Think some people have the wrong idea of what Chemistry is?

[D-Jam]

I agree with using the term "lust" or "initial sparks" to define it when someone speaks of chemistry within 10-15 min or they move on.

 

I call real chemistry when you get to know someone a bit, maybe are friends or passing acquaintances, and you two grow into falling for one another.

 

The rationale why I don't look highly on lust or initial sparks isn't because it never happens for me, but more because of how many men and women I've seen who ended up in one bad RL after the next because they put too much faith on that "initial chemistry".

 

I tell women to death that playas are SKILLED in making initial chemistry happen with ANYONE. Goes to show then if someone can be skilled (or even read a book and learn the tricks) to get sparks happening, then it says initial chemistry isn't a guarantee of a decent, solid mate.

 

I see things mostly as you need some kind of initial attraction to just get someone talking to you and even willing to be in contact with you after said meet. From there chemistry develops and it could go to dating and even a RL. Those who claim they can tell within 5-10 min if they would sleep with someone or date them, I ask the simple question:

 

How's your track record?

 

There might be a few who found their spouse through initial chemistry, but I will bet money many more are still single and have been though a lot of bad people that they initially thought were "awesome" because they felt sparks on the meet. I'll even go further that there are some who seem to constantly end up being lied to by a man or woman who made them feel lust and sparks early on, but were really throwing up a false front to get that out of said person.

 

We put so much stock on 10-60 min of conversation with someone, yet we see divorces so high and so many people single, lonely and asking "why can't I find a decent person??" Maybe it's time people rethink their logic and maybe realize there could be plenty of wonderful people if they would give them a better chance than 10-60 min.

 

Bells, the girl you met unfortunately wasn't into you. If she was, then she would have given you her number or something that night. If she's also putting loads into initial chemistry, then see how she's single, lonely, probably not finding any men in the "calibur" she wants, and on a dating site. I'd love to ask her how her track record is with her current logic because I'll bet she's been duped many times over.

 

If she was taking her time, truly getting to know people, and letting chemistry develop over time she would be married and happy.

[Tomcat33]

So how quickly do you close it out if you know? I met with someone who I thought was attractive by her picture and after a couple of emails she seemed very nice, however, when we met for coffee yesterday it just wasn't there. We made small talk for about 45min and then she said she had to go. Clearly we both felt a lack of chemistry.

 

Now conversely the women I dated previously we met for coffee and it lasted 4 hours. We clearly both felt some chemistry but after about 6 weeks of dating and intimacy the feeling didn't last for her and she broke it off.

 

I'm still looking for the bidirectional chemistry that lasts;)

 

 

Well internet dating is a puppy all of its own. With internet dating you are forced to assess chemistry in the meeting and you pretty much know right away. Sure a person can grow on you after an hour of convo but that's only if you are on the fence, if it's no it's no. At least for me it is.

 

Now on a relgular date you already established if you have chemistry with them otherwise you would not agree to see each other again.

 

And last but not least the first 10 mins thing as I posted earlier when meeting someone at a party or at social event, for me goes like this. I spot a guy across the room that appeals to me physically, we make it to talking to one another and in the first 10mins of conversation, body laguage and mannerisms, whit I can tell if I will be into him or not. 10mins I tell ya, that's all I need. LOL (on a Mac today, hate mac days at work... and can't use the smiley faces so please make due with the light tone of my post) :-D

[Jilly Bean]

Hiitsme, why are you also posting these threads about online rejection and the things that women say and do? Why do always seem to begrudge people for the things they say and do in cyber-dating?

[Bells]

I agree with using the term "lust" or "initial sparks" to define it when someone speaks of chemistry within 10-15 min or they move on.

 

I call real chemistry when you get to know someone a bit, maybe are friends or passing acquaintances, and you two grow into falling for one another.

 

The rationale why I don't look highly on lust or initial sparks isn't because it never happens for me, but more because of how many men and women I've seen who ended up in one bad RL after the next because they put too much faith on that "initial chemistry".

 

I tell women to death that playas are SKILLED in making initial chemistry happen with ANYONE. Goes to show then if someone can be skilled (or even read a book and learn the tricks) to get sparks happening, then it says initial chemistry isn't a guarantee of a decent, solid mate.

 

I see things mostly as you need some kind of initial attraction to just get someone talking to you and even willing to be in contact with you after said meet. From there chemistry develops and it could go to dating and even a RL. Those who claim they can tell within 5-10 min if they would sleep with someone or date them, I ask the simple question:

 

How's your track record?

