Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Because we talked to each other! What was the substance and length of time previous to getting together?
Tomcat33 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 No. When I met my H, it was chemistry, then lust, then love. Just asked him and it was the same for him too. That is EXACTLY how I fall in love..
39388 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 You will feel it, and when you do it will be easy for you to define what it is. I do feel something with good friends, but nothing as strong as what you all talk about. I'd think it would have to include physical attraction both ways. Women have been attracted to me mentally, but not physically as far as I know.
anne1707 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 TBF - I think I know what happened in my relationship better than you do. It may not be how you would like things to be ordered but that does not mean it is not valid. There is no rule book in relationships. There is no set order for things to happen. They just happen.
Tomcat33 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 I'm looking at chemistry from a different perspective. Lust drives men. This is fact. It can drive them far more than it drives women, to unbelievable degrees of risk. This is fact. I see what you are saying, and that is true. Could lust not just be a stronger component of chemistry for men? But what differentiates sheer lust from chemistry for them is the other factors of the added intellectual and mental and spritual. How otherwise could they be able to tell if they loved a woman or just wanted to have no strings attached sex with her?
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 TBF - I think I know what happened in my relationship better than you do. It may not be how you would like things to be ordered but that does not mean it is not valid. There is no rule book in relationships. There is no set order for things to happen. They just happen. Perhaps there's a disconnect with our understanding of chemistry. For me, chemistry means that you have all cylinders firing at the same time. You have emotional, intellectual and physical connections. In order for this to happen, you have to get to know that person...A LOT! Otherwise, it's more a fill in the blank with fantasy or pure, simple lust. Perhaps that's not how you perceive chemistry.
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 I see what you are saying, and that is true. Could lust not just be a stronger component of chemistry for men? But what differentiates sheer lust from chemistry for them is the other factors of the added intellectual and mental and spritual. How otherwise could they be able to tell if they loved a woman or just wanted to have no strings attached sex with her? That's just it. It starts with "she's bangable" and then moves or not, to the rest of the connections. More of a lust to love or nothing, migration, rather than a lust to chemistry to love migration or any mix thereof.
Tomcat33 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 I'd think it would have to include physical attraction both ways. Women have been attracted to me mentally, but not physically as far as I know. Yes it has to have a physical component as well, otherwise you are just friends. It also has to feel reciprocal, when we feel all those things being reciprocated that is what makes that spark happen. It's not good enough if all those things are just being directed at us. Or if we are directing all those things at someone else.
anne1707 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Perhaps there's a disconnect with our understanding of chemistry. For me, chemistry means that you have all cylinders firing at the same time. You have emotional, intellectual and physical connections. In order for this to happen, you have to get to know that person...A LOT! Otherwise, it's more a fill in the blank with fantasy or pure, simple lust. Perhaps that's not how you perceive chemistry. Again TBF, you do not know it all about relationships. There is no script. When I met my H, it was like a meeting of minds - that is how we both describe it. Now does that sound like chemistry?
39388 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Chemistry is a connection that you build with a woman or vice versa, an invisible connection that you can feel but cannot easily define. When the two of you are together, you can't help but smile at each other and feed off each other's presence, humor, attention etc. Its more than lust - again, you cannot explain with words. It seems to be very tough to build up to it. Maybe it takes several years??? I try hard to feel that way to women but I've never had one feel that way towards me.
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Again TBF, you do not know it all about relationships. There is no script. When I met my H, it was like a meeting of minds - that is how we both describe it. Now does that sound like chemistry? Anne, you're taking this very personally. I'm trying to communicate with you, which is why I defined what chemistry means to me, thinking that perhaps, chemistry means something else to you. I'm not suggesting I understand all relationships. I'm trying to find common ground so we can communicate with the same definitions of terms. Don't get your back up if our definitions differ.
anne1707 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 I am not taking it personally. It just annoys me when somebody comes on here and says so women feel this.... and men feel this.... which is what you did with your three tier/two tier post. You then question me when I said my relationship differed to your view. All I have done is talk about my relationship whilst you have generalised for everybody.
Author ruggy Posted February 15, 2009 Author Posted February 15, 2009 Perhaps there's a disconnect with our understanding of chemistry. For me, chemistry means that you have all cylinders firing at the same time. You have emotional, intellectual and physical connections. In order for this to happen, you have to get to know that person...A LOT! Otherwise, it's more a fill in the blank with fantasy or pure, simple lust. Perhaps that's not how you perceive chemistry. Perhaps, cause we only spent a day or two a week (mostly at dinners) there was not enough time to really get to know someone. Who knows. I know now though, if she is too busy to set some time up for you (me) then I should just move on. A lot of very insightful posts here.
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Ah, so it's the generalizations that bother you v. the content, so you decided to negate the generalizations v. the content. Okay. Now that things are on the table and understood, what's your definition of chemistry beyond the vague answer of a meeting of minds?
