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
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 210
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demandPage 5 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)

if the owner of the profile being attacked

Um. I have zero idea what you're on about. I was discussing the points you made, not somebody else's profile, and I'm certainly not 'attacking' someone's profile. It seems that I'm making points x, y, and z and you're busy discussing a, e, and i. Seems kinda pointless so I'm out of this exchange.
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 214
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:02:24 PM
I'm obviously hitting a nerve pointing out a truth that people refuse to see but as they say, "don't shoot the messenger".

verygreen: I did experience the so-called "chemistry" thing as a kid with pretty much every girl I went on a date with but I know now it wasn't something real, it was immaturity and being naive about what a relationship is supposed to be. If you are a mature person you take a lot more about someone into account before you know if they are right for you. This can take a long time. Knowing if you want someone in the first few minutes is a ridiculous notion and excuse that people who are confused and afraid of commitment use as a means of escape. How do you know in the first few minutes if a person is the type of person you can live with, manage money with, share common views with, etc. YOU CAN'T. Also being mature in your approach to love works a lot better than rushing it with no reasoning and actually makes it more satisfying. I notice all the "instant chemistry" people have been here forever, so it's obviously not working, (surprise, surprise), yet I'm with someone who see's eye to eye with me in practically every part of our relationship. Who's the "sad" one again?
 Ravenstar66
Joined: 8/27/2007
Msg: 217
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:23:49 PM
All those things are great... having similar points of view, being able to compromise, really LIKING each other..etc... but it takes me very little time to figure out if I could actually have sex with the guy, or if his personality made me want to spend more time with him... about 15 minutes... maybe 1/2 hour tops. I'm either attracted or I'm not. No amount of personality will change that. I don't know EXACTLY what it is.. but it's there.

however, I spend a LONG time chatting over email before I choose to meet someone (say 4-6 months), because for me the mental and intellectual chemistry MUST be there. If we can't talk or maintain a friendship without the sex, well it wouldn't matter how hot I found him. Chemistry is more than just what he looks like, when I first met my boyfriend (yes, from POF) the first few minutes, I really wasn't sure if I found him really attractive or not, but within MINUTES that changed as we fell into our already established banter and I saw his EYES.... OMG! Yup, serious chemistry, on all levels. We had already spent enough time talking that we knew that we have many of the same values, likes and dislikes and lifestyles, and that just made it easier and we could set aside the "interview" portion of the date and just have a good time.

Which is why I don't understand why men want to meet right away, you are still strangers, and when you start dating then there is the pressure to "take it to the next level" (sex) which I find has the tendency to get in the way of the stuff that is the foundation of a relationship.. real compatibility. I don't think being in a rush to find someone is a good way to go about finding a partner for life.

It's NEVER a waste of time to get to know someone who's really cool. Even if it doesn't turn into anything romantic. Not in my eyes.

Peace
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 223
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 7:52:05 PM
And the angry denial continues to flow. lol. I never said I was "all knowing". I'm just pointing out obvious logical truths. Like I said, don't shoot the messenger. Also wolf, if the "instant chemistry" magic intuition is so great then 40 days without a soul mate IS a long time to be here. Don't worry, I don't have to enlighten my signifigant other, she's pretty smart and sees eye to eye with me on this topic and many others.
 kindheart8
Joined: 8/4/2007
Msg: 224
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:04:33 PM
I find that to many people, expect to happen in real life what they see on TV. You are right thou that to many people confuse chemistry and love with chemistry and lust. I have met people over the years that may have not been that beautiful or handsome but once you got to know them , they had more beauty inside them any modle out there today. Yes both side of the human race have to stop expecting what they see on TV as real life and they all deserve Miss Universe or Mr. Univirse.
 celts123
Joined: 5/15/2008
Msg: 229
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:18:39 PM
So, what do all you lovely people that do not believe in the validity of instant chemistry suggest? Should we should just continue to date someone until we realize how fabulous they are? How long do you suggest we do that? A few months, forever?


That question has been answered several times. Some people stated 2-3 dates UNLESS there was some obvious dealbreakers about the other person.

Edit: The OP answered this question while I was typing my response.
 celts123
Joined: 5/15/2008
Msg: 235
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:38:01 PM

Forgive me for not reading back 11 pages...


You didn't need to read all 11 pages. The OP actually addressed this in his initial post.