 

There might be a few who found their spouse through initial chemistry, but I will bet money many more are still single and have been though a lot of bad people that they initially thought were "awesome" because they felt sparks on the meet. I'll even go further that there are some who seem to constantly end up being lied to by a man or woman who made them feel lust and sparks early on, but were really throwing up a false front to get that out of said person.

 

We put so much stock on 10-60 min of conversation with someone, yet we see divorces so high and so many people single, lonely and asking "why can't I find a decent person??" Maybe it's time people rethink their logic and maybe realize there could be plenty of wonderful people if they would give them a better chance than 10-60 min.

 

Bells, the girl you met unfortunately wasn't into you. If she was, then she would have given you her number or something that night. If she's also putting loads into initial chemistry, then see how she's single, lonely, probably not finding any men in the "calibur" she wants, and on a dating site. I'd love to ask her how her track record is with her current logic because I'll bet she's been duped many times over.

 

If she was taking her time, truly getting to know people, and letting chemistry develop over time she would be married and happy.

 

Good post....I'd be best to heed of what D-Jam just said.

 

Do NOT rely on the first 10 mins for initial "sparks"...sorry, but it just doesn't cut it, it DOES cut if if you want a one-night stand or a short term fling..but otherwise, no can do.

[D-Jam]

Not bragging, but any girl I've ever ended up in a RL with usually fell for me after they knew me for a while. These women didn't have sparks or chemistry with me when they first met me. They took the time to get to know me as opposed to wanting me to impress her in a quick window.

 

The ones I know who believe they can tell if a guy is ideal in 10-15 min all seem to have horrible love lives...constantly complaining how they can't seem to find a decent person who will be honest with them...but they can't seem to wake up and realize one needs longer time to really know someone.

 

Funny how many more of the 10-15 min window of opportunity women now all want to hook up with me after knowing me for months to years.

 

If I as a man can lie my brains off, falsify who I am to a woman and make her feel chemistry for me in 10-15 min, then how reliable is that? Plenty of men are doing it today...hence why we see so many women angry, hurt, unable to trust, and lonely.

 

It goes the same for men too...although too many men take that initial lust for a woman and think it's chemistry. They paint this woman to be the ideal GF, when they didn't take time to find out that she might be an evil bitch, or a headcase.

 

For every one couple who did well from initial chemistry, I see a sea of lonely hearts who failed from it.

[Tomcat33]

Not true, I was in a 4 yr rel engaged and living with a guy. Then had a 6yr rel after that also living for 5yrs and two 1.5 yr ones give or take after that. Though the last one was messy all around, won't get into that. But always used the same method getting in to them.

First 10mins I KNOW. Sorry.

My pattern is after I get out of an LTR it takes me a good year to find the "perfect" guy again, I date a lot in between and I am super patient in that I know it takes me a good amount of alone time to feel that spark again. But I won't force the chemistry issue it is either there or it isn't.

 

Only one guy I gave him a chance and took time to "get to know him better" despite my initial reaction to feeling very low chemistry, and guess what, it did NOT get any better with time it only made it harder to get out without hurting the guy...

[flc]

Good post....I'd be best to heed of what D-Jam just said.

 

Do NOT rely on the first 10 mins for initial "sparks"...sorry, but it just doesn't cut it, it DOES cut if if you want a one-night stand or a short term fling..but otherwise, no can do.

 

I agree that you cannot predict whether an initial attraction will hold up over time. But I will disagree that you will become attracted to someone you find unattractive over time as well. I know what I like when it comes to physical attraction and I also know what personality types don't work for ME.

[Tomcat33]

I agree that you cannot predict whether an initial attraction will hold up over time. But I will disagree that you will become attracted to someone you find unattractive over time as well. I know what I like when it comes to physical attraction and I also know what personality types don't work for ME.

 

Exactly! And you don't need months to figure that out, if you know what you don't like it's easy enough. I am open to what I do like meaning I won't close the door to a lundry list of HE MUST BE THIS AND THAT. But I am very closed to what I don't like.

[Star Gazer]

Hiitsme, why are you also posting these threads about online rejection and the things that women say and do? Why do always seem to begrudge people for the things they say and do in cyber-dating?

 

I'm wondering the very same thing, Hiitsme.

 

The chick meant that she wasn't attracted to him, period. Nothing left to analyze here. Why do you pick every single thing apart?