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Perhaps, cause we only spent a day or two a week (mostly at dinners) there was not enough time to really get to know someone. Who knows. I know now though, if she is too busy to set some time up for you (me) then I should just move on. A lot of very insightful posts here. I will say that if I'm not terribly into a guy, once a week is enough. Otherwise, more is necessary to maintain a strong level of interest. In my current relationship, we see each other two to three times a week and talk daily or multiple times daily.
Author ruggy Posted February 15, 2009 Author Posted February 15, 2009 I will say that if I'm not terribly into a guy, once a week is enough. Otherwise, more is necessary to maintain a strong level of interest. In my current relationship, we see each other two to three times a week and talk daily or multiple times daily. See, I brought this up and she laughed it off but said she was going to work on it. She loved to text at all hours, but to get her on the phone or in person, you would think she's the president or something. It bothered me, but I brushed it off. I tend not to be very picky. I am not that demanding in my requirements. Average looking, intelligent, similar interests, can hold a conversation and have good values and morals. After every date or so, she send me a text or e-mail stating she had a great time and loved the company. Talk about mixed signals.
anne1707 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 You said "this is the case". I said it is not always so because my relationship did not follow that pattern (another poster agreed it was the same for them too). Therefore you cannot apply generalisations and just assume they are always correct. I must admit I could not see the logic whatsoever for your 3 tier/2 tier post anyway. You are taking this to a personal level as you want to question me on the stages in my relationship with my H. I am not questioning you. I am just saying that your theory does not work. Do you not know you only have to disprove a theory once for it not to be a proven theory? As for my definition of chemistry, I am quite sure that whatever I post you would disagree with as it will not comply with your version. Have you not realised yet that it is different for everybody? That is the point I was trying to make.
Tomcat33 Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 That's just it. It starts with "she's bangable" and then moves or not, to the rest of the connections. More of a lust to love or nothing, migration, rather than a lust to chemistry to love migration or any mix thereof. Yeah but I am like that too. That really is where it all starts for me, maybe not "is he bangable" but yeah along those lines... if that component is there I am totally open to seeing if the intellectual connection is there and if it is then that is when all the chemistry starts to happen I know now though, if she is too busy to set some time up for you (me) then I should just move on. Yeah unfortunately this is how I see it too. I know some people feel that you should give someone time to let them work at their own pace because the chemsitry could grow but more likely than not if she is too busy or not available a lot, it won't grow. I dunno about other women but I know after one date if I am going to have chemistry with a guy or not. Sometimes I am on the fence and will go for another date but I don't need 6 dates to figure it out. Not at all.
Trialbyfire Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 See, I brought this up and she laughed it off but said she was going to work on it. She loved to text at all hours, but to get her on the phone or in person, you would think she's the president or something. It bothered me, but I brushed it off. I tend not to be very picky. I am not that demanding in my requirements. Average looking, intelligent, similar interests, can hold a conversation and have good values and morals. After every date or so, she send me a text or e-mail stating she had a great time and loved the company. Talk about mixed signals. I think if someone begrudges you time, this is a signal to move on. Both myself and my SO work 60+ hours per week. We give up a little sleep, in order to maintain a strong connection, not because we have to, because we want to.
peteyj Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 I think if someone begrudges you time, this is a signal to move on. Both myself and my SO work 60+ hours per week. We give up a little sleep, in order to maintain a strong connection, not because we have to, because we want to. You don't have to see somebody all the time to maintain a strong connection. I do agree that you cant' keep brushing somebody off because you are busy all the time. Then its' time to move on. But some people have busy lives and if you both have busy lives, then you have to find time to get together. If that's once a week, then fine. As time goes on maybe you make more time for one another, go on extended weekend and vacations with one another, and so on. But you shouldn't ditch everything else either. If you both work 60+ hours a week, have other friends, other hobbies, and other things going on, it probably means you're ditching everything else just to spend your free time with one another. That can be great at first but in the long run you shouldn't ditch everything else just for somebody else. Everybody needs their own lives. And if that means spending only 2 times a week together, then you should be ok with that. If all you two do is work all the time, then spend your free time doing whatever together that isnt' related to neither of your hobbies, your connection is probably becoming more about afraid of losing the other person more than building a lasting relationship.
Stockalone Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Don't get me wrong in that I believe men don't experience special connections. I'm guessing that the special connections = love, where chemistry = lust. I'm more curious than being bitter or jaded. I guess it's different for everyone. For me, Lust: Lust is the little head talking. And it usually is a very good idea not to say out loud what he is thinking. But lust can't create chemistry and/or love. Chemistry: That is intellectual and emotional. I will know if I feel chemistry because I want to become a better person when I am around her, talk to her, look at her. She inspires me, just by being herself. I need to be intrigued by her personality, meaning I want to know more and more about her. What makes her tick, why does she think the way she does? Can I admire her, does she make me laugh? How smart is she, am I challenged? Do I feel at ease around her, are my instincts telling me to trust her? And chemistry can create lust (if there is a sufficient amount of attraction to the woman in the first place) and eventually love. It starts with "she's bangable". Well, that is true. But just because a woman is "bangable", that doesn't mean that I actually would bang her, given the chance. Love: There has to be chemistry and lust. But also reciprocated feelings. Without that, it isn't real and it will never make the transition from infatuation, or a crush if you will, into love. In my case, that combination (chemistry, lust and reciprocated feelings) will also trigger possessiveness and territorialism. I then need to make her my woman, but she also needs to be worthy of such devotion and loyalty. Not politically correct, but it is what it is.
