No immediate chemistry on a first date=bad?

[paigej91]

How do you think a first date should ideally go? (with someone you just met).

 

Should you click instantly and talk for hours or should it be comfortable, yet somewhat weird?

 

I always am hoping for the former, but the truth is most first dates are pretty weird and take at least a few for me to even get any idea of where I want things to go.

[Leigh 87]

I prefer to feel super excited about the person on date one.

 

I prefer high chemistry the first time you meet.

 

My friends bf slept around every weekend. The moment he laid eyes on her he just "knew" there was something special about her.

He is still totally head over heels for her many months later.

 

I prefer a guy to be really into me from date 1.

 

 

I don't like to be in different on date 1 and not have the urge to kiss him.

 

I want to WANT to kiss him by the end of date one.

 

I don't like having to go 3 or 4 dates before I even want to kiss......

[d0nnivain]

For me, over the years I learned I need that instant spark of at least attraction to even go on the date. When I have dated me who didn't excite me, it never worked.

 

 

I think one of my most awkward 1st dates with a man I was attracted to was with my now husband. I walked out of there, convinced I'd blown it.

 

 

As long as there were some commonalities & a desire to see the person again, as opposed to OMG get me outta here, it's probably OK.

[SYLLPalmer]

Did you ever meet someone that you at first didn't like or even couldn't stand and they ended up being an outstanding person? I have. I have met people who were nothing to look at at first meeting but were later mesmerizing to me. Likewise with my interpretation of their commentary and demeanor. It is a change of opinion and what prompts it is more information. I have literally felt my own heart open on a dime and with it my perception changed. None of this dictates nor predicts the success of the relationship. You do.

 

If a person doesn't make your skin crawl and you are unsure what you think of them you may be short changing yourself by adhering to the Hollywood rules for love and chemistry. Write your own script.

[Phantom888]

The 1st impression and instant chemistry is really important for me. It really doesn't get any further if I don't feel that super-charged chemistry on the 1st date. Who knows, maybe that person may grow on me and would eventually be a good partner, but i never give it more time to find out. In my experience, if you don't feel right in the beginning, you probably won't ever feel right with this person.

[MalachiX]

It really depends. Sometimes I'll have great early chemistry and the relationship will fizzle out fast. Sometimes it's the opposite. The girl I'm seeing now is especially interesting:

 

On our first date (coffee, scones, and a walk); I felt that she was interesting but I was really worried that we weren't quite "clicking." Part of it was that I hadn't gotten any sleep the night before (last minute work thing) so I felt I wasn't being as charming as I should have been. We actually talked for a long time and but things still felt awkward. I was actually surprised when she agreed to another date.

 

On the second date, both of us were in better shape. I dressed up as did she. We had a nice dinner and a fun movie. I still felt a little nervous around her (not sure why) but it was a good time and we were clicking a bit more.

 

As I was dropping her off, I kept telling myself, "take it slow, don't try to sleep with her." I really didn't want to potentially hurt the relationship by having sex too early. I go in for a kiss and we just keep kissing. We ended up sleeping together after all (awesome sex all night long) and it actually really helped us realize that we "clicked." I think you're just more able to be open in conversation with someone when you're both naked in the after-glow. I also think that by "taking the plunge" and doing it, we both let our guards down and stopped being nervous around each other.

 

I guess the point of this story is that I didn't quite realize how much "chemistry" (sexual AND emotional) I actually had with this girl until we broke down and had sex. Granted I don't know where this relationship is going as it's only been about a month but we are spending Valentine's day together and it's the first time in a long time that I feel like I'm in a relationship rather than just casually dating someone.

[newmoon]

first dates can be uncomfortable and weird and yet you can still have chemistry; it doesn't have to be all sparks and fireworks and non-stop talking to be great. some people need a good deal of time to open up and relax, and if you judge them too harshly on the first date you could really miss out. I will give someone 2-3 very casual dates if I think they just need time. I'm not eager to dump people quickly because we didn't have super-astonishing chemistry from the start.. it can grow as long as there is physical attraction

[Keenly]

Remember on a first date you are both nervous and slightly uncomfortable , so don't be too quick to judge .

[Leigh 87]

It isn't about being able to talk non stop necessarily.

 

It is just the ' wow factor'. It is something you just "feel" about a person that draws you to them. You can't wait to get texts from them/hear from them. You get all excited about them. You want to kiss them on the first date and it doesn't take many dates just to want to kiss them.

