The Passion Delusion

[Leigh 87]

One thing I notice is that the good looking types of men and women I know that have options - ALWAYS end up picking a long term partner who they feel intense chemistry for. The people who have the OPTION of choosing between dating a partner whom they feel intense chemistry for versus a partner who may seem very compatible but who they lack sparks for, they ALWAYS CHOOSE intense chemistry when at all possible, with a compatible partner.

 

People who CAN choose the type of partner they want, rarely opt for slow burning chemistry. It tends to happen AFTER people go after the people their HEART wants yet who never end up being into them or compatible long term....THEN people think : well, going after the people who I have the hots for and who I fall head over heels for isn't working, I should adopt a different approach"

 

I am not at that stage where I am willing to compromise on passion and chemistry, since I don't feel it will evade me for decades. Due to the fact I feel it often enough, and enough men have felt it for me, to reasonably expect an evenly reciprocated, passionate match with a compatible person. After all, I am kind hearted, ambitious, have hobbies and interest such as reading and it wouldn't be that hard to find a compatible man with that passion.

 

I would be open to falling head over heels for a "friend" over time, but I would NEVER opt to date him initially if I wasn't feeling hot chemistry. I would only be receptive if we were friends and one day it hit me. So if this slow burn style of passion where you bypass the honeymoon stage is ever going to appeal to me, the only way I will ever be open top it is if it inadvertently happens with a close male friend, when once day I realise hey, I want to be with this man. The latest guy was a classic example of the guy I would go for If I had reached a stage where I thought " damn, I really want a partner and the men I felt really into and had a strong desire to make out with didn't work out, maybe I should go for men I am not as into to see if it can grow, or better still, to see if intense chemistry is even needed long term"

 

I already know intense chemistry isn't needed for a long term relationship. The fact is, women like me don't want a relationship enough to overlook the intense chemistry that our hearts desire. We would rather wait longer for what we want than compromise.

 

Some people just cannot do without certain things.

 

We don't WANT to have to follow the book that says " this is what will get you a long lasting relationship"

 

Sometimes what we crave deep down isn't the easiest thing to get and that is okay. My podiatry degree isn't the easiest thing to get and I could have gone back to being a stylist, personal trainer or any number of things I did short term that paid the bills. Instead I am in over my head with memorizing so much material I can barely.... manage.

There are faster ways to earning money but instead I would rather wait three years and make do with 2 days work per week in my field, PART time....

 

Waiting a little longer for something you know in your heart of hearts that you yearn for, and have ALWAYS yearned for, is not "stupid" or "unrealistic" if you approach it with reasonable expectations. Evan Marc Katz straight out acts like " it'll never happen so go ahead and chase after great chemistry but you will likely never find it with a long term match"

He doesn't take into account that " well okay, not everyone can accept less than intense chemistry and not everyone can bypass the " in love" feeling. Some people (I know them personally) ALWAYS yearn for the spark that was never there to begin with. I know so many people who DO need the intense chemistry yet settled for less and, they always wonder ' what if'. Many cheated.

 

Some were honourable enough to end their less than passionate relationship and guess what? They found a partner they DID have intense chemistry with and all voice that " they are so much happier with the passion" Where as plenty, MOST people, are happy with their 7/10 chemistry and do not feel that " itch" because they very happily do without that added sizzle in the bedroom that had with a few prior partners, since they believe the people they feel intense chemistry for will never be good partners.

 

 

 

I get sick of people assuming I want prince charming.

 

I deem prince charming, Disney and delusional standards - as a plain girl like me wishing to catch a hot guy who is successful and who falls hard for me:lmao: But no, wanting intense chemistry, when I readily feel it for a fair number of men who aren't hot or successful, isn't too much when you consider I don't require the man to be above my league or something unrealistic!

 

I think I will start my own blog for women who are happily holding out for the men their heart wants rather than giving up and dating the guys who want them yet who they aren't passion about like they were with prior partners!

