I know it's nice....the exhilaration, the sexual tension, but is a relationship that begins with high chemistry a precursor of a quality relationship? Or...does one that starts off slow and begins with a small spark that builds up to a low smoulder more indicative of a healthy relationship? Does the passion of the high octane start blind one to some red flags and cause one to disregard or “gloss over” some glaring incompatibility issues. Does it matter?

I would probably vote for one that starts slow.
I would also say too much passion blinds you.

Yes, I've come to believe that chemistry matters a lot.

The more "settled" parts of the relationship can be built with time. People with good chemistry between them have a good launch pad to do this.

However, I firmly believe that a relationship without chemistry is ultimately destined for failure. Failure, not meaning that divorce is inevitable, but that the relationships will only be a shadow of what it could be.

Unfortunately, the need for chemistry gets a bad rap because so many want to ride the high and not accept the responsibiility of building the relationship into more. That doesn't mean that having chemistry is a bad thing...it's absolutely not...it's necessary.

My daughter was recently dating a great guy...good future, very responsible. Every father's dream. Treated her like gold. Everyone thought he would be a great "catch". In a private moment, I spoke with her and asked her if she felt "it" with him. She immediately knew what I meant and said "No". I advised her to end the relationship as quickly as possible...it wasn't going anywhere.

Why do I feel qualified to answer this?

I tried to build my marriage without chemistry. While I did love my wife, there was never any "chemistry". It was always a struggle. I've always been a very analytical person and I discounted the value of having a passionate connection. Like many, I was sure it was something that could be built later...I was wrong.

Edited to add...
I believe in LONG engagements with mandatory marriage training classes. I've always found it odd that many states require a year period before finalizing a divorce, yet there is no waiting period to actually get married. I think "betrothal" should be a legally recognized condition...allowing either of the betrothed to dissolve the betrothal with minimal consequence. I think it should be for 12 months or until the first child is born...whichever comes first. Couples who already have children together would be granted marriage licenses immediately and be strongly encouraged to complete the marriage classes.

Low

I think it depends on how important sexual chemistry is for people. For me, it's high. Another person may be pleased with the slow spark and concentrate more on other compatibilities.

One thing I'm trying to learn is that although sexual chemistry is a big need for me, so I look for it very early, I mustn't let it mask potential problem areas. Check everything out, which can only happen with time.

I think chemistry is necessary. Sometimes you can tell right away if there's chemistry. Other times, it takes a few dates to show up. However, I don't think you can build chemistry the way you can build trust and openness.

I'll admit I'm one of those who has hated the word & concept of chemistry. Now however, I see it was because I was lumping everyone into a group that felt if attraction wasn't immediate fagetaboutit.

Yes, I want to feel attraction/chemistry. If I don't feel it right away though I'd like to think I might feel it when I get to know someone better. So patience, understanding, & willingness to consider attraction my be tied to something other than immediate physical attraction is a very important part of feeling chemistry.

Yes, it's necessary if what chemistry means to you is desire for a satisfying intimate physical relationship & a fulfilling, close emotional one as well.

For me at least, I would say chemistry is necessary. But, I've come to believe that chemistry is mostly a choice. Not always a conscious choice, mind you, but a choice nonetheless.

When someone is entirely unsuitable for us in a way which we are capable of discerning, I think we don't allow ourselves to "fall in love." In other cases, something about someone attracts us, whether appropriately or inappropriately, and because we are too foolish to see the warning signs (or because we go against our better judgement) we do permit ourselves to give way to those wonderful feelings.

But we've seen accounts right here on this forum of situations where chemistry suddenly appeared given the "right" circumstances. I suspect that pretty much anytime you've got a good match and a mutual willingness to try, chemistry can be produced. If this doesn't happen, then I'd look for an intuitive recognition that there is some essential problem with the match.

All we have to do is look at Harley's principles to see some support for this idea. When in a state of withdrawal, the chemical "reaction" is blocked, no matter how many "love bank deposits" are made or attempted. But when the bank is open, the feelings can be generated quite deterministically.

I'll just add the caveat that this belief of mine is merely my current operating theory, not at all on the level of a conviction. It is subject to change without notice...

I hesitated to post, because we've had so many other similar discussions. But each time, I guess we dig into something a lttle bit different. And with each new dating experience, I think I learn more! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

>>I know it's nice....the exhilaration, the sexual tension, but is a relationship that begins with high chemistry a precursor of a quality relationship?

no

>>Or...does one that starts off slow and begins with a small spark that builds up to a low smoulder more indicative of a healthy relationship?

If this happens, YES, I beleive so. I'm dating someone now that I don't "feel it" for, and I tried to give it a chance, but it's not smoldering yet, and I don't think it will. Actually, neither my xH, nor my long-term xBF J... "had me at hello", but grew on me. They were long-term, quality relationships. 2 of my recent month-long relationships had high-chemistry, but only lasted a month.

>>Does the passion of the high octane start blind one to some red flags and cause one to disregard or “gloss over” some glaring incompatibility issues. Does it matter?

Yes, it can be blinding, and yes it matters. Passion can be fun, but at some point, we should pay attention to the red flags and real issues. The passion can fade (and usually WILL), and then all you are left with is the red flags.

Chemistry is important, but it must be balanced with everything else. I don't believe in "instant" chemistry. It can grow. But if it doesn't in a reasonable amount of time, the relationship won't be satisfying.

I'm trying to hurry... LOL... so I hope some of this makes sense.

hugs,
Faith1

Yes it's necessary...at least in my book. Otherwise there wouldn't be an attraction...and I don't mean a physical attraction but almost a sense of intrique...wanting and needing to know more...cloud nine kinda feeling.

I have been on both sides of this issue. When I met someone to whom I was attracted, but they gave me the "No chemistry" line, I thought they were shallow and superficial, because good chemistry should grow over time.

But, when I met someone to whom I was not attracted "that" way, and they tried to lecture me that chemistry can grow over time, their words went in one ear and out the other <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I think that chemistry is very important. The key is, what is chemistry? It should not be the high schoolish type of "holy cow, look at the size of those trophies, I think I'm in love". But, there should be enough there for you to see yourself being able to, at some point, to passionately kiss or make love to that person.

I have tried once to overcome the lack of such initial chemistry by starting a relationship with someone who in every other way was wonderful for me. And yet, while we developed a close connection, I never ached for her physically, I never wanted to kiss her passionately, and it was just not fair to her (nor satisfying to me).

I think chemistry is a vital ingredient to a good relationship. The problem is, some people allow great chemistry to cloud the lack of a good foundation in the other areas of the relationship.

What always amused me is how unpredicatble chemistry is. I have received the "no chemistry" line from some average looking women, and yet have also had tremendous mutual chemistry with some stunning looking women. So, it's not just a matter of how "hot" someone is, but really a matter of individual wiring. Go figure <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

I cannot say there is an universal answer... it depends on people, match they make in general as well...

I have to admit that I always had to have... 'high' chemistry... otherwise I'd be just friend...

That didn't happened with my X though, we went slowly, he was so persistant to get me... then hurt me so badly...
I wished I had had at least excuse I was blind with passion not to see what's coming... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Binder:

"Does the passion of the high octane start blind one to some red flags and cause one to disregard or “gloss over” some glaring incompatibility issues."

Like the small matter that you're not divorced yet?

"Does it matter?"

Does it matter 2 you?

-ol' 2long

Chemistry Memistry. Are you kidding me?

Chemistry? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Is this the MB forum? - or an offshoot of the newspaper personals ads?

IMHO, anybody on these boards who thinks "chemistry" ought to be in the relationship lexicon needs to re-read His Needs/Her Needs. Sheese! Harumph!

The only "chemistry" we should be concerned about is the dopamine injected in brains on the Mothership. "Chemistry" is for those who don't understand relationships - or want only to understand them on the adolescent level.

"Chemistry" is for cheaters, adulterers, and other shallow minds.

Seriously, Binder, with what you know now about relationships you're WAY past "chemistry." You're at the doctorate level.

You make decisions in relationships based on "chemistry" and that's exactly what you'll get - a short term exothermic reaction with another shallow mind:

Average relationship undereducated guy: So, wanna come to my apartment and check out my "chemistry."

Average relationship undereducated gal: "Oooooo, sure, honey! I love short term, shallow exothermic reactions with no substance!"

Now, here's Binder: "What emotional need is more important to you, conversation or affection?"

Here's a hot tip: When you seriously enter the dating scene (after divorce) cruise the on-line dating services as if you're a woman. See what other guys are saying about themselves in their profiles. Guaranteed you'll see the word "chemistry" almost as often as the phrase, "just as comfortable in a tux as in bluejeans."

Wanna separate yourself from the undereducated masses re: relationships? Drop the superficial terminology. Use the priceless knowledge what you've learned.

WAT

I think I would rather feel no immediate chemistry.

My thought is, to have no immediate ga-ga thoughts, learn to know someone for who they are and then if those 'feelings' entered, how intense and real they would be. That being said, I need to remember this if/when I date.

I'm still learning!
Karona

Hehe, WAT, you are a riot <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />:). OK, for me personally, my definition of "chemistry" is straight from HNHN - it is little more than the Attractive Spouse EN, which is high on my EN list. If I don't feel attracted to my partner, I don't feel the chemistry, and if I do, I do. Simple, eh?

Now, those who see an attractive person and immediately feel that this "chemistry" must make them soulmates, then, yes, you are right, those people are great candidates for the alien abductions that we are so familiar with <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

I don't think chemistry has to do with the Attractive Spouse need since I've felt chemistry for some not-so-handsome men starting at age 11 when I developed a huge crush on Humphry Bogart, at once the world's sexiest and ugliest movie star.

I think it's a huge combo of all the needs wrapped up. Packaging counts since it's what makes you want to open the package up and see what's inside. Nice thing is we all like different packages. LOL.

I don't want to be taken wrong,
I'm all about eye candy, but have learned that there is more depth to a person than looks. [and I'm thinking I'm not alone in this line of thought]

Someone who I get and that gets me, knowing what makes each other tick could be an amazing thing. Talk about chemistry!!

K!

yoo-hoo... Binder... where'd ya go?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I agree. There is much more to a person than looks, which is why I said that "chemistry" gets you attracted to the person, but the rest of the foundation needs to be in place too.

However, I know that for me, I have met women with whom we clicked on many different levels like great conversation, similar interests, backgrounds, etc, but who were not "attractive" enough for me to feel the "chemistry" (as I define it), and without that, a bunch of important ENs (like AS, Affection, and SF) were not fulfilled - and that was a non-starter for me.

AGG

And I would agree with you AGG.

I'm not talking about someone "not attractive". IF SF were to happen, I want to be attracted to this person by all means. [which of course would only happen in after foundation is set]
However, I have found that some men [as I'm sure women] the more attractive they are, the more shallow they are, which can be a turn off.

Obviously, the ideal would be to have the total package.

K