[D-Jam]

My pattern is after I get out of an LTR it takes me a good year to find the "perfect" guy again, I date a lot in between and I am super patient in that I know it takes me a good amount of alone time to feel that spark again. But I won't force the chemistry issue it is either there or it isn't.

Well, in your case though it sounds like you're more open minded than the examples I've come across in my life. You do a lot of dating, try people out, maybe even give things a date to see if there is something. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

I was more speaking out for all the men and women (trying to not be biased here) who put so much on that initial meet and possibility for chemistry, but yet they can't seem to ever make the relationship happen. They end up getting used and played over and over.

 

I personally think one date is the best practice to see if it's there or not. If you're just not initially attracted to someone in any way, shape, or form, then I can see why you turn them away. However, I think too many men and women (not cool people like you) won't even try a date with someone they are somewhat into because they're not all aflutter and wanting sex with said person ASAP.

 

They hate when I ask them "how's your track record?" Hard truth hurts.

 

I agree that you cannot predict whether an initial attraction will hold up over time. But I will disagree that you will become attracted to someone you find unattractive over time as well. I know what I like when it comes to physical attraction and I also know what personality types don't work for ME.

Yes and no. We see instances of friends becoming more. I'm not saying everyone should suddenly give everyone they meet weeks to months. We'll all meet people we initially know are not datable and move on. That's fine.

 

My words are more aimed out to those who seemingly meet one bad person after the next...and yet wonder why things keep going sour when things started off great. The answer is that initial chemistry isn't working for those people...and they need to slow down and invest more time into the people they meet. If they go out and everyone they meet they feel nothing with...then maybe it's them, especially if they go home and claim there are no decent people out there.

 

Exactly! And you don't need months to figure that out, if you know what you don't like it's easy enough. I am open to what I do like meaning I won't close the door to a lundry list of HE MUST BE THIS AND THAT. But I am very closed to what I don't like.

Again...you're open-minded and cool...as well as realistic.

 

I imagine you give many a chance and go out on a lot of first dates. I think that's awesome. Too many others though put way too much stock though on those initial 10-15 min...then wonder why they're always single.

 

You get my point I hope.

[Shygirl15]

Hiitsme, why are you also posting these threads about online rejection and the things that women say and do? Why do always seem to begrudge people for the things they say and do in cyber-dating?

 

He keeps denying he's not HiItsMe which makes me :lmao:!

[Sun_Conure]

Here is how I see it:

 

(1) a boy meets a girl for the first time. He either is attracted to her or not. If he is not attracted, then what's the point of pursuing a relationship? If he is attracted, then ->

 

(2) they meet again and again. During those first few meetings they find out if they are still attracted to each other and if they have minimum necessary quailities to continue. If those two are still present they go on ->

 

(3) they get into a short term relationship. Normally it takes about 2-3 months to get to know a person. Meaning to find out enough information (like habits, likes and dislikes) about a person you are dating to make preliminary conclusions if you two might be compatible in a long run. From my point of view, many many relationships either end or should have ended at this point. Because they don't, we have unhappy marriages and etc.

 

(4) if after 2-3 months people still like each other and ideally start to like each other more and more, then they probably will fall in love. For me, it takes around 6 months to really fall in love and to realize that I fell in love. Then people start making long term plans, get engaged and married. However, it's not the end.

 

In order to have a successful relationship (I mean happy and great for both people involved), both persons need to keep developing in the same direction. It really helps if both people have similar outlook on life and have similar goals from the start. Unfortunately people change, hence divorces and failed long term relationships.

 

Majority of my relationships were ended after the first 2-3 months of dating or earlier. I never regretted that. Now I am with a guy, who is the best for me. If I did not dump other guys and some of them did not dump me, I would not have even met my current boyfriend ...

 

Dating is a process and relationship is a journey not a destination ...

 

Regarding chemistry, you can call it chemistry, initial attraction, lust, or whatever. It's just a word. That thing needs to be present at the very beginning and usually it does not take that much time to figure out if you are attracted to a person or not. It does take time to see if you and that person are compatible in a long run though ...

[Bells]

Same here. It's pretty much instant.

 

Notice, this is popular opinion amongst women when it comes to dating.....guys don't care pretty much. lol

 

Men are more willing to take time...women are so quick to write a guy off instantly.