I am sure these women get tired of people telling them " you will die alone, you will hit your 30's and 40's and not be good enough to even get a nice guy you're very mildly attracted to, much less a chemistry guy"

 

I think it is all about working out what we want and our hearts will never be able to compromise on, and how we go about getting there.

 

I know what I want and I have taken steps to get it, such as therapy and working out why I enjoy a challenge from men such as players, but also working out that I can well avoid such men and that in fact, am more turned on these days when a man is sweet and kind hearted. I have also learnt to never jump in fast, that lust at first site is NOT love at first site, and to not have unrealistic standards insofar as their jobs and appearance is concerned.

 

Evan Marc Katz doesn't give credit to women like myself who know what they want, know they have setbacks and yet are taking every step to ensure that they DO get he intense chemistry with the right partner.

[Hopeful30]

I have yet to "fall in love" like they say. All my relationships have been buildups, to be honest.

[clia]

I guess I hate how Evan doesn't consider and encourage woman who are actually wanting to wait for their passionate, intense and compatible relationship.

 

He only focuses on the majority who all WANT a family, marriage and a life together as soon as possible by their 30's or mid 30s.......

 

Well, to be fair, those are the types of women who are coming to him for advice. Women who want a relationship, marriage, and kids and haven't been able to find it yet. Many of them are women like you who were so focused on the lust/chemistry/infatuation stage of the relationship that they quickly discarded any men who didn't immediately inspire those feelings, and Katz simply encourages them to try a new approach. For what it's worth, I think he's right. Lust/chemistry/infatuation/passion is not love.

 

If you don't want relationship, marriage, and kids, then his advice isn't necessarily directed at people like you. I actually feel like you are really misunderstanding and misconstruing Katz's advice, but you've ranted on (and misquoted) so much about it that I wouldn't even know where to begin to start deconstructing where you are wrong.

 

That said, go for what you want. If you believe you can have fireworks that will last forever, compatibility, and the whole package...then by all means hold out for that. If you don't care about marriage and kids you really have nothing to lose by holding out.

[losangelena]

Leigh, what is this thread about anyway? Are you asking for advice? 'Cause right now it just seems like you're writing the same post over again—to what end? To convince us or yourself? If you're happy with what you're doing, then do it. You don't need us to tell you what's what, chances are you'd disagree anyway.

[Diezel]

Leigh, what is this thread about anyway? Are you asking for advice? 'Cause right now it just seems like you're writing the same post over again—to what end? To convince us or yourself? If you're happy with what you're doing, then do it. You don't need us to tell you what's what, chances are you'd disagree anyway.

 

I wanted to post something similar.

 

Because I don't understand what is going on. Fireworks, no fireworks. I've actually developed a Pavlovian response to the "Firework" song by Katy Perry.

 

I thought Leigh was over the "chemistry" thing, but I guess not?

[katiegrl]

Leigh, what is this thread about anyway? Are you asking for advice? 'Cause right now it just seems like you're writing the same post over again—to what end? To convince us or yourself? If you're happy with what you're doing, then do it. You don't need us to tell you what's what, chances are you'd disagree anyway.

 

I agree. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the journal section.

[Vercetti]

She blinded me with science...SCIENCE!!!

 

I'm lucky, wife and I have both and they fuel each other. Being with someone that exceeds your idea for beauty that just happens to have stars lined up for ambition of future is amazing.

[SawtoothMars]

I am great in relationships. I am loyal, loving and I never get bored. I have great longevity when I feel I am with the right person. I only end relationships when I know they aren't "it" for me.

I am relationship material because I have more to offer than my vagina. And I am super loyal and will stick by a man thick or thin. I supported my ex of 2.5 years when he was jobless and going through a hard time.

So yeah. I simply prefer those guys who I am hot for, I want to make out with and I crave sex with.

I don't feel any inclination to date a man I am not into, not excited about dating nor who I have urges to make out with.

My wants and needs and very simple and not some outlandish rare thing that seldom ever happens for normal couples.

 

Your longest relationship is 2.5 years?

