Been a while since I've been here...

Well, the relationship with my "older woman" is starting to tail off. For unknown reasons, she seems uncomfortable being seen in public with me but continues to ring me over for late night "chats". As fun as it can be, I'm not into being someone's boy toy.

So, I'm at the market today and the old spidey-sense kicks in. There is something about the woman who is looking at greens across from me that I find overpowering. I know nothing about her, but it's that same giddy teenage attraction that leaves you nauseous.

No ring.

I feel like a stalker trying to inconspicuously create an opportunity to speak to her. Ah! She's looking at coffee beans! I can work with that.

Me: "Hi. I can never decide which beans to buy."

Her: "I know. I like Kona but it's very expensive."

She's dutch (I think).

Me: "It can be an expensive habit. I'm Low Orbit. I'm just in from the states and trying to get settled in."

Her: "You're certainly friendly enough for an American...I'm JM..."

Me: "Nice to meet you. Would you like to get a drink?"

So we step across the street for a sip and get to know each other a little better. It's like magic. We exchange numbers and I promise a call.

I'm head over heels with this one. That old flippy floppy feeling. God I love it.

Why is it that SOME people can have this affect on us while other perfectly wonderful people don't?

If everything was about commitment, emotional needs, and love banks, this shouldn't happen should it?

It still befuddles me.

So are the Harley's right? Can we fall in love with anybody? Or is there something to this "chemistry"?

Low

low orbit.. you boy toy you... lol too funny...!

that story is just too cool. I am loving it. I love that you did that. wow, a potential fantastic relationship in the making. How perfect to say you met over coffee beans. sigh... the head over heels giddy feeling.... the feeling like a teenager.... awww... I am just loving it low orb! You have a great time with it and enjoy every minute...

i've been having a few of those giddy feelings myself lately.... aren't they the best?

mlhb

You are confusing "love" with hormones. Harley's recipe is for building and maintaining a deep and loving relationship. That requires meeting ENs. You are describing raging hormones - that requires little more than a hot bod and a smile <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

yea but hormones can build into love too! mlhb

Very rarely. It usually takes more than that.

Wait a minute Low, I thought this is what you wanted? A low key, sexual, no strings attached "relationship"? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Is it that she seems to be in control of the booty calls, that it now no longer appeals to you?

As for the other, good for you for putting yourself out there and taking risks.....just remember, you are VERY fresh out of your marriage, and as much as you fellas hate this word, you ARE very vulnerable. What you describe is lust, pure and simple, not love or love at first sight . Is that bad? Heck no! You certainly can build on that, but the problem I've found is that when you are head over heels gagga, hormones raging, it's hard to keep your wits about you and you run the risk of rationalizing away ALL the red flags cuz what you are feeling feels amazing and you don't want it to stop! Trust me, BTDT my brotha, and it was diastrous, but, you know, I learned ALOT! So, my point is, tread carefully here, but enjoy! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I used to say "Bah humbug!" to the chemistry theory too.

Of course we know that maintaining a long term relationship takes more than this giddy feeling.

What I HAVE come to believe is that "giddy" feeling a necessary pre-requisite to a very successful and fulfilling LTR.

I'm willing to venture this because I know I never had this "chemistry" with my STBXW and we struggled our entire marriage to make it work. Did I love her? Of course I did. Was the relationship all that an intimate relationship could be? It never was.

I think many folks CAN marry and spend their lives together without chemistry becasue they never have this expectation of the relationship.

Having experienced it in relationships...and having experienced the lack of it...I'll never again enter into a LTR without it.

I'm convinced that if you've never had it with someone...you probably never will. If you've EVER had it...then seem to lose it...it's recoverable.

This certainly not to say that those who don't believe they've ever had it can't make a LTR work. Maybe they can.

I just know that I can't...and I won't

Low

I used to think the giddy feeling was necessary. I still do. But, the man I’m seeing now. Well, it wasn’t raging hormones at first sight. The silly giddy feeling has been building slowly.

I somewhat agree with this statement. But, this statement is miles away from your original post that implied that if the butterflies are amazing, it must be love. Meeting a hot (in whatever way) chick and feeling the tingles is nothing like love. It's nice to have the tingles, and they are a good pre-requisite, but they are nowhere near sufficient for a successful relationship. I think many people forget that part.

AGG

No, AGG...I never implied such a thing...I'm not 16 anymore and not quite so naive as to believe this.

You may have inferred this, but it was not an implication on my part.

You might be on to something there dw. I do like the no strings attached relationship. What I don't like is the somewhat sneaky approach she seems to be taking. Reminds me of how I was sneaky in my affair. I have nothing to hide and won't behave like I do.