I also asked you earlier OP...do you date every woman you meet? Either at work, on the street, just wherever during the course of your daily life, if she shows an interest in you by asking you out? Do you? And again...if you don't, then why not?


I'm not the OP. But I can answer this question. If I rejected a woman that asked me out, that would be because there was an obvious dealbreaker about her. Many of people who don't expect instant chemistry stated that they would go on 2-3 dates with someone UNLESS there was an obvious dealbreaker about the other person.
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 236
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:40:13 PM
I notice all the "instant chemistry" people have been here forever, so it's obviously not working, (surprise, surprise), yet I'm with someone who see's eye to eye with me in practically every part of our relationship. Who's the "sad" one again?

You know, I rarely address you ~ but I've actually had enough, so here it is: I have been here a long time ~ wanna know why??? I lost the love of my life. Fate was very cruel. It has nothing to do with the love dying nor did the instant chemistry leave the relationship ~ it grew in leaps and bounds to be quite honest. My instant chemistry turned into love/marriage and I've mourned that loss for nearly 4 years....so before you stereo-type us long-timers here ~ be very careful. You don't know why someone is here for a long time. You certainly did hit a nerve with me personally by discrediting what I post. To state that my situation was simply wasted time because you deem that portion of relationship imaginary is asinine. Your "I'm the IChing, all knowing about ...xyz" attitude is simplistic and simply screams 'wounded heart.' Maybe you refuse the former butterflies because you can't move passed the thought it might just hurt to actually let those feelings happen only to lose them as you did in your past. Whatever it is ~ makes no difference to me, but don't tell me what I have or have not had in my life because you don't believe as I do. I can assure you ~ I've experienced the best life has to offer without regretting one single second of any of it. Butterflies, love, loss, heartbreak, and the joy that it all happened in my life. And today, I'm now ready to move on and hopefully have it all one more time in this lifetime. If I'm so lucky.

~OP~ Thanks for the interesting thread. Always nice to get different perspectives!

~OT~ Again, meet/date/marry whomever you wish to and if you don't wish to do any ~ do that. If you are an instant chemistry person, you'll agree there is nothing better ~ if you aren't, good for you for knowing who you are. It's a matter of preference. To each their own. Good luck all.
 cw35
Joined: 4/8/2005
Msg: 237
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:40:35 PM
Talk about beating a dead horse. Once again: Don't shoot the messenger. Tell you what, wolfy, since this is obviously such a touchy subject for you and you're obviously wayyyyyy too smart for me to reason with let's say you're right about everything and I'll run out and get you a gold star.

verygreen: You started the insult train saying I'm the so called sad one. I suggest not saying anything if you're supposedly so easily wounded by someone else's opinion. Sorry if I wasn't aware that I have to turn the other cheek every time one of you directs smart as* comments at me.
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 244
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 9:20:00 PM
verygreen: You started the insult train saying I'm the so called sad one. I suggest not saying anything if you're supposedly so easily wounded by someone else's opinion. Sorry if I wasn't aware that I have to turn the other cheek every time one of you directs smart as* comments at me.

What I posted was:


Sad to see that being mentally mature takes all of the fun out of falling in love.

Maybe I should have said, "It's sad to see........" If you take this as me calling you sad ~ well, so be it. Maybe I just find it sad to think within the confines of "maturity" as you stated it. I won't ever lose the "kid" in me. Mature??? I wrote that book. I had to be mature at a very young age, I still value being young, wide-eyed, in awe and alive (in all regards.) NO WHERE did I state you are "sad."

~OT~ Speed dating....hmmmm, maybe that is what I need to try. Too bad I live in a geographical area where it's not likely something people do. I wonder if you can find instant chemistry in the grocery store, since that is about the only place I go anymore. Must evaluate this futher.
 Stan Powder
Joined: 12/22/2007
Msg: 250
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/6/2008 10:54:06 PM
Instant chemistry is way too hard to explain but really does happen. I was at a Crystal Castles concert 2 nights ago, and me and a girl near me just stared at eachother by accident, I thought she looked adorable and we just smiled at the same time. Maybe we liked eachother's style, maybe we liked the show, who knows but it was there and we just started talking, and I felt like even if I was sounding like a goof, I could say anything to her and feel comfortable.

Now I will admit she was physically my type, but that's my type, not every other guys type, and I'm sure she felt the same way about me, but still chemistry is chemistry.