 

You probably run a bit obsessive and are an interesting mix of insecure/confident. If I were advising your next date, I would tell him to run hot and cold. Hot on the sexual energy, cold on the emotional stuff, but make sure to leave room for potential. Push on you and then pull back to keep you guessing. I'm relatively sure following that kind of plan would get you to feel what you are wanting to feel.

[Robert Z]

Well, to be fair, those are the types of women who are coming to him for advice. Women who want a relationship, marriage, and kids and haven't been able to find it yet. Many of them are women like you who were so focused on the lust/chemistry/infatuation stage of the relationship that they quickly discarded any men who didn't immediately inspire those feelings, and Katz simply encourages them to try a new approach. For what it's worth, I think he's right. Lust/chemistry/infatuation/passion is not love.

 

 

Passion is not love and a flower is not the plant. But the flower is why we have the plant.

 

If you don't want relationship, marriage, and kids, then his advice isn't necessarily directed at people like you. I actually feel like you are really misunderstanding and misconstruing Katz's advice, but you've ranted on (and misquoted) so much about it that I wouldn't even know where to begin to start deconstructing where you are wrong.

 

That said, go for what you want. If you believe you can have fireworks that will last forever, compatibility, and the whole package...then by all means hold out for that. If you don't care about marriage and kids you really have nothing to lose by holding out.

 

I can understand the argument that passion may not be the first clue of true love. Love can grow with time. But any woman who marries a man and doesn't feel passion is betraying him and herself. It is a crime. It makes me furious to read crap like this because I think this is exactly what my ex wife did. She made a practical choice and lied about love. To her love was some kind of construct. I fell for it and it went a long way towards ruining my life. I would give almost anything to get all of those wasted years back.

 

Try telling a man that you don't feel passion and see if he still wants to marry you. Most men would run like the wind, and for good reason. I wish my wife had been honest. It would have saved 25 years of my life.

 

I have now experienced true love. Unfortunately it only goes one way. But we are close enough that it still works for me. After three years, it still makes every other relationship I've ever had pale in comparison. She doesn't lie about her feelings so it works. And she still treats me better than my wife ever did. And every moment with her is a blessing and filled with pure joy.

 

If a woman is marrying a man for practical reasons and not for true love, then she owes it to him to say so.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Robert Z

[clia]

Passion is not love and a flower is not the plant. But the flower is why we have the plant.

 

I can understand the argument that passion may not be the first clue of true love. Love can grow with time. But any woman who marries a man and doesn't feel passion is betraying him and herself. It is a crime. It makes me furious to read crap like this because I think this is exactly what my ex wife did. She made a practical choice and lied about love. To her love was some kind of construct. I fell for it and it went a long way towards ruining my life. I would give almost anything to get all of those wasted years back.

 

Try telling a man that you don't feel passion and see if he still wants to marry you. Most men would run like the wind, and for good reason. I wish my wife had been honest. It would have saved 25 years of my life.

 

I have now experienced true love. Unfortunately it only goes one way. But we are close enough that it still works for me. After three years, it still makes every other relationship I've ever had pale in comparison. She doesn't lie about her feelings so it works. And she still treats me better than my wife ever did. And every moment with her is a blessing and filled with pure joy.

 

If a woman is marrying a man for practical reasons and not for true love, then she owes it to him to say so.

 

I never said -- nor does Katz advocate -- that a woman should marry a man for whom she feels no passion. However, I also do not think passion is the same thing as love.

 

I understand Leigh's position is that she wants to feel instant fireworks (a thunderclap of lightning, if you will) and if she doesn't, then she feels there will never be any future with the guy, because to her, that means there will never be any passion. I personally do not believe that there has to be instant fireworks for a relationship to be happy and successful for the long term. I believe both passion and love can definitely grow over time as you get to know the person on a deeper level.

[autumnnight]

Oh Boy, is this thread a trigger of massive proportion.

 

I understand fully that limerance, that high hormone wowza feeling cannot be indfeinitely sustained. However, I know a couple very well who have been married for over 50 years, and they they do have that committed, comfortable long term "thing," they still firlt, they still "make eyes" at each other, and they ARE still very attracted to each other. So the idea that all couples must eventuallly become this platonic shell of a romantic relationship doesn't fly with me.

