Author TeacupMovinON Posted July 21, 2009 Author Posted July 21, 2009 Tell me how it is for the 'non-spark' filler man. OP, have you tried this? If yes, opinion? By 'non-spark filler man', I'm describing a man whom is attracted to you but with whom you feel no 'spark'. This 'filler' man is a great catch and he works at those small but important things; giving me the finest chocolates, wearing a fragrance that I love, things that attract my senses. Still, while he is not unattractive, I am left with the feeling that I am not attracted to him...as much as I would like to be. I have had both types of relationships. The thing with the ones that didn't start with the big bang or spark is that I am wondering if I did not give them enough time.
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Same here. Every guy I've been with seriously has told me I'm "the love of his life" and said the sex was better than he thought was possible. I used to think they were just sweet-talking me, too, but the message kept echoing, and my female friends told me men never say those things to them. It's because we had what I call The Zing. A man who feels The Zing for you will work his ass off to move time and space, hang the moon, and totally rock your world. Once you've tasted that, you can never go back. Girl you are BANG ON! I have been pretty spoiled by men and that only happens when a guy falls really hard. Then again I have been just as giving because I have also fallen very hard. I think love is a funny thing you really have to be on the same page from the get-go or else it's just not going to be the same level of intensity. Once you have experienced that level of intensity you just don't want anything less. And it's not some kind of addiction because I have lived past the honeymoon stage but that spark is always there, even in the worst of times as I was on my way out of the 7yr rel. that spark was still there on both ends. I much prefer being single to being with someone who is "good enough" to be with. "good enough" is just not enough for me. On the same token it can be scary at times because you think will this ever happen again? Was that just it? Then someone eventually comes along again that rocks my world and there I am again. It has happened to me twice already so third's the charm. My friends look at me like I have two heads when I've shared with them what my guys have said. Put it this way all these men met my top priority qualities that I search for in a man and happen to come in a package I found instantly attractive to "my senses". I say "my senses" because my friends probably would not have dated some of the men I have dated because their laundry list of criteria is so long they often trip and fall over it before they get a chance to fulfill it.
Thaddeus Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 I find this whole "spark" discussion both enlightening and frustrating. Enlightening because it's a good insight into a woman's mind. Frustrating because this "spark" is entirely within ourselves, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the other party. It's also used by the romance industry to get us to part with our money - paying for movie tickets, buying books and all the rest - and sets up an expectation that is impossible to attain. I, too, have felt that *spark* and have come to recognize it for what it is: infatuation. And infatuation is, by definition, short-term. To expect that feeling of butterflies (or whatever) to last much more than a few months is simply not in line with reality. But that's what so many people seem to yearn for. And I find that very, very sad that we have been conditioned by the romance industry to believe that if there's not a spark, then love is gone and there's no point in continuing.
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Frustrating because this "spark" is entirely within ourselves, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the other party. It's also used by the romance industry to get us to part with our money - paying for movie tickets, buying books and all the rest - and sets up an expectation that is impossible to attain. I, too, have felt that *spark* and have come to recognize it for what it is: infatuation. And infatuation is, by definition, short-term. To expect that feeling of butterflies (or whatever) to last much more than a few months is simply not in line with reality. But that's what so many people seem to yearn for. I have found spark many times yet I haven't fallen in love though. That's the difference. I think you assume we think that just because there is spark it's an instant love connection. Not by a long shot. But conversely if the spark is not there there is no way in heck love is happening for me that's more the message I am getting at here.
Thaddeus Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 I have found spark many times yet I haven't fallen in love though. <snip> But conversely if the spark is not there there is no way in heck love is happening for me that's more the message I am getting at here.OK, so help me out here. You've felt that spark but it's never amounted to love. Yet you're not open to the possibility of love without that spark. Do I have that right?
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 OK, so help me out here. You've felt that spark but it's never amounted to love. Yet you're not open to the possibility of love without that spark. Do I have that right? Yes that's right. I have tried to let love happen without spark and it just turned into a nitpicking fest and full on annoyance on my part, and the poor guy had done nothing wrong other than just be himself. It's either there or it's not. You can't force love. Why do you think so many people end up in divorce? Do you know how many times I have heard "well it was the next logical step" when it came to answering why they got married? Love is not about logic it is about a feeling. You either have it or not. I can't fall inlove with someone who doesn't make my heart skip when I look into his eyes or when I think about him when we are apart.
