Mydish1 Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 I just wanted to hear from some people on how important they thought chemistry is to them during - The dating stage - do you stick around long enough to find out if it's there and let it develop, or do you give up after the 1st/2nd date if it's not there? The relationship stage - do you think it's important for a lasting relationship? How important is chemistry to you during a sexual relationship?
Thaddeus Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Chemistry is over-rated and can make people do things that are completely irrational. It's also relatively easily manipulated. (This has come up before, but I can't find the thread at the moment.) A good PUA who's on his game can very easily give his 'target' the impression that there's chemistry, when in fact he's manipulating the situation and any chemistry is in the mind of the woman he's targeting. Strangely, one would think that the more astute and smarter the woman, the more she'd be able to defend herself against this sort of manipulation. But the opposite is exactly true. In a way, the PUA will use her intelligence against her and have her convincing herself that the chemistry is real, even when it's not.
Vet Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 How are we defining "chemistry" first off? If it's being defined as emotional, intellectual, and sexual compatibility, then I'd call it extremely important.
Author Mydish1 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 How are we defining "chemistry" first off? If it's being defined as emotional, intellectual, and sexual compatibility, then I'd call it extremely important. Maybe chemistry was the wrong wording, how about spark? How would you define spark? I find that women deem chemistry really important, most if not all will usually bail if it isn't there on the first or second date. Maybe if you ask me, I don't think they're allowing it enough time to grow by getting to know someone.
Vet Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Well, I think people are very perceptive in knowing if they are compatible with other people very quickly. I don't know if I disagree with calling it off if there's no interest to start off with (like within the first couple of dates). I think that "spark" is very important to start off interest and make both people excited about a new possible relationship.
Thornton Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Some sort of attraction or chemistry is essential. What's the point of dating someone you don't even find attractive? That's just a friendship, not a relationship.
Sam Spade Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Chemistry is over-rated and can make people do things that are completely irrational. It's also relatively easily manipulated. (This has come up before, but I can't find the thread at the moment.) A good PUA who's on his game can very easily give his 'target' the impression that there's chemistry, when in fact he's manipulating the situation and any chemistry is in the mind of the woman he's targeting. Strangely, one would think that the more astute and smarter the woman, the more she'd be able to defend herself against this sort of manipulation. But the opposite is exactly true. In a way, the PUA will use her intelligence against her and have her convincing herself that the chemistry is real, even when it's not. Wiseguys Thaddeus tells it like it is. Dwelling on "Chemistry" is basically just a refusal to rationally examine the bases for attraction (or lack of). I like my gf for particular reasons, and so does she. The hardcore proponents of "chemistry" would probably suggest that we're fooling ourselves etc. Of course, chemistry is also an easy excuse for breaking up with somebody.
Author Mydish1 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Well, I think people are very perceptive in knowing if they are compatible with other people very quickly. I sort of agree with that. There have been studies done - particulary in speed dating. Where a party knows within the first few seconds whether or not they're attracted to that person. I don't know if I disagree with calling it off if there's no interest to start off with (like within the first couple of dates). I think that "spark" is very important to start off interest and make both people excited about a new possible relationship. I think the excitement and uncertainty part is what keeps us on the edge. If I do recall, some of my best relationships were with women that we both had mutual chemistry before or during the first date.
Author Mydish1 Posted August 18, 2009 Author Posted August 18, 2009 Chemistry is over-rated and can make people do things that are completely irrational. It's also relatively easily manipulated. (This has come up before, but I can't find the thread at the moment.) A good PUA who's on his game can very easily give his 'target' the impression that there's chemistry, when in fact he's manipulating the situation and any chemistry is in the mind of the woman he's targeting. Strangely, one would think that the more astute and smarter the woman, the more she'd be able to defend herself against this sort of manipulation. But the opposite is exactly true. In a way, the PUA will use her intelligence against her and have her convincing herself that the chemistry is real, even when it's not. That is a good observation Thaddeus. So you're saying chemistry can exist in one person and not the other? But wouldn't that depend on how high their interest level in you is? If they do have an interest level in the 90%+ I can see how that's possible.
Thaddeus Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 So you're saying chemistry can exist in one person and not the other?Yep. It can be manipulated (and it's not gender-specific as to who does the manipulation - sometimes it's a guy, sometimes it's a woman) or it can be entirely one-sided. Remember that this 'feeling' of chemistry is entirely contained within one's self and has precious little to do with the other party. It's even been studied scientifically. See (hear or download the podcast) Your Brain On Love.
Hkizzle Posted August 18, 2009 Posted August 18, 2009 Thaddeus explains it well. In fact even before scientists discovered the neurosciencce behind it all, they had a word for it already.......... SEDUCTION.
Recommended Posts