Author ruggy Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 I think if someone begrudges you time, this is a signal to move on. Both myself and my SO work 60+ hours per week. We give up a little sleep, in order to maintain a strong connection, not because we have to, because we want to. Very true. But I thought, since she is teaching all day and usually tutoring too, then I can work around that. I am very flexible. I really do not need much. That is why I always set up time a week before so she can plan around it. But, what irks me is when we setup two weeks ago and VD she said that is a great idea, similes and kissed me twice. Then, I sent her and e-mail invitation to VD, and normally, she reconfirms. Never heard a peep. I then e-mailed her about her birthday (both of our are close to each other) not a peep. Then I said are we still on for later. First she said yes, then said, actually, its a bit tight and I am already set for tutoring until like 6:00. Since I would have to leave at midnight cause I have something tomorrow morning, it is probably not a good date night. Normally, I would had said fine. But, a few things here. One, we planned this a week in advance. Two, she set the damn date. Three, never responded to my e-mails earlier in the week. Four, never offered to reschedule. Five, immediately said she already planned to leave at midnight. It would had been our seventh date. Now, can you see, how weird everything turned out on a flip of a dime? So, if you take all of this in, can you see how it frustrates me as to the reasoning? Nothing make sense. Its like Katy Perry's song, Hot N' Cold. She was never like this before. Always happy, giddy and warm. Then a stone cold bitch (excuse if this offense any women. not my intention).
peteyj Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Very true. But I thought, since she is teaching all day and usually tutoring too, then I can work around that. I am very flexible. I really do not need much. That is why I always set up time a week before so she can plan around it. But, what irks me is when we setup two weeks ago and VD she said that is a great idea, similes and kissed me twice. Then, I sent her and e-mail invitation to VD, and normally, she reconfirms. Never heard a peep. I then e-mailed her about her birthday (both of our are close to each other) not a peep. Then I said are we still on for later. First she said yes, then said, actually, its a bit tight and I am already set for tutoring until like 6:00. Since I would have to leave at midnight cause I have something tomorrow morning, it is probably not a good date night. Normally, I would had said fine. But, a few things here. One, we planned this a week in advance. Two, she set the damn date. Three, never responded to my e-mails earlier in the week. Four, never offered to reschedule. Five, immediately said she already planned to leave at midnight. It would had been our seventh date. Now, can you see, how weird everything turned out on a flip of a dime? So, if you take all of this in, can you see how it frustrates me as to the reasoning? Nothing make sense. Its like Katy Perry's song, Hot N' Cold. She was never like this before. Always happy, giddy and warm. Then a stone cold bitch (excuse if this offense any women. not my intention). Maybe it's because you are working around her schedule and there seems to be no compromise. If everything is about pleasing her, in the long run, either she's going to use it to her advantage or find you as a pushover. You should schedule time when both of you are available, not make time for only when she might be available. Kind of means you value her time far more important than your own. And that's not good.
Trialbyfire Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 You don't have to see somebody all the time to maintain a strong connection. I do agree that you cant' keep brushing somebody off because you are busy all the time. Then its' time to move on. But some people have busy lives and if you both have busy lives, then you have to find time to get together. If that's once a week, then fine. As time goes on maybe you make more time for one another, go on extended weekend and vacations with one another, and so on. But you shouldn't ditch everything else either. If you both work 60+ hours a week, have other friends, other hobbies, and other things going on, it probably means you're ditching everything else just to spend your free time with one another. That can be great at first but in the long run you shouldn't ditch everything else just for somebody else. Everybody needs their own lives. And if that means spending only 2 times a week together, then you should be ok with that. If all you two do is work all the time, then spend your free time doing whatever together that isnt' related to neither of your hobbies, your connection is probably becoming more about afraid of losing the other person more than building a lasting relationship. I don't disagree that some form of balance is important. Having said that, I still keep in touch with my friends and family via phone, IM, email, while working at the same time, the same way I'm on LS, working from home. Also, both of us have substantial groups of friends, where we've knitted each other into those groups, so we can see friends and SO, at the same time. This doesn't mean that we always spend time in a group. We have our together/alone time, which works great too.
Tomcat33 Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 If all you two do is work all the time, then spend your free time doing whatever together that isnt' related to neither of your hobbies, your connection is probably becoming more about afraid of losing the other person more than building a lasting relationship. Whaaa? So if I am into basket weaving and ballet lessons on my spare time and my guy doesn't want to share that with me, then we are not bulding a lasting relationship? Or did you mean if the woman isn't sharing YOUR interests your are not? That's probably what you meant because that is more than likely what men that have far too many activities expect of a woman who will enter his life a woman who will partake in HIS activities.
Recommended Posts