Sam Spade Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 I find this whole "spark" discussion both enlightening and frustrating. Enlightening because it's a good insight into a woman's mind. Frustrating because this "spark" is entirely within ourselves, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the other party. It's also used by the romance industry to get us to part with our money - paying for movie tickets, buying books and all the rest - and sets up an expectation that is impossible to attain. I, too, have felt that *spark* and have come to recognize it for what it is: infatuation. And infatuation is, by definition, short-term. To expect that feeling of butterflies (or whatever) to last much more than a few months is simply not in line with reality. But that's what so many people seem to yearn for. And I find that very, very sad that we have been conditioned by the romance industry to believe that if there's not a spark, then love is gone and there's no point in continuing. My sentimens (and conclusions) exactly. The biggest problem with the "spark" concept is that it is predicated on the expectation that something beyond ourselves will come along and will fullfull us . I look at my former spark-ified/infatuated self and just shake my head at the shallownes of not having anything better to fill my world with anything better than a woman - while both of them were unique and exceptional in some way to me, at the end of the day they were just regular girls with regular issues. Finally, the notion that 'spark' is the only way to develp true feelings is unfounded, and quite frankly - insulting . Well, guess what, some Vegas weddings end up in better and stronger marriages than many perfect cathedral formal weddings .
Thaddeus Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Yes that's right. I have tried to let love happen without spark and it just turned into a nitpicking fest and full on annoyance on my part' date=' and the poor guy had done nothing wrong other than just be himself.[/quote']Do you see the disconnect? Spark = no love No spark = no love Your example proves it. Spark - however you define it - has squat to do with love.
Sam Spade Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Yes that's right. I have tried to let love happen without spark and it just turned into a nitpicking fest and full on annoyance on my part, and the poor guy had done nothing wrong other than just be himself. It's either there or it's not. You can't force love. Why do you think so many people end up in divorce? Do you know how many times I have heard "well it was the next logical step" when it came to answering why they got married? Love is not about logic it is about a feeling. You either have it or not. I can't fall inlove with someone who doesn't make my heart skip when I look into his eyes or when I think about him when we are apart. So basically hou need a hormone rush to get past the inevitable annoyances:)? Why not just carry a flask around and be perpetually mildly drunk? it will have the same effect and is easier to do ! Love is not about logic, but it is about choice. Saying that you have no control over your feelings is not flattering at all (and also selling ourselves short as evolved human beings). (Imagine a soldier who has the opportunity to save his entire platoon by sacrificing himself but doesn't "Because I was scared and there was nothing I could do about it" . An extreme analogy, but good enough to emphasise that what makes us spiritual beings is precisely the ability to reflect on and control our feelings; and even love or taking a leap of faith is something you can choose). Finally, many marriages fail not because it was the next logical step, but because the sposes felt that they "just fell in love" with the neighbor and there was nothing they could do about it (so they had to bump uglies ASAP)
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Do you see the disconnect? Spark = no love No spark = no love Your example proves it. Spark - however you define it - has squat to do with love. there is no disconnect, I don't know why you are struggling with this so much spark = possibility of love no spark = NO possibility of love get it?
carhill Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 This 'filler' man is a great catch and he works at those small but important things; giving me the finest chocolates, wearing a fragrance that I love, things that attract my senses. Still, while he is not unattractive, I am left with the feeling that I am not attracted to him...as much as I would like to be. OK, now using a technique I learned in MC, put yourself in his shoes. Imagine he is the one who feels no spark and promotes an environment where you are seeing this as a progressive and healthy relationship. How long would you like this to continue? A week? A month? A year? I'm just curious about how you define it. I understand that, at some point, even with attraction and love, compatibility plays a role, but we're discussing an elemental part of the bonding process.
Sam Spade Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Do you see the disconnect? Spark = no love No spark = no love Your example proves it. Spark - however you define it - has squat to do with love. Wiseguy Thad tells it like it is !
Kamille Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Well, sexual attraction is a given, of course I'm not suggesting trying to generate attraction - that's impossible if it is not there - but merely doubt that a spark is necessary for a healthy attraction. For me the spark is sexual attraction. I, like the majority of straight woman, need an intellectual and emotional connection in order to feel sexually attracted to a man. It's all part of how a man makes me feel: how he interacts with me, treats me, takes care of me, etc. And to be honest, since the spark is actually based on emotional and intellectual needs of mine, it usually is a good predictor of a good relationship. Sure, I'm single now, but I have tried both ways, and let me tell you, I never regretted walking away from sparkless romance. Meanwhile, my LTRs all started with the spark and the attraction I felt for these men lasted throughout. And what provokes the spark evolved over time, as I learned abotu myself. I now melt when a men is nice to me. I used to be more into the bad boys.
