must be on the blink....because I do not see where he "clearly" indicates that he's talking about PHYSICAL chemistry....when in fact...he's touted as upholding that "chemistry" is based on what??? 18 points? Perhaps someone who enlighten HIM as to what he's actually "indicating" because now I'm not quite sure that even HE knows what he is saying.


While you've got your dictionary out, go hunt up 'semantics' and note that it is about the INTERPRETATION of meaning. You can wave your dictionary all you want, but you see right in this thread that many people have specified what they interpret as 'chemistry' and the interpretations definitely differ.
Well, we DO agree on this at least. So perhaps the topic of the thread should have been to DEFINE our personal interpretations of "chemistry" (ohhhh, but that's already been done). It might also have been nice to be informed at the get go that for the purpose of THIS thread, that "chemistry" was going to be strictly interpreted as LUST....and LUST ONLY, to give those with a little wider vision of the term a chance to realize that the topic was NOT intended to invite "discussion" but AGREEMENT ONLY.
Yes, we could discuss the "semantics"....but FIRST we would have to come to an agreement about whether we would discuss semantics in the "formal, pragmatic or cognitive sense....as they tend to vary greatly.
We're furthermore asked to speculate on a very specific profile which the OP states
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..."
How can WE possibly know they HE didn't take some poetic license with the "intent" of this profile? Taking one comment OUT OF CONTEXT from one person, and trying to apply it in a general way (even though the OP states that he was NOT generalizing....I perceive that that's exactly what he's done....not by saying "all women"...but by saying that "people who say XXX").

How is this "redefinition" of the word "chemistry" any different than those who have redifined "dating" to mean having regular sex? Ohhhh yeah....been caught in that little trap as well! Can't say anymore that "I had a date"...because the language revisionists have now forced an new (but unwritten) definition on us that "dating" is having sex... so what us old people called having a "date" is now called "hanging out".

For the sake of getting everyones underwear out of a bunch, and since the OP has stated that HE is the only person allowed to do any "definining" here.....perhaps he would be willing to state FOR THE RECORD that in this thread "chemistry" is synonomiously with LUST...and that no other interpretation will be considered.
note that it is about the INTERPRETATION of meaning.
Then the thread should have STATED THIS....with the disclaimer that those who interpret "chemistry" to mean the mixture of impressions and likemindness will be immediately dismissed as not understanding "semantics".
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 185
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:30:10 AM

if you agreed with me....that indeed....the "humanists" are NOT the final word on relationships?

Because you cited them against Sternberg (no idea why). Sternberg doesn't argue for 'instant chemistry', either, btw.

Again, you seem to be interpreting people who think 'instant chemistry' (though I think you've now extended 'instant' to '15 minute') to be bogus as saying that chemistry is never important. That's your straw man and you're welcome to grasp him but he belongs out in left field with the 'instant chemistry' philosophy.


Then the thread should have STATED THIS....with the disclaimer that those who interpret "chemistry" to mean the mixture of impressions and likemindness will be immediately dismissed as not understanding "semantics".


The OP states quite explicitly in his very first post that

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.


You and others then went on to argue for your own interpretations of both 'instant' and 'chemistry' as well as 'instant chemistry'. I would prefer it if everyone defined 'chemistry' the way you do, however they never will and that's the joy of communicating with humans. However, whatever the definition of 'chemistry', I will continue to disagree that it must be found immediately and cannot result after better knowledge of a person over time.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 188
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:34:42 AM

Because you cited them against Sternberg (no idea why). Sternberg doesn't argue for 'instant chemistry', either, btw.
Quite obviously Merry....you're intent is to attack ONLY my posts...regardless of how badly you must take them out of context. NO, I DID NOT cite Sternberg......TRY Post # 197.....I was responding to THAT post (which was not made by me)

Again, you seem to be interpreting people who think 'instant chemistry' (though I think you've now extended 'instant' to '15 minute') to be bogus as saying that chemistry is never important. That's your straw man and you're welcome to grasp him but he belongs out in left field with the 'instant chemistry' philosophy.
Have you read ANY posts other my mine???? Once again....I did NOT extend the "instant" to 15 minutes....that would have been post #202....once again....NOT mine.