 

Here's the thing.....I was on the receiving end of the "practical and mature" route. I married my husband because I loved him and was IN LOVE with him. I did have butterflies. But I was absolutely in love with him. I have no doubt that he loved me in his way, but the big factors for him was that I seemed like a good partner that he had things in common with and we had known each other a long time.

 

I cannot tell you how it feels to realize you have promised to spent your life with someone who thinks you'd be a great roommate and mother. It is crushing.

 

I don't expect 50 years of fireworks, but i am damn well never signing up for some practical partnership where we share last names again. Ever.

 

Passion doesn't have to be a delusion if you care enough to work at it instead of getting in a lazy rut.

[Gloria25]

Let me toss this back at you this way.

 

My parents are now in their 70's. My father is blind and immobile. My mother is loosing her memory. As far as I can detect the have sex no more than once every couple of months. Usually they don't sleep on the same story of the house.

 

 

Are you telling me they can't be "in love" in a way that transcends that honeymoon phase by a mile?

 

I'm sorry, but to me that is not "love"...that's roommates.

 

Yes, "lust", "passion", "sex" isn't always gonna be a priority in a RL and isn't a strong enough glue to keep people together. But, at the same time the things like kids, bills, and just living under the same roof are "glue" more out of obligation rather than desire/attraction.

 

IMO, the glue that keeps people together is picking the person you have more in common with so when you share things like kids, bills, and/or living under the same roof - it lasts and is tolerable. And, picking the right person, IMO, also entails passion and lust.

 

Why should you have to give up excitement and passion in your life for someone to have kids with and/or marry?

 

The person who has passion, desire - when the kids are asleep, will lock your bedroom door and put on a nighty and get it on with you. The person w/o passion will put that kid in the bed with you and growl at you if you dare tell them to put that kid somewhere else.

 

I was watching "The Devil's Own" Saturday and Harrison Ford and his wife are like up there in age. Ford tells his wife that he's retiring from the police force. He pulled her from her job and told her like at a diner. They drove home and she gave him a "look" and was like 'ummm, the kids won't be home for a while and now that you're retired I guess we can...' And, next scene was them making out in the car and making out in the house and were about to get to doing the nasty before some guys that came to rob Brad Pitt showed up. Now, where do you see that couple sacrificing passion cuz they decided to get married and have kids?

 

So, IMO, you can have passion and find someone compatible and/or responsible enough to marry and have kids with - thing is you gotta chose wisely. But good luck with that - especially now a days where both husband and wife work and women are taught that sex stops after kids, especially when since she works a 9-5, she comes home too tired to even want sex.

[Gloria25]

I never said -- nor does Katz advocate -- that a woman should marry a man for whom she feels no passion. However, I also do not think passion is the same thing as love.

 

I understand Leigh's position is that she wants to feel instant fireworks (a thunderclap of lightning, if you will) and if she doesn't, then she feels there will never be any future with the guy, because to her, that means there will never be any passion. I personally do not believe that there has to be instant fireworks for a relationship to be happy and successful for the long term. I believe both passion and love can definitely grow over time as you get to know the person on a deeper level.

 

Yea and ney....

 

Yes, sometimes with time you grow to have feelings for someone (i.e. an arranged marriage), but still you have to feel some sort of "chemistry".

 

Yeah, I've seen too many people jump into RLs - even marriage with someone cuz of "hornies", "emotions", and/or the "honeymoon" phase. Shoot, some of them don't even have passion and/or hornies...they simply "get along" (i.e. like the same popcorn) and think that's what makes marriage and/or long-term material.

 

Sad, cuz they don't take the time to get to know them for about 1 1/2 to 2 years - where in that timeframe, if it was based on hornies, honeymoon, emotions - you have enough time to see if you two actually have more going on at a deeper level.

 

But nope, people are even shacking-up/moving in with people they don't even know a MONTH. Isn't that crazy?