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Love is not about logic, but it is about choice. No it's not about choice, we can choose who we date we don't choose who we fall in love with. This is were I end the discussion because you men think in analytical terms and I don't think my heart can be measured on a pie chart, nor can it be mechanically induced to feel something it does not. A spark is a good indication that there is a possibility for bigger and better things, a lack of spark is like settling to me. There are plenty people out there who would make good mates and good partners but that doesn't mean you will fall in love with them, you can even grow to love them, heck we love our friends so why not? I need more than that in a romantic relationship. If you think you can choose who you love then I don't know how we can even sustain friendships or have periods of being single. Heck look at all the people on this board struggling with dating and not finding what they want, if love was a choice why in the world would anyone stay single? Puuuuuhllease!!! I guess you can, and that would also explain why you are willing to devote 20yrs of your life next to someone hoping to feel something you clearly have not felt yet, and I am not willing to do that. You see if you truly believed that love is a calculation and not a feeling then you would be married to your SO by now, if you can make yourself love you can also make yourself succeed in a marriage and you make yourself get married. But there is a reason you don't and I think we both know what it is. She isn't the one and you know it. Deep down you want more, and you deserve more. For as long as you keep telling yourself that the spark is a myth you will keep yourself stunted in this "should I or should I not bite the bullet!?!?" state.
butcher's hook Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 For me the spark is sexual attraction. I, like the majority of straight woman, need an intellectual and emotional connection in order to feel sexually attracted to a man. That's exactly it! A guy could be the best guy in the world the smartest most devoted, great catch and cutest but if he doesn't do it for you intellectually and physically and spiritually sex isn't happening. Not for me at least. If I don't want to open my legs to a guy, which I may add happens mostly in the brain first for me and on a very subconscious level through my nose and through his pheromones, then there is no hope in hell I am falling in love with him. It is different for women because sexually speaking we need more than just a good looking body to feel sexual attraction, unlike men who see a good bod and they are pretty much good to go sexually.
Sam Spade Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 For me the spark is sexual attraction. I, like the majority of straight woman, need an intellectual and emotional connection in order to feel sexually attracted to a man. It's all part of how a man makes me feel: how he interacts with me, treats me, takes care of me, etc. And to be honest, since the spark is actually based on emotional and intellectual needs of mine, it usually is a good predictor of a good relationship. Sure, I'm single now, but I have tried both ways, and let me tell you, I never regretted walking away from sparkless romance. Meanwhile, my LTRs all started with the spark and the attraction I felt for these men lasted throughout. And what provokes the spark evolved over time, as I learned abotu myself. I now melt when a men is nice to me. I used to be more into the bad boys. Now that definition of a 'spark' I can understand --> i know that the big part of why women are attracted to men is not 6-pack abs, but how men make them *feel* when they're around them. But there is nothing spiritual/outerworldly about it ! All it takes is basically a guy with good manners who is a good listener/conversationalist, with some IQ and interests and style, and *minimally attractive* body to back it up in order to achieve this effect. So basically no spark in this case boils down to a guy who isn't attractive to women for some reason . Intellectual and emotional connection is as much a function of social skills as it is of compatibility.
Sam Spade Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 No it's not about choice, we can choose who we date we don't choose who we fall in love with. This is were I end the discussion because you men think in analytical terms and I don't think my heart can be measured on a pie chart, nor can it be mechanically induced to feel something it does not. A spark is a good indication that there is a possibility for bigger and better things, a lack of spark is like settling to me. There are plenty people out there who would make good mates and good partners but that doesn't mean you will fall in love with them, you can even grow to love them, heck we love our friends so why not? I need more than that in a romantic relationship. If you think you can choose who you love then I don't know how we can even sustain friendships or have periods of being single. Heck look at all the people on this board struggling with dating and not finding what they want, if love was a choice why in the world would anyone stay single? Puuuuuhllease!!! I guess you can, and that would also explain why you are willing to devote 20yrs of your life next to someone hoping to feel something you clearly have not felt yet, and I am not willing to do that. You see if you truly believed that love is a calculation and not a feeling then you would be married to your SO by now, if you can make yourself love you can also make yourself succeed in a marriage and you make yourself get married. But there is a reason you don't and I think we both know what it is. She isn't the one and you know it. Deep down you want more, and you deserve more. For as long as you keep telling yourself that the spark is a myth you will keep yourself stunted in this "should I or should I not bite the bullet!?!?" state. Many people struggle with relationships precisely because they fool themselves with the concept of "The One", and as a result make themselves miserable for life . I already answered your marriage question - marriage for me (and for most or all guys ) does not add anything to the quality of the relationship as such (except inconveniences), and is to be avoided at all costs until it becomes necessary - i.e. when you're ready and willing start a family .) Talk all you want, but I can't envision any other woman (or even a "type" of woman) that I'd rather be with instead of my gf, so there isn't much second guessing going on here.