Maybe it's going to continue for a long long time, maybe not, but we're going out tomorrow night and like instant chemistry, it always happens when you least expect it, and it's the coolest thing ever.

I personally enjoy instant chemistry it's un-explainable but in my situations I've always followed my instincts and had some great turn-outs because of it.

As for online, I don't believe in online chemistry one bit, yes you might get to know someone, but real attraction can only be made by physically being there with them.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 255
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 4:36:09 AM
So, for the "instant chemistry" defenders, it would seem that the PERFECT way to find that special person would be the "speed dating" meetings, where you have 5-6 minutes with each person and then are forced to move to the next - and make a decision at the end of the evening who you want to date. Kinda wonder why you're all here, instead of going to weekly speed dating events.

You're quite right - it takes 6-8 minutes to know if I want to know more, so it'd be perfect. If I ever feel the need to actually search out a mate and they ever start having more of these in my area, yeah - it'd be exactly what I'd do.

I do this in everyday life....going about my business. I have attraction to someone, I talk to em. I don't I either don't notice them, or don't bother talking to them. Not as structured as speed dating, but same idea. Same thing I have done for years - long before online dating was going on.

My problem with online dating is that you don't know about attraction until you meet someone, so yeah - talking to them for a month or more can be a waste of time (well for them anyway, I have no problem being friends with someone I get along with but wouldn't date - but many men want dating or nothing). So I tend to do most of my dating (what little there is) offline.

well ofcourse there has to be attraction to take it further..BUT as I've been saying sometimes attraction does not develop right away, so as far as i'm concerned you are being close minded. To say if ther eis no attraction within the first few minutes etc. and not want to see teh guy again is being close minde dto me..

It shouldn't be closed minded to you just because you're wired differently. I just know if I am attracted to someone within about 5 minutes. I don't develop attraction over time if it's not there to begin with - it's either there or it's not, and I should know - I've tried the over time thing with men I WISHED I had attraction to; never works. Others may be wired differently, but for me, that's the way it's always been.

How about those of you who don't know right away NOT condemn those who do? To each their own....it's not a right and wrong thing, it's a "we're all different" thing. What do you care? Long as you do things in your life your way, it doesn't really matter what everyone else does.

And it's obvious you can't know someone completely in 5 minutes, but for those of us who experience instant attraction (or not) we know enough to know we don't NEED to know any more about them.
 WeAre1
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 256
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 5:01:49 AM
op, you posted,

So, let me get this straight. You looked at each other by accident, you thought she looked adorable, you smiled and she was physically your type. Yep, that pretty much sounds like lust to me!

i disagree with you....
the word adorable does not conjur up incredible sex, does it?
now if they had said, 'she looked 'hot', that would bring the idea of lust to my mind.
nope, to me she touched his heart and he just checked she was also his type so he didn't think of her as a child, perhaps, or something like an adorable kitten, or puppy.
now i can see, OP, perhaps, where some of your distortions are coming from. seems you are the one that sees everything with lust...and if so, are you demanding instant chemistry? do you define 'instant chemistry' purely in terms of lust factor? seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject.
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 257
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:02:11 AM

seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject.

Yep, that's pretty much what several people have already said. A suggestion was made that POF add some sort of 'do you believe in instant chemistry' question to the personal description area of the profiles so that the 'believers' could find each other.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 259
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:11:25 AM

It shouldn't be closed minded to you just because you're wired differently. I just know if I am attracted to someone within about 5 minutes. I don't develop attraction over time if it's not there to begin with - it's either there or it's not, and I should know - I've tried the over time thing with men I WISHED I had attraction to; never works. Others may be wired differently, but for me, that's the way it's always been.
How about those of you who don't know right away NOT condemn those who do? To each their own....it's not a right and wrong thing, it's a "we're all different" thing. What do you care? Long as you do things in your life your way, it doesn't really matter what everyone else does.
And it's obvious you can't know someone completely in 5 minutes, but for those of us who experience instant attraction (or not) we know enough to know we don't NEED to know any more about them.
Agreed DJ. As I stated much earlier....I can NOT tell if there will be "chemistry" in a short time...but I CAN tell whether there will NOT be any. LOL! in fact...the last experiment lasted almost 25 years.....I was attracted, compatible...but the "chemistry" never happened. We corrected that mistake (with a divorce) and are still best friends....we just no longer pretend to feel something that doesn't exist. (and never did)