 

I didn't have instant chemistry with my ex. Not in the traditional sense. I was SUPER awkward and weird at the time. We couldn't just chat that easily.

 

It was just a peculiar "feeling" we had. We both stood out to each other against most other people we came across.

 

If I am indifference about a person, I will no way give them a second date JUST because they are " attractive enough" and " have great personalities".

 

I have to feel off the charts chemistry/a special feeling.

 

I am in my 20's and I can afford to wait for that sh*t to happen to me.

 

If I was older and needed a life partner, I would obviously have to settle for the "slow burn", where you fall in love slowly, over 5 or more months, and you are not all that crash hot about them in the early stages.

 

Personally, I would just pack my bags and travel the world more/dedicate my life to charity work and saving dogs (long held dream of mine!).

 

I would do that^^^ and live my dreams rather than ever settle for a guy I am not all that excited by. That to me, is akin to learning to "enjoy sex with a good friend". That is not true romantic chemistry.

 

 

 

 

 

Being "meh" on the first date is a no no. And you can be "meh" about someone who is totally hot to you, and who you really like as a person.

In the same vein, you can instantly feel strong chemistry with someone who is not that good looking and is boring/not funny to you.

 

It is not about having high lists of things you need in a partner. It is about the "it" factor.

 

I personally need it ^^

[Keenly]

The fire that burns hottest also fizzles out the fastest.

 

Easy come easy go.

 

 

Insert a dozen other cliches here.

 

While that would be really nice, life isn't always as perfectly scripted as a romance novel, and can take some time to develop.

 

I've heard a lot of the " hated them at first , then loved them " stories.

 

 

Girl at my work with a big crush on me absolutely hated me the first three days she met me , and now...

[Weezy1973]

It isn't about being able to talk non stop necessarily.

 

It is just the ' wow factor'. It is something you just "feel" about a person that draws you to them. You can't wait to get texts from them/hear from them. You get all excited about them. You want to kiss them on the first date and it doesn't take many dates just to want to kiss them.

 

I didn't have instant chemistry with my ex. Not in the traditional sense. I was SUPER awkward and weird at the time. We couldn't just chat that easily.

 

It was just a peculiar "feeling" we had. We both stood out to each other against most other people we came across.

 

If I am indifference about a person, I will no way give them a second date JUST because they are " attractive enough" and " have great personalities".

 

I have to feel off the charts chemistry/a special feeling.

 

I am in my 20's and I can afford to wait for that sh*t to happen to me.

 

If I was older and needed a life partner, I would obviously have to settle for the "slow burn", where you fall in love slowly, over 5 or more months, and you are not all that crash hot about them in the early stages.

 

Personally, I would just pack my bags and travel the world more/dedicate my life to charity work and saving dogs (long held dream of mine!).

 

I would do that^^^ and live my dreams rather than ever settle for a guy I am not all that excited by. That to me, is akin to learning to "enjoy sex with a good friend". That is not true romantic chemistry.

 

 

 

 

 

Being "meh" on the first date is a no no. And you can be "meh" about someone who is totally hot to you, and who you really like as a person.

In the same vein, you can instantly feel strong chemistry with someone who is not that good looking and is boring/not funny to you.

 

It is not about having high lists of things you need in a partner. It is about the "it" factor.

 

I personally need it ^^

 

Keep in mind that Leigh's history has been filled with terrible relationships and casual sex..

 

And I would say that if you're looking for casual sex than instant attraction is super important (like it is to Leigh).

 

However, if you're looking for a long term relationship - usually the qualities you are attracted to (honesty, compassion, dependability, loyalty etc.) won't even reveal themselves until weeks, and often months of dating.

 

Of course if you're repulsed - please do not keep dating. But if you're neutral, then it's usually worth a few more dates.

 

That being said - this is why I advocate dating people you already know rather than strangers (i.e. OLD, people you meet at a bar, etc.) because your attraction will alter based on what you already know. I work with A LOT of women - many of them physically beautiful - but so many of them have become way less appealing to me after getting to know them better at work. And there have been a few women that I really felt neutral about in terms of physical appearance, that later became way more attractive to me after getting to know them.

 

Take Leigh's opinion with a grain of salt - she has literally NO good long relationship experience. None. A lot of that is due to her preference for "instant chemistry".