Ruby Slippers Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Frustrating because this "spark" is entirely within ourselves, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the other party. It's also used by the romance industry to get us to part with our money - paying for movie tickets, buying books and all the rest - and sets up an expectation that is impossible to attain. You sound very cynical, and it sounds to me like you've never really been in love. It has to do with both parties and their chemistry and mix of energy together. Yes, I do believe that the zingier you are as an individual, the zingier your relationships will be, but your partner certainly contributes his/her share to the equation. I, too, have felt that *spark* and have come to recognize it for what it is: infatuation. And infatuation is, by definition, short-term. To expect that feeling of butterflies (or whatever) to last much more than a few months is simply not in line with reality. But that's what so many people seem to yearn for. I have already agreed with you that spark is infatuation -- it is the mating urge. IMO, the stronger the mating urge you feel toward someone, the better a match he/she is for you. It's not the ONLY factor, but it is an important one. You also need an intellectual, emotional, mental, and spiritual connection to back up the physical. When I have felt crazy spark and been deeply in love, the feeling has been long lasting. In fact, with the guy with whom I had the closest bond so far, the spark barely waned at all the whole time we were together. I wanted him just as badly and enjoyed his company just as much after two years as I did on day one. And I find that very, very sad that we have been conditioned by the romance industry to believe that if there's not a spark, then love is gone and there's no point in continuing. I think it's shortsighted and dismissive of you to assume that I (and others) have been blinded by the marketing machine. I'm a free thinker who does her research, quite exhaustively, and my views on love and sex have very little to do with what the mainstream engine tells me these concepts mean. I want a life of intense enjoyment and experience, and I see absolutely no point in wasting my time and energy on an arrangement that is merely convenient and easy, when I could continue searching for deep and lasting love.
Thaddeus Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 there is no disconnect, I don't know why you are struggling with this so much spark = possibility of love no spark = NO possibility of love get it? I'm struggling with what you're trying to say because of what you wrote earlier:I have found spark many times yet I haven't fallen in love though.This just doesn't match with your "spark=possibility of love" equation. There's the disconnect. Get it?
carhill Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 She's had the sexual/emotional spark but has not achieved success with the possibility of falling in love. IOW, there is attraction and desire but no elemental bond forms. That's why she said "possibility" of love with the spark; no guarantees
butcher's hook Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Thanks Carhill, that's exactly what I meant. Thaddeus I can see where it was confusing when I said I have found spark many times yet I haven't fallen in love though What I was getting as is that just because there is spark there is no guarantee that I will fall in love, BUT when I have fallen in love there was always spark there intially. In the cases where there was no spark at all but on paper they were great guys, there was no chance in hell no matter how long I dated them for the "falling in love to happen". Complacent love grows gradually but not mind blowing passionate love, it starts with an intial spark. So while spark is not a guarantee that I will fall in love, no spark is a guarantee that I won't fall in love. Make better sense now? the thing about spark though is that I even have a certain level of spark with my friends, as odd as that sounds. You see I tend to choose or gravitate (is probably a better word) towards people that I find appealing in all senses. Most if not all my friends are good looking, intellectually very stimulating, outgoing, same line of sense of humour, same ability to have in depth conversations about anything and everything and of course same value system. I have tried making friends with women that I didn't feel that level of "clicking" or spark with and being out with them was like torture. Ever had those acquaintances that were really good people but they almost felt like work to be around? That's the spark I am talking about that is lacking in some romantic ties.
Thaddeus Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 So while spark is not a guarantee that I will fall in love' date=' no spark[u'] is a guarantee[/u] that I won't fall in love. Make better sense now?OK, yeah, I think I see what you mean. Must get sleep... nighty night.
redant Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 Sparks have gotten me in trouble. I think sparks are infatuation for me. I don't know if I need them. I agree with Sam. I'd rather learn about the person and let my love grow.
Recommended Posts