 

So, IMO, feeling fireworks and/or chemistry isn't a bad thing - problem lies in whether or not you let "fireworks" overrule your common sense/brains/practicalities in making sure that person has more than just the ability to give you butterflies.

[William]

Folks, I had to come in and clean up a moderation issue and noted some drifting from the topic so I'll clear up a few things at once.

 

1. I read the initial post and the subject matter is a valid topic for discussion. There are aspects of personal preference and more general discussion about chemistry forwarded for comment.

 

2. The thread starter isn't required to agree with, nor even read, what people post. However, if responses are suspected of violating our guidelines, use the 'alert us' button on that post and inform moderation.

 

OK, lunch is almost over so back to that wonderful chemistry and personal preference stuff when looking for a relationship partner. Please excuse this interruption and continue!

[barcode88]

I'm sorry, but to me that is not "love"...that's roommates.

 

Yes, "lust", "passion", "sex" isn't always gonna be a priority in a RL and isn't a strong enough glue to keep people together. But, at the same time the things like kids, bills, and just living under the same roof are "glue" more out of obligation rather than desire/attraction.

 

IMO, the glue that keeps people together is picking the person you have more in common with so when you share things like kids, bills, and/or living under the same roof - it lasts and is tolerable. And, picking the right person, IMO, also entails passion and lust.

 

Why should you have to give up excitement and passion in your life for someone to have kids with and/or marry?

 

The person who has passion, desire - when the kids are asleep, will lock your bedroom door and put on a nighty and get it on with you. The person w/o passion will put that kid in the bed with you and growl at you if you dare tell them to put that kid somewhere else.

 

I was watching "The Devil's Own" Saturday and Harrison Ford and his wife are like up there in age. Ford tells his wife that he's retiring from the police force. He pulled her from her job and told her like at a diner. They drove home and she gave him a "look" and was like 'ummm, the kids won't be home for a while and now that you're retired I guess we can...' And, next scene was them making out in the car and making out in the house and were about to get to doing the nasty before some guys that came to rob Brad Pitt showed up. Now, where do you see that couple sacrificing passion cuz they decided to get married and have kids?

 

So, IMO, you can have passion and find someone compatible and/or responsible enough to marry and have kids with - thing is you gotta chose wisely. But good luck with that - especially now a days where both husband and wife work and women are taught that sex stops after kids, especially when since she works a 9-5, she comes home too tired to even want sex.

 

Well that's the movies... In real life you need to balance passion & compatibility.

 

In my experience, women who have been my greatest lays have always been girls I wouldn't want to bring home to Mom. I'm sure the same can be said of Men in some cases.

[Gloria25]

 

Try telling a man that you don't feel passion and see if he still wants to marry you. Most men would run like the wind, and for good reason.

 

Wrong....

 

I think there are a lot of ignorant men out there (mind you "ignorance" isn't calling someone stupid, "ignorance" means they don't know any better)...

 

These "ignorant" men believe what this thread is about - that, in order to have a "wife", they have to give up on passion. Kind of the 'Madonna/ho' complex...

 

Then, another set of ignorant men don't have limerence, lust, etc...they honestly are "in love" and are so giddy about "X" chick that they just think the movie is gonna keep on rolling after they have kids. Well, again, they don't take the time discuss practicalities with these women and when the kids come and her expectation is that sex stops, he gets a monkey wrench thrown at him. Like one of my relatives - he should have looked at his ex's mom and sisters. All of her sisters and mom had kids w/o a man in the picture - what does that tell you? Well, he found out the hard way that she - just like her mom and sisters don't know jack about treating a man.

[Gloria25]

Well that's the movies... In real life you need to balance passion & compatibility.

 

In my experience, women who have been my greatest lays have always been girls I wouldn't want to bring home to Mom. I'm sure the same can be said of Men in some cases.

 

That's what I meant....

 

There "are" women who are great lays who aren't on drugs, aren't strippers, aren't golddiggers, etc.

 

I'm a responsible woman. I work, I'm educated, I pay my own bills. I don't use men, and quite frankly I'm so "independent" that it's hard for me to accept a man simply asking to fix a knob on my doorstep.