[Leigh 87]

Keep in mind that Leigh's history has been filled with terrible relationships and casual sex..

 

And I would say that if you're looking for casual sex than instant attraction is super important (like it is to Leigh).

 

However, if you're looking for a long term relationship - usually the qualities you are attracted to (honesty, compassion, dependability, loyalty etc.) won't even reveal themselves until weeks, and often months of dating.

 

Of course if you're repulsed - please do not keep dating. But if you're neutral, then it's usually worth a few more dates.

 

That being said - this is why I advocate dating people you already know rather than strangers (i.e. OLD, people you meet at a bar, etc.) because your attraction will alter based on what you already know. I work with A LOT of women - many of them physically beautiful - but so many of them have become way less appealing to me after getting to know them better at work. And there have been a few women that I really felt neutral about in terms of physical appearance, that later became way more attractive to me after getting to know them.

 

Take Leigh's opinion with a grain of salt - she has literally NO good long relationship experience. None. A lot of that is due to her preference for "instant chemistry".

 

 

 

 

Um, I was in a long term R at age 18 - 20 with ONE man. I was sexless from age 20 - 24 (by choice), I had one fling, then a 2.4 year long relationship. Then a mere 5 months of casual sex, then a current long term R.

I am HARDLY a low quality girl who PREFERS casual sex to a decent, quality man who appreciates me for more than just sex.

 

I HAVE mostly been in long term R's with only 6 or so months of testing casual sex out..

 

I hardly PREFER casual sex.

I failed at my past 2, 2 year long relationships, because 1: I was 18 when I met my first long termer and 2: I had little self respect and I settled for a second long term R with a man who didn't deserve me.

 

I didn't fail because I wanted an instant spark. You're honestly a dumbarse if you think that is the reason I have not been successful.

 

Furthermore, I don't want casual sex and I am looking for a long term relationship.

I am a nice looking and fun to be around girl, and I am worthy of more than just sex.

I have tried casual sex, and decided it was not for me.

Since I am also a loyal and loving partner myself, I want someone with good values such as myself, who is loyal and wants a happy and healthy life with me.

 

I have a LOT of experience with relationships. I have read peoples stories on here for years.

My parents were married at age 21. Still married.

My best friend met a guy who is head over heels about her. He was SMITTEN the first time he met her. They are still together.

I had TWO long term R"s with unsuitable men, who I lived with. And I read about successful relationships every day, as well as having plenty of experience dating a LOT of men.

 

I think I have enough experience to know what I want from a guy.

 

I am currently with a wonderful guy. You couldn't ask for anything better than the way this guy treats me.

Both my guy AND my good friends guy were smitten with us on the first date.

They didn't "need" time to "Warm up" to the idea of kissing us. Fck no.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to feel an instant spark.

PLENTY of couples feel an instant spark and go on to have similar values and life goals also.

It is a preference thing. You can be really into someone on date one, and go on to have a long relationship with them.

 

 

 

 

There is no correlation with hot chemistry meaning = failed relationships.

There is no rule saying you should date people who you are not all that hot for, because it is more likely they will make better partners?

You can have good chemistry with the people who are suitable partners for you.

 

 

 

The question is: do you want to take the first available, nice guy that comes along OR, would you rather wait for good chemistry AND compatibility?

 

 

 

I tried a relationship with a guy who was WONDERFUL. Earned lots of money, cute, treated me like a princess.

I just didn't have chemistry with him. I didn't want him to kiss me. I could have definitely grown to enjoy sex with him, but it felt so wrong to me to begin with.

I got a tad repulsed by his sexual advances, cuddling and kissing. He was CUTE and totally great to be around! Yet without chemistry, sexual advances from his part made me uneasy.

But yes I know I could have grown to "enjoy" sex with him. But why go to that effort when there are guys I could be excited about NATURALLY, without having to grow to "enjoy sex" with them?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Leigh 87

[CarrieT]

During my 2 1/2 years of trawling the internet dating sites (200+ convos and 50+ first meet-and-greets), I learned to scale back expectations.

 

Sometimes there was chemistry that was purely physical and made for a good one-night-stand, but never translated beyond to relationship material.

 

The last one I went on did not produce instant chemistry on the first date and - in fact - our first sexual union (third or fourth date) was clumsy and we both admitted that it took time to get to know each other.

 

:bunny:

 

At almost 50 years of age, I married him after dating a year, and a year-long engagement.