[Tomcat33]

Well, in your case though it sounds like you're more open minded than the examples I've come across in my life. You do a lot of dating, try people out, maybe even give things a date to see if there is something. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

 

I know just what you mean, I had a friend like that she never had a relationship in her life, would write guys off for the stupidest thing and then complain that she never had a relationship. I would force her to date guys she wasn't head over heels for just to help her figure out what she wants and what she doesn't as opposed to JUST WHAT SHE WANTS. It was this laundry list of wants and she of course no one was good enough, she had no clue how to relate to men without thinking "is HE the one"

 

 

I was more speaking out for all the men and women (trying to not be biased here) who put so much on that initial meet and possibility for chemistry, but yet they can't seem to ever make the relationship happen. They end up getting used and played over and over.

 

Ok cool seems like you were saying all people that decide in the first 10mins are complainers and rel rejects. :-)

 

 

I imagine you give many a chance and go out on a lot of first dates. I think that's awesome. Too many others though put way too much stock though on those initial 10-15 min...then wonder why they're always single.

 

You get my point I hope.

 

Provided I feel chemistry for a guy yes I will definitely go out with him on a date, if I don't feel chemistry just because he asks me out is not a good enough reason to go out. So really the initial topic here was what is your definition of chemistry, and for me it is there or it is not within the first 10mins. If it is, it doesn't mean I will end up in a rel. with a guy, it just means I am open to seeing where it goes romantically so I will go on a date.

But if I feel the friend vibe for a guy, I might go out with him and see if it can lead to more, but if there is no chemistry I won't bother.

 

To me chemistry is not WOW I LOVE THIS GUY he gives me goosebumps and I am falling down dumb for him. No it just means there is an electric charge when we talk and in our body language but more likely than not it is pretty much enduced intellectually. The way we hold our banter back and forth, that to me is chemistry. The "click" factor.

 

About a month ago I went out on a date with a guy that this happened. We met at an event and clicked right away but I was on my way out and our exchange was limited but whitty enough for me to know I liked him physically and what he had to say. Then we talked during the week and connected on the phone he was very funny and we totally got each other's humour. We went on the date and it was SO MUCH fun I mean we just pizzed ourselves laughing the entire time it was so light and fun and lots of flirting and sharing life's experiences it was just GREAT DINNER convo and fun all around. We ended up going dancing on a whim and the night was just getting better and better until he had too much to drink and got a little sloppy, wanting to kiss me and pawing at me and when we started dancing he insisted on just standing there and watching me dance, and he was being kind of cheesy and making comments like "wow I had no idea you could move like that etc." so I suggested he dance too since he was the one who wanted to go dancing but he replied he needed more drinks in him. That was a big turn off.

 

Then we left and he really wanted to go to this loungy candle lit bar we passed and the atmosphere seemed rather cool to end the night so we did. We got to talking and he said some things about his past I didn't care for and at that point and given what a nose dive the eve took when he had drank too much I realised it was just not going to work. So even though I felt a lot of chemistry with this guy it took us being out and about and spending an entire sat night together to see him and hear him out to realise he was not the right kind of guy for me.

[whichwayisup]

had a friend like that she never had a relationship in her life, would write guys off for the stupidest thing and then complain that she never had a relationship.

 

I have a friend like that too. I tell her she's pulling a Jerry (from Seinfeld) and focussing on real dumb stuff that puts her off. Same thing, then she wonders why she isn't in a LTR.

[Tomcat33]

I have a friend like that too. I tell her she's pulling a Jerry (from Seinfeld) and focussing on real dumb stuff that puts her off. Same thing, then she wonders why she isn't in a LTR.

 

 

It's annoying. This girl came to rely on me for every move she would make calling me three four times a night while she would even talk to a guy"he said this he did that what do you think it means what should I do next, how should I respond?" it got to the point where it was too much and she would do the complete opposite of what I would suggest, only to really screw things up and continue in her dumbasss ways and things would backfire the guy would bail, and then I would get the brunt of her cattiness because she'd be back to square one again. So we are no longer friends.

It got to be too much.

 

How do you handle that WW?

[paddington bear]

I met a guy one night who I wasn't that attracted to, but kissed anyway and my knees went to jelly when we kissed. I remember thinking it was the weirdest thing, like my body was telling me 'this person is genetically compatible with you' whereas my mind was saying 'he's so-so'. That's I guess physical chemistry.

 

The other chemistry is that instant bond you feel when you meet someone that you just like immediately. I'm not lesbian, but I've had good chemistry with girls too, where you meet them first and just want to see them again and be their friend.