now i can see, OP, perhaps, where some of your distortions are coming from. seems you are the one that sees everything with lust...and if so, are you demanding instant chemistry? do you define 'instant chemistry' purely in terms of lust factor? seems there is no automatic agreed meaning for your question. but perhaps it all shows us a big key to compatibility could be finding another who agrees with you (each of us) on this subject.
I'd say that you've pretty well nailed it down WeAre! When a person sees everything in terms of "lust", they tend to think that everyone else thinks the same way. Indeed the key would seem to be in finding another who agrees on the subject. When someone who has no problem feeling lustful about everyone they run into; others who don't get those feeling quite so easily would seem odd to them.

LOL! Personally....I can't tell a thing about "chemistry" until the first kiss, but I'm not so narrow minded that I'm going to ridicule someone who may very well have much better tuned intuition than I have myself.

I seems rather pointless to argue about how some does...or doesn't feel about someone else. Do the reasons really matter....particularly if you only know them for 5 mins to 5 days? I would tend to think that if I were confident that I exuded sexual charm then I wouldn't worry about meeting someone with the "instant chemistry" demand. If I did not feel that I had those qualities...then I would simply forgo meeting them. What I wouldn't do.....is criticize their right to pick and choose by whatever methods seem to work best for THEM.
 WomanInProgress
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 260
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 8:16:46 AM
And there you have it, posters, modern dating in the internet age! "Hey, I've already spent 5 whole minutes of my time on you, I don't NEED to know any more about you!"

Nope, it's not modern at all, or internet related (which I already explained more than once). It's been like this for me since I can remember. It's life. IRL it's the same thing, except I don't talk to them in the first place if not attracted, cause - well, what's the point (romantically, anyway)? If I am interested I know with a brief conversation from a stranger I see out somewhere...in about 5-10 minutes I know if I have any interest in knowing them further.

Again, people only notice this now with the online thing, cause it's backwards here - they talk BEFORE meeting. If they met first there simply would just be no conversation if one wasn't interested...at least not leading to anything resembling a date.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 262
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 9:02:03 AM

Nope, it's not modern at all, or internet related (which I already explained more than once). It's been like this for me since I can remember. It's life. IRL it's the same thing, except I don't talk to them in the first place if not attracted, cause - well, what's the point (romantically, anyway)? If I am interested I know with a brief conversation from a stranger I see out somewhere...in about 5-10 minutes I know if I have any interest in knowing them further.
You probably don't even realize HOW right you really are about this DJ! It is NEITHER "modern" nor "internet related". My own grandparents met at church, and were married 6 days later. LOL! And my awesome Grandma....had to mail back the engagement ring to the fiance she broke up with to marry my Grandfather. Their "instant chemistry" didn't work though....the marriage only lasted 70 years.

A man I worked with years ago told me some really interesting stories about living in Italy, France and Belgium shortly after the end of WWII. I was rather amazed by their perceptions of "finding The One", but his logic seemed pretty sound. He came to the US in 1957 and found the "long engagement" thing really strange. It seemed that in post WWII Europe...with a lack of transportation, it was vital that they find "instant chemistry"...and in fact didn't "waste" any time if it was not present. The reason was that if (per his story) if you met a girl and things didn't click right away...it was too inconvenient to persue the matter further....as it was difficult to find transportation to meet someone...and most of the time he would have to walk 10 or more miles to meet a girl and wasn't going to make the trip more than 1 time if there was no "fireworks".

I actually think that it's quite the opposite of what the OP is trying to peddle....that is is the modern way....and due to internet availability that tends to lengthen the process, partially due to the fact that there might be something better waiting around the corner....so don't commit to admitting any "spark" too soon.....keep dragging things out as long as you possibly can.
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 267
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 12:36:29 PM

berate anyone that disagreed with your opinion.


Sigh. It's bizarre that when someone clearly writes 'that is an immature attitude ', someone reads it as 'berating the poster'. You can change your attitude, therefore it's not a critical part of your identity, nor is it 'you'. Now if I posted, as someone else here did, that the op was 'ugly', that indeed is berating the poster. Nobody, however, took that poster to task.
 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 268
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 4:45:24 PM

If you can actually find a way to take offense to my fairly level-headed post, you have been ranting on here far too long my friend...
I have always found this members posts to be as he describes....sensible and fair....even on the occassions that I have disagreed with them.