The OP states quite explicitly in his very first post that


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 don't believe that you have come close to adequately proving that "MOST" in fact DO define "chemistry" as another word for "lust"; and quite certainly neither you nor the OP have proven that the profile (which by the way is NOT MINE) which is under attack was written by someone who perceives "chemistry" by THAT definition. You yourself state
That would be your definition; it's already established that different people have different definitions of 'chemistry'.
Yet you refuse to accept ANY possibility that the person's who's profile we are discussion could have meant anything other than the definition that you're forcing upon her. Yes, granted, it would be nice if the owner of the profile being attacked were here to defend her own definition, but I haven't seen anyone step up and claim that dubious honor.
I'm not arguing this point from a personal standpoint....as I don't happen to believe in "instant chemistry" myself....but to so vehemently deny it's existence seems a little foolhardy. At the very least, the arguments against it are flawed and illogical; not to mention just slightly hypocritical.
I could suggest that since "chemistry" has been judged to be equal to lust, then in fairness we should ALLOW there to be a word assigned to what the rest of us are talking about....when we say "chemistry" (in the WRONG way) that intuitive, instinctive, easiness of communication, comfortable feeling we get when we think....ahhh, this is someone I could and would like to get to know better! If we are willing to accept that the term "chemistry" has been commandeered to mean ONLY LUST...then can we agree on a word for us to use so that we no longer use the word (Chemistry) in the WRONG way?
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 189
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 11:53:23 AM
This must be the longest argument ever (other than any topic about "god") over something completely imaginary.
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 192
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 3:20:42 PM
"Chemistry" is a delusion and it is fleeting. It has nothing to do with the evolution of a serious loving relationship between adults. The problem is that most adults seem to be as fickle as teenagers and put about the same relevance on a serious relationship as teenagers. So called "chemistry" is caused mainly by physical attraction which is a superficial basis on which to judge if someone is relationship worthy. It doesn't matter if people think "chemistry" is some mystical force that "just happens". The fact is that subconciously you're choosing the people you feel "chemistry" with. I don't experience it as an adult because there are a lot of deciding factors as an adult which play into whether or not you are compatible with someone and when I go on a date part of me always examines it from a logical standpoint. Since this process takes patience and time, "instant chemistry" or "butterflies" is obviously not really possible and is for the fickle or people who don't look at the big picture when choosing a partner. It doesn't matter if people want to believe in something imaginary. It still doesn't make it real.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 194
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 3:54:39 PM
Ugh....why are people thinking that those who look for chemistry up front are gonna base their next 10 years on it? I see chemistry as a mix of things that includes physical attraction...maybe you can't determine chemistry in 10 minutes, but you can determine physical attraction in 10 minutes, and without that, romantic chemistry isn't really possible.

No one's saying that that first 10 minutes or so is gonna determine your future - and I am sure a lot of people here spent WAY more than 10 minutes evaluating something that eventually ended despite all their research in the beginning. There is no prediction for how a relationship's gonna turn out.

The physical aspect of it for MOST people has to be there up front. Unless you live under a rock, NATURALLY you have to see if there's more to it than JUST physical. That's what dating is about. Finding out more about someone you're attracted to and interested in.

If you are NOT attracted to someone physically, you know within a short amount of time. IF you're not - then nothing else is gonna matter (as far as dating goes, anyway). It's because online dating involves pre in person dialogue that this seems to be a new thing, however - it's the SAME in real life, but you don't see it as obviously because people who aren't attracted to you don't talk to you to begin with in that context.

Of course what type of person they are and whether or not you are compatible should follow your initial attraction and interest. Naturally if you find that other things aren't for you then you should move on. But being attracted to someone you're gonna date is just part of the process. There are many steps AFTER physical attraction that come into play.

If you say physical attraction doesn't matter, and you're currently single, then you are proof....because most people have been approached by someone interested in them that they just weren't attracted to. If it didn't matter, they'd date that person, making them not single now.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 197
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 4:01:01 PM
^^^Yes, but I'm not arguing in favor of your theory, nor am I looking to settle down.
I'm single by choice, and believe in instant attraction. So lemme rephrase..

If you are here, arguing that chemistry can't be determined or doesn't matter, and actually want to find someone and settle down and you're here for that reason, then you are proof. As a matter of fact, it also may prove that some will argue that others should forego things like this to settle for less so they're not alone.

Fixed.

Bluntly - I think those who argue against any type of instant attraction either haven't experienced it, or probably aren't throwing any off.

 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 199
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 4:24:07 PM
Actually, I've never had it as an adult because love and sex are more complicated than "butterflies" once you grow up. The "instant chemistry" deception happened all the time until I mentally matured in my late teens. If you think it's some sort of sign that you've met "the right one" then you're deluded. Obviously, people need to learn what constitutes a serious relationship.



This must be the longest argument ever (other than any topic about "god") over something completely imaginary.

But you experienced it before you were "mentally mature." Hmmm ~ can something imaginary once have been real? Or can real turn into imaginary/imagination? Or better yet, can one be so disappointed in their own situations they convince themselves it never happened at all? Sad to see that being mentally mature takes all of the fun out of falling in love.

~OT~ Believe in it or don't. Find someone who thinks/feels exactly as you do. It's personal preferences that make life worthwhile. Personally, I'm sticking with spots. The stripes can do whatever they wish to do ~ I like the ever-elusive butterflies.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 208
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 6:16:12 PM
If you think I'm arguing that, then you haven't been reading very carefully and have totally missed the point.

No, I just argued it from a different angle...

What I am arguing, is that those who claim it can be determined in 5 minutes or less are shallow, and basically equating "chemistry" and "lust" which is about all you can determine in 5 minutes or less. Even your argument points to that - you say "if you can't imagine yourself sleeping with them" which sounds like lust to me! I believe chemistry is important, but also believe it takes a lot longer than 5 minutes to ascertain whether or not its there.

I agree that most mean "lust" when they say chemistry - but if there's no lust/attraction, then chemistry...which includes lust, is worthless to pursue, because it cannot exist for most people with that missing...you must first be attracted to take it any further. And my point was that if you don't need attraction to date, then you can date just about anyone, which would make being single questionable if your goal is to date/settle down. It'd be as easy as just dating the first person who shows interest in you...

So essentially no matter what you call it - it doesn't take longer than about 5-10 minutes to determine if there's anything more to look into (and quicker if there's not). Attraction being present does not mean they are dateable, you could have other things missing that you'd need for chemistry, or have chemistry but just not be a match in other areas.

Bluesky (below)'s got it....
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >