I found the same thing, especially in this LaLa land I call home <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. I am distinctly unattracted to the plastic-looking "beautiful people", because they are almost always too full of themselves. Gimme a pretty girl-next-door any day! That's what's "attractive" to me.

AGG

Ahh, I'm sure that is the case out there.

I live in a total opposite world.

K

Translation?: Mary Ann, not Ginger.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
WAT
---------------
Three Hour Tour, LLP.

You got it!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />:)

WAT:

I liked your earlier post. We had a convo at home about chemistry the other day. (gadz! my hard drive just started making awful noises! Better back this puppy up!)...

As a middle school friend of mine used 2 say: "Beauty is only skin deep, but 'ugly' is 2 the bone."

He wasn't that deep, but in my advanced years (late fall chicken) that 2uote has taken on new meaning.

-ol' 2long

I always liked Dulcey, of 'Cimmaron Strip'.

And if I remember correctly, Mary Ann aged better than Ginger. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

-ol' 2long

I read somewhere, a couple of years ago, that arraigned marriages in the US (yes, they happen here too, mostly among recent immigrant families) have a very low rate of infidelity and D. Less than 10%, if I remember correctly.

What would be the chemistry in that reaction? Is extended family chemistry too?

With prayers,

Appy:

"Is extended family chemistry too?"

Now you're talking nuclear! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

(or is it nucular? Who's president now anyway??)

-ol' 2long

Hiya Binder,

Fancy meeting you over here these days. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In my past,I have had both experiences.I dated a guy who I really felt tingly for,call it chemistry if you will.But the more we dated and discovered eachother,the more I realized he was a a je**All the infatuation up front drew me in but it did not pan out.True colors came to light.

As for my WH,I wasn't sexually attracted to him and I didn't feel like I had any chemistry but we did seem to have a lot in common so we just started out as friends and we spent a lot of time together.After several months we were SO in love we couldn't be apart without crying every weekend from missing eachother.We found that we really loved being with one another and had a lot of similarities in what we believed( go figure how all that changed now <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />).But that feeling for him never left me and was as strong as it was in the beginning.It only changed when he betrayed me so painfully.

It was s low burn shall we say and I think it would have lasted forever.If I believed that "chemistry" right off the bat had to be so important,I wouldn't have given him a chance.Aside from the adultery now,we had many good years together and two precious girls that I would never want to change for anything.So I could never say I wish I didn't marry my WH and mean it.I could have ended my engagement and went out with a doctor that was pursuing me heavily many years ago but then that wouldn't have been right either.

As I heard a Psychologist say once, I would rather WALK into love than fall into it.This way my eyes are wide open and I can see clearly what I need to.

O

Just to clarify: "chemistry' for me has nothing to do with how someone (physically) looks (I can feel it torward "ugly" men, or not, the same if he's "handsome", or not)... but rather 'the whole look' - mental, intelectual, physical... CHARM!
(Btw, I don't like very handsome people... from my experience, (not only that all of them look alike <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) these ones (men and women) tend to think that's just enough.
And that's far far away from enough...


WAT, does this make me now a bit less "shallow"? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

I try to sneak over into this corner and looky here who I see. My old friends, WAT, 2long and Octobergirl. Geez, a guy just can’t be anonymous here. And I get a 50 mm X 100 mm (that’s Canadian for 2 X 4) from 2long and a nasty flick on my earlobe from WAT for using the term “chemistry”!

WAT, excuse the popular vernacular of “chemistry” but I think the question is valid. “Chemistry” is merely used to describe the visceral attraction that we humans occasionally feel towards another upon an initial meeting and no doubt is some evolutionary vestige that has to do with seeking potential partners with certain attributes to maximize our genetic success. Our human make-up has several of these types of innate tendencies some of which even have been used to explain a tendency towards extramarital affairs. But I ain’t no anthropologist ! creak….putwoeee! (that’s the sound Binder makes leaning forward in his rocking chair on his cabin porch, removing his corn-cob pipe, moving his side-by-side and spitting)

I think our North American culture typically marries for love, but that is not necessarily the status quo world wide. As mentioned, there are lots of marriages that are arranged. They may suffer fewer affairs and incidents of divorce……I don’t know and I’m sure there are many factors cultural and otherwise which can influence those stats.