I can't believe the range of arguments going on here, and how little people seem to be willing to consider the alternate side of the coin, even as a REMOTE possibility without dismissing it as "juvenile", "immature", "shallow", etc.
Totally agreed!
My impressions from the beginning have been that the thread was not to invite "discussion" but "agreement" only. I find it absurd to accuse one member of being incapable of reading what another was incapable of writing! Such blatent contradictions have proceeded throughout the thread and the makers of such have been unwilling to clarify, correct, or even amend their conflicting statements. Stating in the beginning that the post was NOT a generalization, (on one word) but then continuing to do exactly that with another word was, I suppose, intended to keep us from noticing the rash generalizations.
I'm not one to generalize, so will never say "all women" or even "most women" so lets just say that quite a few women I've met in my online dating experience
and then
what most define as the (instant) chemistry they’re looking for is just another word for “lust” and has little to do with long-term compatibility.


I stated in my first post (message 177) that I AGREED with the original statemement...and ended up STILL being bashed for it....simply because I didn't agree with the more extreme notion that "chemistry" and lust were synonomyous. That would make it pretty clear that there was going to be a 0 tolerance for any deviation from the extreme.

My apologies to all if I seemed to be monopolizing.
I was going to mention some of the thread-monopolizing posters by name, namely you, MerryLass, GrandmaBooBoo, but as I scanned more of their posts I decided to drop names.
As is appropriate in following forum rules. I would however like to note that while I did indeed take the flame bait Message #188
Both Grandmabooboo and Wonderingoutloud have cited extremes in their examples. Really, why bother. Of course nobody means that you should spend more time with someone who is obviously a boor right from the start.
What say we drop the extremes, which do nothing to forward this discussion, and deal with the more usual situation which is that you meet someone who does not make your heart (or loins) all tingly right at the start but who is seemingly a normal person, has all the front teeth, is neither hideous nor stunning but a regular average-looking normal human.
and no less than 3 other events of having falsely quoted (credited by name [inappropriate and against the rules]with something that someone else wrote) and addressed the attacks directly in post # 215. You may also note that no admission or apology was made for falsely quoting or attributing to me personally what someone else said. But, such is to be expected when a hypothesis is on such shaky ground from the get go.

Perhaps had the argument been written in a less inflammatory way from the onset, much name calling could have been avoided; but then...that may have been the intended goal.

What I find "immature" is the presumption that the OTHER person's attitude is automatically the one that needs changing if it differs from another...
LOL! Now, I agree with this statement SO wholeheartedly that even though I began reading this thread and essentially agreeing with the OP...that I have been persuaded to adopt the view that there must indeed be some earnest validity in this "instant chemistry" thing.....and I may in fact change my own profile to reflect it as one of my demands. It would seem that I am less in disagreement with the "instant chemistry" demand than I am with the arrogant accusations of those who deny it's existance and who do so by insinuating that those who do believe in it are sluts and morons! LOL! Tiger....you should give up golf and become a lawyer!
 WeAre1
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 269
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 5:13:23 PM
actually, gmabb - i'm thinking you should give up ------ and become a lawyer!! (seriously)
and, OP, i used the word 'distortions' in that post about your lustful views because, to me, they are.....just as I imagine you think my views are distortions too - compared to yours....that is if you read my views as I wrote them, or through the distorted lens of your perception.
i'm sorry if you took that word as a direct insult, for it seems you thought it was then valid to return one to me. ('earth to weare1'?)
i guess, once again, the fora comes through to show our true natures when our beliefs are challenged......what a shame we act like children so much and so obviously. (me included)
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 270
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/7/2008 6:50:04 PM

and no less than 3 other events of having falsely quoted (credited by name [inappropriate and against the rules]with something that someone else wrote) and addressed the attacks directly in post # 215

Wow. I have zero idea how you manage to read all that into what I write. You have the most amazing ability to infer things which have never been implied. It is you who are on the attack with all these fallacies and I'd appreciate it if you'd cut it out.