 

I think chemistry is about a few things, the scent of the other person, pheromones - it's biological, your body realising it's met someone that you would breed well with - this you realise within the first few minutes. Then there is all the other subtle little things that none of us consciously notice, how someone moves, or talks. You could be on a date with the most stunning person ever, but if they don't match some unconscious map of the right person in your head, there will be no chemistry.

 

I read somewhere that by the age of something like 2 or 3 the type of person we will be attracted to in later life has been set, usually meaning that we subconsciously go for people who are reminiscent of our parents or others who loved us as a child. Prince Charles was used as an example with Camilla Parker Bowles, she bears an uncanny resemblance to the nanny that raised him as a child.

 

However while 'chemistry' might help with that initial BAM! attraction to someone, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are compatible emotionally or otherwise and can seriously lead you astray if that's all you were to go on. A different kind of chemistry or bond can grow over time.

 

I think there are those that you just know instantly 'no!' which is maybe the case with the woman mentioned in the original post - we all do this with everyone, sometimes you meet someone and take an instant dislike to them for no apparent reason. Then there's some that are 'maybes' that you haven't got that immediate spark but are willing to see what happens given a little more time.

[carhill]

Notice, this is popular opinion amongst women when it comes to dating.....guys don't care pretty much. lol

 

Men are more willing to take time...women are so quick to write a guy off instantly.

 

Bells, I think, if you take the sex drive (nameless, faceless, I don't care who sex) out of a man, you'd likely find a similar methodology as what many of the women are alluding to here. Men are perhaps less discriminating and more willing to put time in (generally with multiple contemporaneous women) because of that funny little hormone called testosterone

 

This is not saying that some of the "chemistry" women feel is not based on sexual drive and physical attraction, but rather that they process it differently. It does not rule them, in general.

 

Another factor, IMO, is the socio-sexological factor of women being the pursued. They can more easily and without care or regret dismiss males who approach them because they know, in the next minute/hour/day/week that another male will approach them. If I had a perpetual line of women ringing my doorbell, can you see how that might change my psychology?

[Bells]

Bells, I think, if you take the sex drive (nameless, faceless, I don't care who sex) out of a man, you'd likely find a similar methodology as what many of the women are alluding to here. Men are perhaps less discriminating and more willing to put time in (generally with multiple contemporaneous women) because of that funny little hormone called testosterone

 

This is not saying that some of the "chemistry" women feel is not based on sexual drive and physical attraction, but rather that they process it differently. It does not rule them, in general.

 

Another factor, IMO, is the socio-sexological factor of women being the pursued. They can more easily and without care or regret dismiss males who approach them because they know, in the next minute/hour/day/week that another male will approach them. If I had a perpetual line of women ringing my doorbell, can you see how that might change my psychology?

 

Right, but chances are their track record is lengthy and full of short-lived relationships.

[Terminator]

Right, but chances are their track record is lengthy and full of short-lived relationships.

 

There are people who are perfectly HAPPY and content with that long track record of short lived relationships; not everyone is seeking their life long "soul mate".

[GoodOnPaper]

Right, but chances are their track record is lengthy and full of short-lived relationships.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think that's relevant to carhill's point. Women seem to be very in tune with what clicks emotionally for them personally, regardless of whether they are looking for short- or long-term relationships.

[D-Jam]

I think in the end with the "how he/she turns out in life", if he/she is 100% happy with the results, then it's not for any of us to judge.

 

I've heard it all to death from so many people. About they have the ability to tell if someone is ideal from the first few minutes, woman's intuition, good feeling about someone, etc.

 

However, I BARELY ever see anyone take that philosophy do well in their love life. I see all the successful couples end up being two people who knew one another for a long time and maybe one wasn't into the other, but then changed...or they accidentally meet somewhere, things click over a few weeks, then years later they're married.

 

I am NOT saying initial attraction is foolhardy in seeking a mate. What I am beating to death is that in my experiences both in observation and in the women I've had RLs with...thinking you can find if someone is the ideal mate within 10-60 minutes is a FARCE.

 

It's why I ask "how's that working out for you?" so many times and so many times I get evasive answers or angst or even called "jealous" or "hater". Even when I read Unhooked Generation it spoke of how many people toss away great potential mates because they didn't feel something in their stomach or their panties were not all wet on that initial meet.