 

Yes, I have no desire for marriage and kids - but I know how to treat a man and have and will continue to do so. I don't need the "white dress" and "ring" to give a man what he needs. If a man would propose to me and be cool with me not wanting kids, I'd be on board - but unfortunately marriage isn't just for people who want to be together long term, with marriage "children" are implied and that doesn't make women like me desirable for marriage.

 

But, you know what? Gotta love all the guys who marry women who pretend like they wanna be June Cleaver and end up not cooking, cleaning, sexing and/or dumping the kids off at day care. So, women like "me" have issues, right? Ok, whatever...

 

Thing is, while some may look at women like me and be like "oh, cuz she's good in bed, she's a mess" Well, that's their stupid hang-ups. I wish them all the luck in the world with the dead fishes they marry and live miserable lives with. Well, at least they'll have the kids and white picket fence everyone else wants

[barcode88]

That's what I meant....

 

There "are" women who are great lays who aren't on drugs, aren't strippers, aren't golddiggers, etc.

 

I'm a responsible woman. I work, I'm educated, I pay my own bills. I don't use men, and quite frankly I'm so "independent" that it's hard for me to accept a man simply asking to fix a knob on my doorstep.

 

Yes, I have no desire for marriage and kids - but I know how to treat a man and have and will continue to do so. I don't need the "white dress" and "ring" to give a man what he needs. If a man would propose to me and be cool with me not wanting kids, I'd be on board - but unfortunately marriage isn't just for people who want to be together long term, with marriage "children" are implied and that doesn't make women like me desirable for marriage.

 

But, you know what? Gotta love all the guys who marry women who pretend like they wanna be June Cleaver and end up not cooking, cleaning, sexing and/or dumping the kids off at day care. So, women like "me" have issues, right? Ok, whatever...

 

Thing is, while some may look at women like me and be like "oh, cuz she's good in bed, she's a mess" Well, that's their stupid hang-ups. I wish them all the luck in the world with the dead fishes they marry and live miserable lives with. Well, at least they'll have the kids and white picket fence everyone else wants

 

I was more or less alluding to the OP's theme in her posts. It seems like she's more concerned about instant gratification rather than long term compatibility.

 

I just don't get surprised when Women wait for the hottest guy to ask them out, and when they finally do and fall head over heels for them, they find out that the other person is emotionally unavailable. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case, but its pretty well known that between Men/Women the top tier of attractive people get a lot of attention and are hard to tie down.

 

I think there needs to be a certain level of sexual attraction between people, but your desire for meeting this person should be their personality, not how they're going to rock your socks in bed.

[Leigh 87]

I am not waiting for the hottest guy to ask me out.

 

For the millionth time, the men I felt the greatest sparks with were never hot.

 

A few years ago I started to open up my mind and heart to all different types of men. It took a while and therapy but now I seldom ever feel chemistry for hot guys and the men I feel that magnetic pull for are always your average guy with something special about them ( in my eyes)

 

So not all women are stupid enough to expect a hot guy to sweep then off their feet. Unless they are hot themselves.

 

And who says those who are best in the bedroom department are seldom the ones you bring gnome to mum. Really? That's funny, I have a friend who is dating a guy who she had the instant fireworks with. They had explosive sex from day one and they still do years later.

 

Great sex and great sexual chemistry does not have to be synonymous with an ill suited partner.

[Leigh 87]

I wanted to post something similar.

 

Because I don't understand what is going on. Fireworks, no fireworks. I've actually developed a Pavlovian response to the "Firework" song by Katy Perry.

 

I thought Leigh was over the "chemistry" thing, but I guess not?

 

I am an attractive enough girl to realistically expect to find intense chemistry with a compatible partner, considering the men I feel fireworks for are never hot or successful. I therefore, DO NOT aim above my league.

 

I just look for the average Joe with a job who I feel intense chemistry with and is a nice compatible seeming guy.

 

I tend to feel.great chemistry with lots if men so it's not rare for me to feel firework like chemistry.