 GrandmaBooBoo
Joined: 12/30/2006
Msg: 275
view profile
History
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 4:51:38 AM
WHOAAAA Nellie!!!! Please re-read the comment I made Isthison!
Good try, but you'll find that the "humanists" have pretty much dumped Sternbergs Love Model for their own watered down "Hathway" model....promoting a more "non emotional" practical "friendship" approach with has made "consummate love" rather the outcast instead of the ultimate goal to shoot for. (search threads, and you'll see that the votes run about 60% toward dumping "passion" as being considered a necessary requirement in "love".)
FOR THE RECORD: I AGREED with your example of the Sternberg Model....and was....in sarcasm putting down the "humanistic" views (such as Hatfields...watered down version). I did so fully knowing that a large percentage of those posting here have ALSO posted in other threads that have supported that model as being MORE valid than Sternbergs.

Oh, and one other thing, "manipulating phrases." Did you ever think about being a tele-evangalist. I think you have future there.
I did NOT manipulate the phrase, in fact....I applauded your effort, but went on to say that we're dealing HERE with a "humanist" viewpoint.....one in which those who oppose "chemistry", are the same as those who will argue with you that "Companionate love" (which LACKS the element of passion) IS THE HIGHER goal to shoot for.....above "Consummate love" (which contains all 3 elements)....because the later "love models" contend that ALL passion is fleeting....essentially denying that consummate love is even a possibility.
I DO personally disagree with them, but the first rule in delivering an effective persuasive argument is "knowing your audience".

LOL! Now....all that being said; and those who are familiar with my writing style KNOW that it is similar to that of Johnathan Swift....which uses the Rhetoric and sarcastic style which causes the read to hate me....but to have empathy for the subject. (A Modest Proposal....where Swift advocated that the Irish eat their children to solve the hunger problem) LOL! At times....when people are extremely closed minded...the only avenue in reaching them is to AGREE with them to such an exaggerated extent that they might hopefully seen the foolishness of their own beliefs.

Once again, WITHOUT any sarcasm.....I AGREE with the Sternberg Triangular Theory of Love....that without passion, the ULTIMATE style of love (Consummate) cannot exist. I do believe however that you will find that my hecklers will strenuously disagree with our accessment.
I believe you will find at the heart of their arguments is the theory that
Agapic love is self-sacrificing, all-encompassing love. Agapic lovers are often spiritual or religious people. Agapic lovers view their partners as blessings, and wish to take care of them.
Agapic lovers will remain faithful to their partners to avoid causing them pain, and will often wait patiently for their partners after a break-up. Marriage and children are sacred trusts, and sex is a gift between two people. Agapic love believes itself to be unconditional, though lovers taking an agapic stance to relationships risk suffering from inattention to their own needs.
The advantage of agapic love is its generosity. A disadvantage is that it can induce feelings of guilt or incompetence in a partner. In its deviant form, agape becomes martyrdom.
Is this NOT afterall what's being pushed? To be "generous", to ignore the individuals own needs and desires (instant chemistry) in favor of giving the other person how ever long it takes them to convince you that they can inspire "chemistry"....eventually? Are not the insinuations that anyone who demands "chemistry" is morally bankrupt...thus proving that they themselves are spiritually above such things and therefore superior?

I think they end up looking a LONG time, and then if they DO find that (mutually), it doesn’t very often translate to a long-term relationship anyway. Such is internet dating, I’m afraid – its like a virtual “candy store” and there may always be *better* candy in the next display case over!
If THAT doesn't sound like a televangalist prediction....then Brother....I don't know what does!
 spiderette
Joined: 6/28/2008
Msg: 276
WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:22:56 AM
some of us...can intuit differential calculus!

^^^^wouldn't you prefer a little discrete math to differential calculus.....hmm?! sounds a little sexier to me!
 Merrylass
Joined: 12/30/2007
Msg: 277
view profile
History
WHAT is chemistry
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:31:05 AM

is this NOT afterall what's being pushed?

No. Not at all. Not even close.
 spiderette
Joined: 6/28/2008
Msg: 278
The instant chemistry demand
Posted: 7/8/2008 5:48:21 AM
My last date I felt no chemistry in person, just as I felt none on the phone. He was a nice guy, but there was NOTHING there. No attraction, nothing.

^^^^funny you must have read my mind! i, too, have found if i feel nothing prior to the meet, i rarely feel anything upon meeting. there's a certain combination which has to be there for me to feel "it." often (aside from a base level of physical attractiveness & the guy having something going for him), he has to strike me in a certain way - almost as though he needs to compel me with his words even prior to the meet. i've felt it only twice online (sigh) and neither worked out (lol double sigh). hmm - isn't the 3rd time supposed to be the charm? lol
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  >