 

I would have never guessed it and while my old (20s or 30s) self would have dismissed him due to lack of "spark" on a first date, the mature Carrie is thrilled she got to know and develop feelings for him!

[somedude81]

Remember on a first date you are both nervous and slightly uncomfortable , so don't be too quick to judge .

Even more so if the first date is the first time you actually met that person.

 

To expect instant chemistry in that situation just seems weird.

[SYLLPalmer]

 

However, if you're looking for a long term relationship - usually the qualities you are attracted to (honesty, compassion, dependability, loyalty etc.) won't even reveal themselves until weeks, and often months of dating.

 

Of course if you're repulsed - please do not keep dating. But if you're neutral, then it's usually worth a few more dates.

 

That being said - this is why I advocate dating people you already know rather than strangers (i.e. OLD, people you meet at a bar, etc.) because your attraction will alter based on what you already know. I work with A LOT of women - many of them physically beautiful - but so many of them have become way less appealing to me after getting to know them better at work. And there have been a few women that I really felt neutral about in terms of physical appearance, that later became way more attractive to me after getting to know them.

 

This thread is not about where you meet a person. It is about the initial interplay and dynamics that can cloud the picture and make it difficult to discern if a candidate is worth investing in.

 

Seems to me OLD and bars are venues to bring in new people to widen ones options for dating and friendship. I have met great friends and boyfriends in bars. Success in OLD requires either skill or luck and like any other venue can lead to duds. Were it a complete and total failure I highly doubt it would have caught on the way it has.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at regarding dating people you know. I mean honestly the Amish do this and the result is not all that good.

This concept is vague because:

1. Every person you have ever known was at one point a stranger.

2. People drift in and out of ones life and often there are no appropriate candidates to date amidst the pool of people known.

3. Knowing someone does not mean that they will not disappoint nor betray you, nor does it mean that you will be more compatible with them.

4. You yourself said that baseline structural qualities of a person will be revealed over time i.e. will surface in a few weeks or months.

 

Workplace behavior is not authentic by necessity so scoping in the workplace is bad news aside from the high risk it poses for creating a hostile working environment. A pretty girl can seem like a bitch but she may be a supervisor. The subordinate/supervisor relationship is fraught with difficulties even if the supervisor is a saint simply because people don't want to be told what to do. There are studies that demonstrate the subordinate mentality doesn't change under different styles of management.

[Andy_K]

For me over the years, one of the most frustrating things about dating has been being dismissed for lack of chemistry after date one. Especially reading some of the stories above about girls who used to do it, then didn't for someone, and he turned out to be awesome

 

Sometimes it's been there from the start. Sometimes it's formed after a few dates. Neither seems a better indicator of relationship potential than the other.

 

For my part, attraction has to be there from the start - which is mostly looks based - but I'll give it several dates for things to click, if I have reason to believe it should.

[StanMusial]

How do you think a first date should ideally go? (with someone you just met).

 

Should you click instantly and talk for hours or should it be comfortable, yet somewhat weird?

 

I always am hoping for the former, but the truth is most first dates are pretty weird and take at least a few for me to even get any idea of where I want things to go.

 

When I was dating, if I went out with a girl and we had nothing to talk about or it was simply not fun, I usually never followed up. If we had some good laughs and at least seemed to have something to talk about then I feel like it was a successful date. Is that chemistry? I don't know but it worked for me. Sometimes you just have to roll with it and be a trooper - I can't speak for all guys but that is an attractive trait to me personally.

[Tayken]

I prefer to feel super excited about the person on date one.

 

I prefer high chemistry the first time you meet.

 

My friends bf slept around every weekend. The moment he laid eyes on her he just "knew" there was something special about her.

He is still totally head over heels for her many months later.

 

I prefer a guy to be really into me from date 1.

 

 

I don't like to be in different on date 1 and not have the urge to kiss him.

 

I want to WANT to kiss him by the end of date one.

 

I don't like having to go 3 or 4 dates before I even want to kiss......

 

 

I fail to see your point here about your friend? So this guy saw your friend, thinks she is hot and had decided to continuously date her, which means this is a relationship based on attraction...how do you know he is still not sleeping around "every week"?

 

@OP.....