 

Because I feel intense chemistry often enough I'm sure a girl like me can find the average Joe who I feel fireworks for and who's compatible with a kind, ambitious 28 year old.

 

 

Why would I ever have to give up on chemistry? We are different people with different needs. You probably wanted a partner and a relationship. I don't. I don't want a family I am indifferent about kids. Therefore, I prefer to only bother dating the guys I'm excited about as opposed to lukewarm men in the hope that chemistry builds.

[Leigh 87]

I was more or less alluding to the OP's theme in her posts. It seems like she's more concerned about instant gratification rather than long term compatibility.

 

I just don't get surprised when Women wait for the hottest guy to ask them out, and when they finally do and fall head over heels for them, they find out that the other person is emotionally unavailable. I'm not saying this is ALWAYS the case, but its pretty well known that between Men/Women the top tier of attractive people get a lot of attention and are hard to tie down.

 

I think there needs to be a certain level of sexual attraction between people, but your desire for meeting this person should be their personality, not how they're going to rock your socks in bed.

 

 

When did I say I only wanted the top tier of men?

 

 

I'm not very attractive. But I'm attractive enough to hold out for intense chemistry with the average Joe. The types of men I feel intense chemistry with are never the top tier..........

 

A few were unavailable but mostly they just weren't into me. We weren't a match.

[blackcat777]

I read a lot of EMK myself. I love the spirit of his message for women.

 

I feel like, especially as I've aged, my attraction to people is more binary (on/off) than a gradient scale (1-10). Most people just. don't. do it. for me, no matter how great they are on paper. Uggh. Online dating drove that home for me even harder.

 

However, I feel like the best way for me to work with what I have, my defaults, my tendencies, is to have rock solid personal boundaries and vet the guys who do get me hot from the beginning to see if they're commitment-minded.

 

I think that's where the wisdom in EMK's stuff about "sexclusivity" is. Also, dating theory that focuses on remaining in your feminine energy, letting men lead, initiate, and escalate the relationship, sticking to your boundaries (no sex before commitment)... I feel like if you have to chase sparks, you have to have solid boundaries about how you MUST be treated, and you need to be prepared to walk (no matter how hot someone gets you) if they aren't going to treat you with the level of respect you set for yourself. You MUST set it for yourself.

 

Mirroring is an excellent tool for navigating the early dating stages, and should weed out the emotionally unavailable. It's also important to stay grounded in your own passions and hobbies and not lose yourself to the passion (tempting as that may be); I think this is the best defense against overinvestment and heartbreak (the risks of passion).

 

Keep things mentally healthy at all times, and never lose focus on you first.

Edited March 30, 2015 by blackcat777

[Gloria25]

I am not waiting for the hottest guy to ask me out.

 

For the millionth time, the men I felt the greatest sparks with were never hot.

 

Exactly ^^....

 

Of the men I've dated, some of them my gfs would literally "swooon" over cuz they were hotties. Some, my gfs would be like "oh....". Didn't matter to them if he was hot or not - thing was he was "hot" to me...

 

I'm not looking for tall, short, green, blue, six figures, big car...etc. I'm looking for that chemistry - and trust me, when I meets someone I know and feel it...even more with age.

 

Chemistry isn't something you can be on paper...it just "happens" - either you feel it or not.

[Weezy1973]

Leigh,

 

What is your longest relationship with somebody you felt that strong passion/sparks/lust for?

 

I'm honestly just curious.

 

I agree with what has been said - if you don't want kids or marriage - then seriously go after what you want. If lust is your top priority, go get it!

[Timshel]

I have only been in long term relationships. Ever. I mean since I was 16. I have not experienced this loss of passion. The idea that people settle and that after children and time a wife lets herself go or a husband stops wanting/appreciating wife? I can't wrap my head around this. Other things such as compatibility and intellectual conversation I can understand. Allowing an imbalance of power in the relationship to occur for an extended period of time...yes. The lack of chemistry, sex, desire no.

Marriage is not an auto "spark off," everything goes to pot. If anything, it deepens and takes both of you places you have never been before. Like Star Trek.