 

Everyone wants to believe that they are such great judges of people, but yet so many out there end up burned and hurt by their judgments. It tells me the "quick intuition" isn't working. For some it did, but I also think it was a lot of luck that it worked out. For many though...they want to believe things are to play out like a storybook or from some deep gut feeling...and yet over and over their track record shows they don't know anything.

 

For every man or woman who complains they can't meet anyone decent, if I could read their lives like a book I'll bet I'd find out they passed up many good attractive mates because they didn't feel that "funny but good feeling" they like to call "chemistry".

 

Believe me, if everyone was so psychically good at picking mates, then everyone would be married and happy right now...and we wouldn't have such a ginormous populace of singles...and dating sites wouldn't be in business...and they wouldn't make TV shows depicting single people and their constant struggles in the dating realm, or all those books wouldn't have been written.

[djhall]

I met a guy one night who I wasn't that attracted to, but kissed anyway and my knees went to jelly when we kissed. I remember thinking it was the weirdest thing, like my body was telling me 'this person is genetically compatible with you' whereas my mind was saying 'he's so-so'. That's I guess physical chemistry.

 

The other chemistry is that instant bond you feel when you meet someone that you just like immediately. I'm not lesbian, but I've had good chemistry with girls too, where you meet them first and just want to see them again and be their friend.

 

I think chemistry is about a few things, the scent of the other person, pheromones - it's biological, your body realising it's met someone that you would breed well with - this you realise within the first few minutes. Then there is all the other subtle little things that none of us consciously notice, how someone moves, or talks. You could be on a date with the most stunning person ever, but if they don't match some unconscious map of the right person in your head, there will be no chemistry.

This is pretty close to my take on "chemistry". I think of chemistry as that "something extra" that makes our physical/emotional response to someone more or less than just the sum of all their individual objective attributes.

 

I know women who are extremely attractive with great personalities that I know are hot, but physically and emotionally I don't respond to it. Similarly, I know women who really aren't all that attractive physically or all that great emotionally, but who appear far more attractive to me than they really are... something about them appeals to something about me, even though I can't explain what or why. I only know that you sense it, or the lack of it, long before you really know much about the person as a person. To me, that is where chemistry, or the lack of it, comes into play. I'm not saying chemistry makes a relationship, but it is certainly something I would want as having "rose colored glasses" about a partner is nice to a certain extent. A lack of any chemistry, or negative chemistry would definitely be a no-go... I would be hard to be with a person I knew I should feel something for but just didn't.

[Capricciosa]

I agree with using the term "lust" or "initial sparks" to define it when someone speaks of chemistry within 10-15 min or they move on.

 

I call real chemistry when you get to know someone a bit, maybe are friends or passing acquaintances, and you two grow into falling for one another.

 

The rationale why I don't look highly on lust or initial sparks isn't because it never happens for me, but more because of how many men and women I've seen who ended up in one bad RL after the next because they put too much faith on that "initial chemistry".

 

I tell women to death that playas are SKILLED in making initial chemistry happen with ANYONE. Goes to show then if someone can be skilled (or even read a book and learn the tricks) to get sparks happening, then it says initial chemistry isn't a guarantee of a decent, solid mate.

 

I see things mostly as you need some kind of initial attraction to just get someone talking to you and even willing to be in contact with you after said meet. From there chemistry develops and it could go to dating and even a RL. Those who claim they can tell within 5-10 min if they would sleep with someone or date them, I ask the simple question:

 

How's your track record?

 

There might be a few who found their spouse through initial chemistry, but I will bet money many more are still single and have been though a lot of bad people that they initially thought were "awesome" because they felt sparks on the meet. I'll even go further that there are some who seem to constantly end up being lied to by a man or woman who made them feel lust and sparks early on, but were really throwing up a false front to get that out of said person.

 

We put so much stock on 10-60 min of conversation with someone, yet we see divorces so high and so many people single, lonely and asking "why can't I find a decent person??" Maybe it's time people rethink their logic and maybe realize there could be plenty of wonderful people if they would give them a better chance than 10-60 min.

 

Bells, the girl you met unfortunately wasn't into you. If she was, then she would have given you her number or something that night. If she's also putting loads into initial chemistry, then see how she's single, lonely, probably not finding any men in the "calibur" she wants, and on a dating site. I'd love to ask her how her track record is with her current logic because I'll bet she's been duped many times over.

 

If she was taking her time, truly getting to know people, and letting chemistry develop over time she would be married and happy.

 

There is tons of truth in this, but it can be hard to live by. You need to have the miserable track record before you can see it and perhaps change your ways.