Now I asked about a quality relationship as the benchmark for the “chemistry”. Though the definition of “quality” is arguable, it’s obvious that many of those who responded deem that according to their definition of chemistry, it is the starting point. They may never date anyone for any length of time without that component to see what develops. At least certainly never to the point that an EN questionnaire is filled out together. I find it interesting that a culture that suffers a divorce rate of near 50 % considers that this “chemistry” thingy might be something to start a relationship on.

2long, have you been reading my diary? Yes I was asked out late last summer by a woman that works for the same agency I do. I accepted. She is smart, attractive, no children and enjoys long runs in our beautiful river valley. I had filed for divorce in May and was told in 4 – 6 weeks I would be divorced. I thought I could have some platonic relationships and segue that into something potentially romantic post divorce. If you read my threads in GQ II you know that I have had several procedural delays and some delays due to the attempts of my STBXWW to change the parenting arrangement. As this continued to push back my divorce date I continued to share some meals, movies, runs and conversation with this woman. It was a bad decision and I could not resolve what I was doing with what I espouse. I stopped it.
I will not defend my choices.


And no……we did not.


Yes….I do admit that there are some intangibles that are not addressed in Harley’s concepts that add a sense of adolescent fun to a relationship. I just will not base a relationship on those, nor will I refuse to pursue a relationship where I don’t feel the instant rush of endorphins coursing through my body. I never felt a strong initial attraction to my WW, but I do not attribute the demise of my marriage to the lack of that. I will address the hard issues and what I’ve learned here should I actually choose to seek a life partner again, but I will not deny myself the simple pleasure of enjoying the company of a woman that has that “je ne sais quoi” that has me reverting to the vocabulary I had when I was 2 ½ years old.

Binder:

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

I think you're going 2 be pretty okay.

...and I'm impressed. I don't think I even had a vocabulary when I was 2.5. In fact, I don't think I was ever that young! (but neither were WAT or JL).

-ol' 2long

ditto 2long for Binder

My adverse reaction (pun intended) to the "chemistry" term may be driven by its overuse in the dating realm and its obvious role as a basis/excuse for most infidelity decisions. The latter primarily drives my "shallow" description.

For the record, I don't think anyone will deny that a certain excitement can come over you when the stars seemingly align. Real or perceived, it's there. Making decisions on it or consciously seeking that out in a new encounter, however, seems short sighted to me. If it's there, terrific. I've experience it myself. But use it as a litmus test? (continuing the metaphor <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

When I was using match.com to find my sweetie, I kept seeing women's descriptions of their (expected) perfect matches as someone who had "chemistry." Over and over and over. Gag. Did they not have any original thoughts? Did they not realize that's what so many of them were saying? As I mentioned above, I browsed what men were saying (know your competition) and sure enough, it was there, too. Sheese, are there no individuals here? Presumably some of them have an affinity for each other and they get together in a test tube with a bunson burner and react. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Anyway, when I had my first date with my SO, we both remarked that one of the things we liked in our respective profiles was that neither of us used the "chemistry" word.

Good luck Binder - I see 2long's bet and raise it. No "pretty." You WILL be OK.

WAT

Good lord!

I have almost as many posts as 2long as WAT does!

...should I toss in Q?

-ol' 2long

May I beat this horse one more time?

FWW got into bed with the OM in her 10 year LTA within two days of meeting him for the first time.

She said, “They just clicked.”

Right.

So, there is chemistry and there is mechanics.

Perhaps there is also Quantum Physics, like falling into a black hole or maybe the uncertainty principle of relationships. Makes about as much sense to me.

Chemistry is very important to me, but I am made to feel vain when I say it. So I am really confused on what is right. When I meet a man, I want to connect and I want to leave him hoping that he will call me. When the phone rings, I want it to be him and at the end of a date, I want him to kiss me.So am I looking for that instant chemistry. I don't always go for the best looking, but I want that connection.