 

Most people prefer the former too when it comes to going on dates. My date yesterday told me before that she is "excited" to meet based on our conversation before hand, and we planned together stuff to do that will give us a chance to talk

 

As usual with my dates....she said "she finds me easy to talk to, and her nervousness is dropping by the minute. I naturally make women feel that way, and am not a guy that can be accused of not being a listener or remembering important dates etc...even my ex will attest to this

[Leigh 87]

I fail to see your point here about your friend? So this guy saw your friend, thinks she is hot and had decided to continuously date her, which means this is a relationship based on attraction...how do you know he is still not sleeping around "every week"?

 

 

 

You have no clue. I do, she is a good friend. I also know her boyfriend.

 

He was absolutely nuts about this woman from the moment he laid eyes on her. They are STILL together many months later. They are best friends who happened to have INSANE chemistry. It made for an extremely potent love.

 

They are best friends and are due to get married. They lasted the distance AND they also had crazy chemistry from the start.

 

They were both EXCITED to hear from each other from date one. They longed to kiss each other.

NOT HAVING spark or chemistry is akin to meeting a FRIEND - you are NOT excited about them. They are simply a really awesome person to talk to.

Some people are really excited about someone right from the start; other people are totally "meh" or indifferent about a person yet continue dating them and create their own chemistry.

 

THERE IS NO RIGHT WAY to go about chemistry!

Carrie T found her most true love without chemistry - she created her own! That was best for HER.

 

She is also extremely academic and needs a lot more things from a guy that I personally would, and therefore she is going to be hard pressed to find what she NEEDS in a guy, and to ALSO have hot chemistry with a guy that actually completes her.

Personally, I have tried this with a guy who was amazing. He was cute, rich, and I absolutely LOVED being around him. We were good together aside from the fact I could NEVER get past lack of chemistry.

I feel chemistry with a lot of guys from date one.

 

 

... Why bend over backwards to create chemistry when I am a person who feels it fairly commonly?

 

 

I am speaking as a woman who tends to feel mutual sexual chemistry a lot. I am not particular attractive, but there is something about me that instigates INSTANT chemistry with a fair amount of men; it is not about being attractive, it is just as much about who YOU are and the energy surrounding you.

Now, if I seldom FELT good chemistry with guys, I would obviously have to make do with guys who strictly matched my values and life goals, and who were a wonderful fit for me relationship wise; I would have to create sexual chemistry and tension through hard work, or perhaps just a little work depending on how much we lacked natural chemistry.

I have the option of only settling for hot chemistry from date one. I can find mutual chemistry. I am in my 20's. This likely won't last forever.

Other people opt not to go for instant sparks and that is FINE.

But I am not doing MYSELF a disservice from going after what I personally find brings me the most happiness.

 

All the people who say " well chemistry has not worked out for you so far" are clearly dumbarses, since me seeking out good chemistry has absolutely nothing to do with my lack of success.

For starters, I had LITTLE sexual chemistry with my ex who I dated for over 2 YEARS.

A string of short term guys, 3 of them, didn't work out after my ex but that was NOT anything to do with the fact I had hot chemistry with them.

 

 

 

Seeking out men who I am "meh" about and who I am not the least bit excited about does NOT make finding the "one" more likely.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Leigh 87

[paigej91]

Remember on a first date you are both nervous and slightly uncomfortable , so don't be too quick to judge .

 

Hah. This is even more the case when you both speak enough of each other's first language, but are fluent in different languages. It's gonna take longer naturally to get to know each other. Not to mention, it'll be interesting not being able to pick up on the subtitles in language that one takes for granted when speaking your native language. His actions and gestures match his words, luckily.

 

We had a short discussion after our first date about how we wanted to take it slow and be direct. It was so funny trying to see if we were "on the same page" - mainly because the colloquial terms used with dating are so different.

[paigej91]

The fire that burns hottest also fizzles out the fastest.

 

Easy come easy go.

 

 

Insert a dozen other cliches here.

 

While that would be really nice, life isn't always as perfectly scripted as a romance novel, and can take some time to develop.

 

I've heard a lot of the " hated them at first , then loved them " stories.

 

 

Girl at my work with a big crush on me absolutely hated me the first three days she met me , and now...

 

Yup, I've heard both sides of it and have experienced both. I guess, I'm trying to differentiate between what a truly bad first date is and what just might need a few more dates for something to develop.

[paigej91]

He was absolutely nuts about this woman from the moment he laid eyes on her. They are STILL together many months later. They are best friends who happened to have INSANE chemistry. It made for an extremely potent love.