As far as the booty calls? Well...think of it like cheesecake. It's really, really good when you get it, but you can't live on cheesecake alone... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> (But you can have a darn good time trying!)

Thanks for the warnings...of course I know these things. It just feels good to be back in the mainstream again. I'm certainly NOT looking for another LTR real soon, but I'm not averse to dating. Dating doesn't mean I'm looking for the "one".

OK, my bad <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. So maybe I am not understanding your original question - were you asking whether love is based on love banks and emotional needs or on giddy chemistry? Or were you asking where the chemistry feelings come from?

AGG

Actually, the theory I was advancing for discussion is that a truly successful long term love will probably be preceded by these feelings, followed with an assertion that I don't have these feelings for everyone. Some of the people I do have them for surprise me at times becasue they don't always fit the mold of "classic beauty". Therefore, there are those, that despite application of commitment and MB principle, I could not have a successful LTR with. Despite 20 something years of marriage and some great kids, I don't consider it a successful LTR.

I think this kind of attraction is like an "opening balance" in the love bank and goes a long way to keeping it in the black. No, it's obviously not love by itself and any LTR based solely on this attraction is destined to ultimate failure.

Well, it does fit a need. Attractive Spouse/Date/Arm Candy.

The area where I personally think the Harleys are off-base is compatability. But that's a different thread.

Ah, OK, gotcha. But I suspect that these "feelings" are in fact driven by some EN being met. So it's not incompatible with Harley's theories.


It's not always the "attractiveness" that does it for us. Attractiveness, BTW, is an EN as defined by Harley <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />. But, other causes for tingles could be the way someone carries themselves, how conversation with them flows, how you find that you love doing the same things, etc - but all of these are EN's - so I don't think it's "despite" MB principles, it's because of MB principles.


Right. Becuse some key ENs were not met.


I agree with the "opening balance" concept. Absolutely. But, what I was warning against is what I see many people (not you, but others <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />) do with that balance - take it and run with it as if it is all that counted. It is not love, it is just the initial attraction (physical or otherwise). Necessary, yes, but definitely not sufficient.

It is exactly why people have flings. And of course some people get so attached to those tingles, that they go through life having flings. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I would also caution that having those tingly feelings at the outset is one thing, but expecting them to continue throughout a longterm relationship is a bit risky, and is setting oneself up for a disappointment. Too many people decide to divorce once the "butterflies" are gone (my WW actually told me with a straight face that she couldn't stay married to someone she didn't feel the butterflies for).

Anyway, we have beaten this topic to death on prior threads about chemistry, but I just worry when I see people assign more meaning to it than simply hormones being triggered (for whatever reason) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

I have come to believe that chemistry is fundamentally a matter of choice. Largely unconscious choice, to be sure, but choice nonetheless.

In other words, something within us - something which is formed of a combination of instinct, intuition, conditioning, associative recognition, fantasy, and who knows what else - sometimes even good sense! - looks upon a prospective partner and decides whether or not to open the hormonal gates.

Are the Harley's right that we can "fall in love with anybody"? I don't recall that they ever said quite that, exactly. Almost all of their materials deal with marriage building in which it may be assumed that there once was chemistry (or there never would have been a marriage in the first place), and that the potential must therefore still exist.

Studies have shown that people tend to end up with partners of similar social "worth." Why is that? Glossing over the psychological rationale for why an "unequal" partnership tends to lead to anxiety and/or resentment, I suspect that people have an intuitive grasp of the idea that a suitable partner should be at their own "social level." Thus, a good-looking educated upper-class bachelor is unlikely to "fall in love" with a dead-beat high-school drop-out. He may experience feelings of lust for her - or at the other end of the scale, for a celebrity actress - but he isn't likely to "see" her as a suitable partner.

(In response to those who have marveled at how often a spouse ends up in an affair with someone of much lower character and social status than their spouse, I suggest that low self-esteem - which let's not forget is at the core of narcissism - leads to a distorted perception of social value.)

When one "gets the butterflies" upon meeting a stranger, there is inevitably a significant component of fantasy involved. This may be assisted by some perceived resemblance to a past paramour or "crush," perhaps unconsciously recognized. Unfortunately, once the hormonal cascade begins, it is not so easily shut off, even after the initial fantasy begins to collapse under the weight of reality. (Sometimes the feelings do get cut off suddenly, though. Have you ever caught a first glimpse of someone and felt a stir of the butterflies, only to hear them speak and find the feelings disappear? Or sometimes in an abusive relationship, a "one last straw" experience seems to flip a switch as a new hormonal program gets activated.)

Eventually, however, the "infatuation" hormonal program will run its course, unless it is diverted into a more sustainable routine as per the Harleys' recommendations.