I have met some really nice men that seem to be a good package (caring, considerate, educated, stable) - qualities that I look for. However I don't feel the spark. If I have went on with them on the second date, usually by the end of the date I am hoping that they aren't going to kiss me goodnight. So I don't usually see them again. Is that wrong?? Am I bypassing something great because I don't feel the chemistry? Some of you stated that it can come, but can it come if you don't want a kiss or a touch??
I am really confused by it. I have a nice man interested right now that I feel no chemistry with. I see all of his good qualities, but I feel if I go on the 3rd date I will be leading him on. Expecially when after I 2nd, I was praying that he wasn't going to try to kiss me. Am I wrong for waiting for that connection (chemistry)with someone?

?? LS,if I may say so,aren't you rushing things WAY too fast? How can you possibly know anything about someone in just 2-3 dates? It sounds like you make up your mind pretty fast and don't give a guy half a chance.Are you always expecting so much so soon? Is that you're "litmus" test? Just curious. If it is "chemistry" you are looking for in these cases then I would feel comfortable saying that it is the wrong way to go.You're not wrong for wanting to feel a connection but just because it doesn't happen right away doesn't mean the relationship is doomed.

Personally I can't open up and feel good about someone until I really get to know them and feel safe to do so.When that happens,then I can let myself go and let the feelings come.If they do.I guess I have a hard time believing that so much is at stake in such a short time when you just can't know someone that well.
JMHO.

O

I was thinking that I wasn't giving people a chance, but how do you go out with someone and at the end of the night pray that they don't kiss you. I agree that I don't really know them, but I have met men that I look forward to the call or the simple touch. I guess that I do expect a lot quickly, but I'm not sure how to change. I find that when I continue to go out with them they start to get on my nerves. I know it is terrible, but I'm just being honest. Then I find that they like me more and I'm liking them less. So I feel guilty like I am leading them on and using them for a night out.

I want to meet the person that makes me laugh and makes me look forward to the next meeting or call. For me if it isn't there it doesn't seem to ever get there. How do I change that?

Luckystar, I have to say I am experiencing the same thing right now with "Mr. Slow". I have posted some things about him on other threads. He is very nice, and lots of great qualities.

However, I can pin down a reason why our relationship hasn't moved further along. He is not meeting one of my top EN's: Conversation. He doesn't call me and chit-chat, and when we go out, it's only once a week. The conversation is fine on our date, but just seems awkward because it's almost like a first date. I don't feel close to him, because we don't know each other, because we are not really getting to know each other.

Anyway. I don't know how chemistry always works for everyone. I always give someone a chance, and I believe feelings can grow, if EN's are being met, and this relationship is further proof. Actually, if he had been calling more, and talking to me more, I'm not guaranteeing that I would be more "into him" at this point. But by NOT talking to me, its'a definite LB.

LS,

I just think more than 2-3 dates is probably beneficial to you and a relationship forming.If you are really turned off and disgusted with someone that you hope they don't come near you or kiss you then I would wonder what attracted you at all to even say "ok" to meeting and going out.

I'm not saying you have to change but it seems that you might give up too soon before anything can really happen.As I said in my example above,I didn't really feel much for my WH until we had started spending a lot of time with one another,getting to know eachother and doing things together, to see how he acted with other's,with me,how he lived,etc.You just can't get an full picture,IMO,after only 2-3 dates and as we all know,most people are on their best behavior in the begining and that doesn't always give an accurate portrayal either.If you go out once and he's charming and caring and the next time he beats you well,that's a no brainer but in most cases I think there has to be more time allowed.

Why do you think these men get "on your nerves"? What is that about? Are you just upset at dating or have high expectations and when they don't perform you bail out? Just curious.

I think as a society we are expecting instant gratification and the whole "art" of dating is lost on so many people.There's no anticipation.I think some of the most romantic and gratifying relationships start out as a slow burn where you build up to wanting to be with the other person all the time and the love can grow.

In a way it's like friendships.It builds as you get to know one another and spend time together and talk,etc.But I have also had friendships where I felt I hit it off right away with the person(woman) and then it just evaporates.They don't call and contact is ended.It's strange.

Do you think you are sabotaging your relationships? For what reason? Are you having fears of failure or a fear of getting involved so you end it first before anything can really happen?

O