 

They are best friends and are due to get married. They lasted the distance AND they also had crazy chemistry from the start.

 

This is so rare that I don't really see the point in waiting for it if it may never happen. For some, "love at first sight" happens and that's spectacular for anyone who experiences it. For most others, this is a rarity.

[FitChick]

Instant chemistry on dates never lasted. It burned brightly and then fizzled out quickly, like fireworks. I prefer getting to know someone over time to build a foundation for the relationship. The exception to this rule is if someone is physically repulsive.

[Weezy1973]

This thread is not about where you meet a person. It is about the initial interplay and dynamics that can cloud the picture and make it difficult to discern if a candidate is worth investing in.

 

Seems to me OLD and bars are venues to bring in new people to widen ones options for dating and friendship. I have met great friends and boyfriends in bars. Success in OLD requires either skill or luck and like any other venue can lead to duds. Were it a complete and total failure I highly doubt it would have caught on the way it has.

 

I am not sure what you are getting at regarding dating people you know. I mean honestly the Amish do this and the result is not all that good.

This concept is vague because:

1. Every person you have ever known was at one point a stranger.

2. People drift in and out of ones life and often there are no appropriate candidates to date amidst the pool of people known.

3. Knowing someone does not mean that they will not disappoint nor betray you, nor does it mean that you will be more compatible with them.

4. You yourself said that baseline structural qualities of a person will be revealed over time i.e. will surface in a few weeks or months.

Workplace behavior is not authentic by necessity so scoping in the workplace is bad news aside from the high risk it poses for creating a hostile working environment. A pretty girl can seem like a bitch but she may be a supervisor. The subordinate/supervisor relationship is fraught with difficulties even if the supervisor is a saint simply because people don't want to be told what to do. There are studies that demonstrate the subordinate mentality doesn't change under different styles of management.

 

Talking about studies - studies are pretty consistent in showing that the best places to meet a partner for a long term relationship or marriage are at work, school or through your social circle. Whereas people that meet at a bar or through online dating are much more likely to have a short term relationship.

 

My example was through work, however the point is, when you have an opportunity to get to know someone over a prolonged period of time - I'm not saying in a romantic sense - just in general (i.e. through work, school, social circle, meetup group etc.), it gives you a better idea of your compatibility BEFORE dating than would dating a total stranger. And that's why most marriages / long term relationships started out from people meeting in these environments.

 

The problem with OLD is that it almost requires "instant chemistry" (which means literally nothing long term) for people to continue dating. Because if that chemistry isn't there, you can just click on the next profile...

[SYLLPalmer]

Talking about studies - studies are pretty consistent in showing that the best places to meet a partner for a long term relationship or marriage are at work, school or through your social circle. Whereas people that meet at a bar or through online dating are much more likely to have a short term relationship.

 

My example was through work, however the point is, when you have an opportunity to get to know someone over a prolonged period of time - I'm not saying in a romantic sense - just in general (i.e. through work, school, social circle, meetup group etc.), it gives you a better idea of your compatibility BEFORE dating than would dating a total stranger. And that's why most marriages / long term relationships started out from people meeting in these environments.

 

The problem with OLD is that it almost requires "instant chemistry" (which means literally nothing long term) for people to continue dating. Because if that chemistry isn't there, you can just click on the next profile...

 

Credible studies that draw conclusions about best outcomes must adhere to strict criteria in order to prove causality. My suggestion of studies observatory in nature are not designed to predict outcomes but merely describe behavior. That is neither here nor there.

 

There are workplace policies in place that forbid romance between co-workers because it weights on productivity and decreases morale. Ideally life would provide us all with opportunities to meet and get to know people before we go on dates. But it just isn't the case hence the boom in OLD.

 

Lastly this progression you idealize does take place in OLD and that is why there may not be sparks at the outset. You don't get the opportunity to get to know someone so you parse it all in the meet and greet. That sucks but it is the way it is. I sure as **** am not going to forgo an opportunity for a lasting relationship to stick to such outdated ideals. Contemporary dating is what it is and some of us must explore these evolving options in lieu of the old fashioned way that allows for the "natural" progression to intimacy.

 

OLD doesn't require instant chemistry the individual does if heshe chooses to. I don't choose it. I have readjusted my evaluation process to conform with contemporary dating. I am having similar results to the old school way.