What is "chemistry?"

[sumdude]

I disagree on this part as well. As OliveOyl said, I'm compatible with lots of people with whom I wouldn't say I have "chemistry." Also, I can have chemistry with someone theoretically and not be at all compatible with them, except perhaps sexually/biologically.

 

 

 

I agree it's about the same. But why take issue with the phrasing?

 

LOL exactly... I can describe chemistry as sexual compatibility or mutual attraction. We're just splitting hairs semantically.

[alphamale]

I hear people, especially women, talk about whether she and a guy have "chemistry" or not. What is chemistry exactly? Describe it to me.

you really don't know it until you find it...

[somedude81]

I agree it's about the same. But why take issue with the phrasing?

Because some women try to pretend that it's not just that.

[Jazzari]

Swiped from some webpage. It pretty much sums up how I feel:

 

The secret of chemistry between any couple is that it has TWO parts: physical and emotional. If you meet someone where you are physically attracted to them that's the easy part because most of the instant chemistry we feel on meeting someone is purely physical. The real element of chemistry that matters comes in the emotional bonding which is often not in evidence because we don't bond easily with strangers unless our values, aspirations and expectations align together. That is why when we meet someone where the chemistry is both physical and emotional we are blown away by the force of it. That's when we get the butterflies and hear the bells and whistles, when we want to sit on the phone with that person forever, to have their company as much as possible and to bask continuously in their aura.

 

Relationships that last months rather than years have the physical chemistry in abundance. Those that last a long time have the emotional chemistry too, either from the very beginning or built up over time. We might be attracted to someone physically but we cannot conjure up emotional chemistry unless it is there in some form at the outset. Often one person feels that emotion but the other person doesn't, which then causes a mismatch in behaviour between them. Some people also believe that chemistry is something that will gradually unfold between a couple but that is rare. Chemistry is electric and instant. It is either there or it isn't and when it is forced at the beginning that's how problems develop later on in the relationship because one person in the union is bound to be dissatisfied and will continue to secretly seek that chemistry elsewhere.

 

Chemistry is an elusive element in love but when it is in evidence it is truly awesome, especially in both forms!

[EasyHeart]

Using that article's definition, how is chemistry different from attraction?

[EasyHeart]

I agree it's about the same. But why take issue with the phrasing?

 

LOL exactly... I can describe chemistry as sexual compatibility or mutual attraction. We're just splitting hairs semantically.

 

Because some women try to pretend that it's not just that.

I think the problem with phrases like this is that it clouds communication.

 

It seems that many women prefer using indirect communication (what I disdainfully call "secret codes"), while men tend to prefer direct communication. If a woman says, "I'm not physically attracted to you", a man will be disappointed for a few days and then move on because there's nothing he can do to change how he looks. But if a woman says "I just don't think we have chemistry", then a guy will think "WTF is chemistry? How do I get some? What do I have to do?" and then takes it up as a challenge. He may even start a thread on LS. (We seem to get some variation of this thread about once a week).

 

I think most men would prefer to hear "I don't find you attractive" rather than code phrases like "I don't think we have chemistry", "I like you as a friend", etc. I think women use phrases like this because they think they are being "nice", but most men consider them confusing and somewhat cruel.

[somedude81]

I think the problem with phrases like this is that it clouds communication.

 

It seems that many women prefer using indirect communication (what I disdainfully call "secret codes"), while men tend to prefer direct communication. If a woman says, "I'm not physically attracted to you", a man will be disappointed for a few days and then move on because there's nothing he can do to change how he looks. But if a woman says "I just don't think we have chemistry", then a guy will think "WTF is chemistry? How do I get some? What do I have to do?" and then takes it up as a challenge. He may even start a thread on LS. (We seem to get some variation of this thread about once a week).

 

I think most men would prefer to hear "I don't find you attractive" rather than code phrases like "I don't think we have chemistry", "I like you as a friend", etc. I think women use phrases like this because they think they are being "nice", but most men consider them confusing and somewhat cruel.

Exactly!

 

BTW, I absolutely hate, "I like you as a friend."

 

"I'm sorry, Somedude, I like you as a friend."

"So then you do like me?"

"Not in that way."

"Then you don't actually like me."

"But I do like you. As a friend."

 

Blargh

[counterman]

I don't know what it is, but I use it to describe when I see a girl and my insides just go wild. Sometimes its the smell, the touch, the voice... It is weird that sometimes it doesn't happen with the girls that are hot.

[zengirl]

Because some women try to pretend that it's not just that.

 

Personally, I would feel odd using the phrase "Sexual attraction" in some company, or even bringing up the word "sexual" with strangers. I have some pretty demure attitudes about certain things though. I find "chemistry" a much more acceptable/polite company way of saying it (i.e. Could say it in front of my grandma).

 

I also kind of think chemistry goes more to the heart of it. Sexual attraction can be socialized to a degree (someone could be drawn to someone but think that others would disapprove and then talk themselves out of it or lessen it), but chemistry is pure pheremones. No say whatsoever.

 

Swiped from some webpage. It pretty much sums up how I feel:

 

The secret of chemistry between any couple is that it has TWO parts: physical and emotional.