Greengables pointed out another activation mechanism, in which factors most likely derived from preconceptions and prior conditioning fail to trigger an initial recognition of someone as a suitable partner. In this case, it seems that the inhibiting preconceptions may erode as growing appreciation of previously undervalued qualities begin to shift one's value system. The internal gatekeeper begins to re-assess...

There is a limit to this, I think. Greengables rightly emphasises the importance of compatibility, and while limited experience or a prejudiced value system may blind one to the existence of compatibility, it cannot create compatibility where none exists.

So no, I don't think we can "fall in love with anybody." But we can hurt ourselves either by granting too much authority to ephemeral butterflies, or by failing to give the caterpillars an opportunity to metamorphose.

I don't believe I could just fall in love with just anybody...I mean, I have had quite a few dinner dates that lasted JUST ONE DATE...I mean the je ne sais quoi (I probably misspelled that) ...the unexplicable spark was totally absent.

What is it? The person "gets me" or does not . It doesn't matter what or how they do that...just happens. Now my bf, totally gets me and I get him. We met at a party. He was somebody I did not know. I was kinda hiding at a sigma chi party from a pledge who was following me around. My bf was standing around near the dance floor. He seemed nice, and was tall and cute. NOT hot, just nice looking. I remember walking up to him with NO secondary motive, just asked him if he could pretend he was talking to me so that the gooby pledge would leave me alone...

the pledge came up to me, and my bf, J (although I didn't know it yet) said "dude...please quit following my girlfriend around. I am an active as you know and it is NOT cool."

We ended up laughing about it...and joking. He then asked me if I really did have a bf..I said no. He said "are you looking for one?" It was silly, but we laughed alot. I remember not knowing him...he had just transferred from Austin. He was a great conversationalist and made ME FEEL AT HOME. We ended up talking all night...and then we went and watched movies w/some friends and then went for doughnuts and coffee the next morning.

Day two? He met my family.

Day three? We were dating.

Rest was history.

I have had a few connections. I think the key is compatibility...you have to understand one another and have the right chemisty between you.

Example: i went to dinner a month ago with a nice guy. He was attractive, educated, and a good all around fella. Nothing wrong about him. But to me, nothing was really right about him either. I remember eating dinner with him, we laughed and joked about some things. But his smile appear strained at times. Like he was not comfortable around me or something. Then outta the blue, he made a wierd comment...he said to me, "Peach, do you ever want kids? I mean more kids?" I say to him, :"Well R, I am thrilled to be mom to my son, but I might just want one more child if I were to remarry in next few years." He says "I don't think I want any more kids." Me: "Well do you have kids now? I didn't think you did?" R: "Well I mean YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE DON'T YOU?" me: "I guess you mean that my son comes w/the territory?" R: "Well I think I can do the older child thing...but I am not into babies."

From that moment on, his implications and his ability to stick his foot ONLY FURTHER INTO HIS MOUTH made him terribly unattractive to me. I didn't know where in the hades his comment came from. We were NOT that great a date. I guess he was just trying to find out where I stood on the issue? Huge fear I carry is that if I fell for somebody, would they really want to be a stepdad and a damn good one for my ds? This guy FLUNKED MISERABLY.

He seemed a bit of a passive guy too. Not somebody who could stand up for me, be my knight in shining armor as there are sadly, as my family and friends believe, more battles in future to do with darth. I want somebody who is willing to stand at my side and be supportive...not some passive guy who is NOT THERE FOR ME.

I think it's a combo of attitude/situation/ability to handle the situation when meeting somebody that determines the "butterfly effect" or not. Plus, there has to be some wierd spark.

I agree. And I think this is exactly what meeting ENs is all about - when someone meets our EN's, we open up to them and feel in love with them.


I agree here as well. Harleys never said that we can fall in love with anybody. They said that we can fall with anybody who meets our ENs, but that is a far cry from just "anybody". This special "anybody" would need to be attractive to us, meet our needs for conversation, affection, recreation, etc etc. And that is a lot of hoops to jump through, as we all know.

So I think that it is easy to get the tingles for someone on the first couple of dates, because only a few ENs need to be met for that (conversation, attractiveness, etc), but to sustain that is whole other matter. Not to mention that as GDP correctly points out, the hormonal tingles will subside in time regardless of EN meeting, so if the whole relationship was built on the butterflies, then it will likely crumble.

AGG

Gnome,

You touched upon the basis of a book I just started reading, Getting The Love You Want by Harville Hendrix. He theorizes that we tend to end up w/ people, subconsciously, who are alot like our parents (the good and the bad) in order to for us to try to heal our childhood wounds, so that we can once again, be "whole".....

VERY interesting read so far.

Have you read it?

DW

This is not a valid assumption. Many, many people get married without it. I did.