 

I think it's many more parts than that, in terms of compatibility. I also don't know that you can "build" chemistry. I guess I'm stuck on the term because I believe it has to do with chemicals that are produced pretty much without your control (you can trick the body a bit, which some dating games, like the push/pull will do, but not much). I strongly disagree chemistry and compatibility have much to do with each other, except perhaps in terms of sex (Even then, I imagine you could have chemistry and be sexually incompatible due to something beyond the pheremones --- i.e. particular styles or sexual needs, like one parter is extremely kinky whereas the other is very closed off).

 

I think the problem with phrases like this is that it clouds communication.

 

It seems that many women prefer using indirect communication (what I disdainfully call "secret codes"), while men tend to prefer direct communication. If a woman says, "I'm not physically attracted to you", a man will be disappointed for a few days and then move on because there's nothing he can do to change how he looks. But if a woman says "I just don't think we have chemistry", then a guy will think "WTF is chemistry? How do I get some? What do I have to do?" and then takes it up as a challenge. He may even start a thread on LS. (We seem to get some variation of this thread about once a week).

 

I think most men would prefer to hear "I don't find you attractive" rather than code phrases like "I don't think we have chemistry", "I like you as a friend", etc. I think women use phrases like this because they think they are being "nice", but most men consider them confusing and somewhat cruel.

 

But I can find someone attractive (aesthetically pleasing) and not have the pheremonal signatures that give me that 'love drug buzz' (an actual biological phenomenon we can now document) that I consider chemistry.

 

I mean, I suppose I could say, "I don't want to get naked with you" (But I'd never say that to someone I didn't know well!) which would be true, but I have some male friends I definitely NEVER wanted to be naked with and they are very attractive. Just not pheremonally compatible with me.

[threebyfate]

I'm wondering if the differences within this thread have to do with people who've never had serious chemistry, those who can compartmentalize sex and others who consider it all one package, as a precursor and important component of love.

 

*licks index finger and touches chemistry*

 

Ssssttttt...hawtness!

[welikeincrowds]

There's a reason people say "chemistry" instead of "sexual attraction" and it's not to be euphemistic; they are two different things.

 

Haven't you ever talked to a hot girl and realized you have no idea how to talk to her? "No chemistry."

 

I'm wondering if the differences within this thread have to do with people who've never had serious chemistry, those who can compartmentalize sex and others who consider it all one package, as a precursor and important component of love.

 

Yes, you're onto something.

 

If "chemistry" is a placeholder for any other concept, it's gestalt. ****, two posts in a row I'm using that word.

[threebyfate]

You're such an intuitive, as defined by Jung. Frameworks within frameworks to create conceptual wholes using metaphoric analogies.

[welikeincrowds]

You're such an intuitive, as defined by Jung. Frameworks within frameworks to create conceptual wholes using metaphoric analogies.

 

And you're not?

 

INTJ, $40.

[OliveOyl]

But I can find someone attractive (aesthetically pleasing) and not have the pheremonal signatures that give me that 'love drug buzz' (an actual biological phenomenon we can now document) that I consider chemistry.

Yeah, this. My stbx was really cute when I met him and is still good looking at 50. I look at him and think "he's a good looking man." But it never translated into wanting to rip his clothes off.

[miss_28]

if you ever had real chemistry with someone, you wouldn't be asking what it's about... the poster above said it right, it's a gestalt, a sum total of physical, emotional and other characteristics that make you want to be with that person. That being said, you can't invent chemistry, but I've found, in my case anyways, that sometimes, only sometimes, it can develop, if you get to know someone. It's a good word, because it's more than sexual attraction, more than compatibility, yet hard to articulate. I don't think people who use this word are bimbos at all... they're just looking for that special something that makes relationships work.

 

I myself think chemistry is important, but I don't dismiss someone right away if it's not there at the beginning.

 

I agree with the "love drug buzz" comment...

Edited April 23, 2011 by miss_28

[somedude81]

if you ever had real chemistry with someone, you wouldn't be asking what it's about.

I've felt "real chemistry" with a handful of girls but they've never returned the feeling.

 

So that point is moot.

 

It's just really annoying when I feel it with somebody, and they don't feel it back with me, and the only explanation they can give is that they don't feel chemistry. That's BS.

[miss_28]

I've felt "real chemistry" with a handful of girls but they've never returned the feeling.

 

So that point is moot.

 

It's just really annoying when I feel it with somebody, and they don't feel it back with me, and the only explanation they can give is that they don't feel chemistry. That's BS.

 

Chemistry is not one way attraction, it's when 2 people jive together, for all the reasons that were mentioned before. The point is not moot. You're talking about one sided attraction, which is when one person has feelings that are not reciprocated.

 

Imagine the opposite, someone feeling attracted for you but you not feeling it for them, I'm sure it's happened and maybe you never noticed. It blows just as much. You can hate it, I hate when it's not reciprocated, but try not to take it personally, because it's not a personal attack. You can't control how someone feels about you, you can be perfect for them, they may even know it, but they just don't have the feelings of attraction. Being bitter about it will keep you down, not them. It's not BS, it's life.

Edited April 24, 2011 by miss_28