Instant chemistry vs. creating chemistry

August 31, 2015

I have friends that defend each of the two situations.

Their argument for each usually goes like this:

1. instant chemistry:

- many times leads to the crash and burn situation because both parties get too excited and goo too fast and just as fast as things happened, doom is eminent...

- there are psychological theories saying that usually we are unconsciouly viscerally attracted to people who are not right for us. Anything from daddy issues, childhood traumas, going for the bad ones and self-defeating for whatever psychological issue we may have had during our lifetime.

2. building chemistry slowly:

- many cultures do that, including blind weddings where partners learn about each other slowly and develop friendship and later on, love. The theory is that it actually works perhaps better than the "romantic love" notion created in the last centuries.

- when you don't feel infatuated by someone like crazy to start with, and the similarities are not that obvious, you learn about the person slowly and might end up liking them much more than you ever thought to begin with... also because it develops slowly and feels more "secure".

I am now in both situations, I've been dating a guy I do have rapport with, but it's not a passionate instant connection.

Then I met someone this week with whom I felt immediate pure chemistry with, we couldn't stop talking and the night flew in one second. It was like it was only me and him at that crowded bar, I was wired to his brain. It didn't hurt that I also found him sexy.

From past mini relationships I know that the immediate connection many times leads to crash and burn.

So which is it? What is generally better? I just don't know anymore to be honest. In the last months with this slowly-developing guy I thought it might be a good idea to get to know someone and build it up slowly.

Now I don't know anymore. What are your thoughts on this? Hope to hear from people in LTR as well to see what did work

August 31, 2015

Well I think it will be hard to find people who have both kinds of relationships.

I can tell you have NOT had the fast fizzle out you describe with the instant chemistry situation. I had instant chemistry with my first "real" boyfriend back when I was 17 and we stayed together for a good 18 months before splitting for school.

And it was instant off the charts chemistry with my long term boyfriend - immediately inseparable - and we have been together for 14 years now

Not to say any one is perfect, but I have zero daddy issues (other than I think he kicks ass so hopefully my partner does too), but when it comes to relationships I do not think that I have a lot I hang ups. I am strong willed, and demand to b treated with respect - that tends to eliminate many of the jerks.

Now, the numbers show that arranged marriages do work. But they are not part of my culture - so not something I ever considered pursuing.

And I never had a reason to try to create chemistry - I am skeptical that the same chemical driven lust could be recreated.

August 31, 2015

I have friends that defend each of the two situations.

Their argument for each usually goes like this:

1. instant chemistry:
- many times leads to the crash and burn situation because both parties get too excited and goo too fast and just as fast as things happened, doom is eminent...
- there are psychological theories saying that usually we are unconsciouly viscerally attracted to people who are not right for us. Anything from daddy issues, childhood traumas, going for the bad ones and self-defeating for whatever psychological issue we may have had during our lifetime.

2. building chemistry slowly:
- many cultures do that, including blind weddings where partners learn about each other slowly and develop friendship and later on, love. The theory is that it actually works perhaps better than the "romantic love" notion created in the last centuries.
- when you don't feel infatuated by someone like crazy to start with, and the similarities are not that obvious, you learn about the person slowly and might end up liking them much more than you ever thought to begin with... also because it develops slowly and feels more "secure".

I am now in both situations, I've been dating a guy I do have rapport with, but it's not a passionate instant connection.

Then I met someone this week with whom I felt immediate pure chemistry with, we couldn't stop talking and the night flew in one second. It was like it was only me and him at that crowded bar, I was wired to his brain. It didn't hurt that I also found him sexy.

From past mini relationships I know that the immediate connection many times leads to crash and burn.

So which is it? What is generally better? I just don't know anymore to be honest. In the last months with this slowly-developing guy I thought it might be a good idea to get to know someone and build it up slowly.

Now I don't know anymore. What are your thoughts on this? Hope to hear from people in LTR as well to see what did work

I think a more substantive love builds over time (not love at first sight) but that instant connection is needed. You can't reverse engineer it

August 31, 2015

Thanks RecentChange. All my LTR were built in instant chemistry. But, as I am still searching, and it's been harder to find the right person lately, I am just thinking about the possibilities and trying to figure out if there's a better way to go about dating and the kind of people I try to meet.

In no way I advocated that all people who have instant attractions have any kind of issue or so I was just citing examples I heard from friends and read in psychology websites, etc.[/url]

I hope people do not get too hung up on the examples above. What I'd really like to hear is which about what their experience has been, and perhaps if slow-building chemistry can work as well.

Now, the numbers show that arranged marriages do work. But they are not part of my culture - so not something I ever considered pursuing.

Edited August 31, 2015 by edgygirl

August 31, 2015

Thanks RecentChange. All my LTR were built in instant chemistry. But, as I am still searching, and it's been harder to find the right person lately, I am just thinking about the possibilities and trying to figure out if there's a better way to go about dating and the kind of people I try to meet.

In no way I advocated that all people who have instant attractions have any kind of issue or so I was just citing examples I heard from friends and read in psychology websites, etc.[/url]

I hope people do not get too hung up on the examples above. What I'd really like to hear is which about what their experience has been, and perhaps if slow-building chemistry can work as well.

Without an instant connection it kind of seems like wheel spinning

August 31, 2015

I used to advocate for this, but honestly trying to open my mind as I think there is not only one way out there to find love.

Without an instant connection it kind of seems like wheel spinning

August 31, 2015

I used to advocate for this, but honestly trying to open my mind as I think there is not only one way out there to find love.

Of course in the aggregate I am obviously wrong but can't imagine the motivation to pursue absent that connection

Luckily with my spouse there was an instant connection and it built over time

August 31, 2015

Not all instant chemistry crashes and burs. It all depends on what you do with that chemistry. If you spend 24h a day from day 1 than you're burning the candle by both ends. You still need to give time to instant chemistry and let it burn slowly.

As for the second option. Honestly it's a trick of the brain. If you leave 2 strangers on an Island eventually they will build attachment. So if you date someone long enough you will get attached but I can't garantee you will fall in love. I mean think of the Stockholm syndrome even hostages will develop affection toward their kidnappers over time.

When I met my ex-boyfriend it was instant chemistry. If we could have spent every minute together we would have but there was the distance, life, his kids, our jobs etc so we saw each other 2 times a week for a while. It was hard but I honestly believe that is why our butterflies lasted for so long. We let the fire burn slowly instead of letting it get really big and then die.

August 31, 2015

Yes that's the traditional notion of romantic love most seek. I am trying to see what other people who had a different experience went about it.

Of course in the aggregate I am obviously wrong but can't imagine the motivation to pursue absent that connection

Luckily with my spouse there was an instant connection and it built over time

August 31, 2015

Yes that's the traditional notion of romantic love most seek. I am trying to see what other people who had a different experience went about it.

What is motivating you to try a different way?

August 31, 2015

Several accounts from friends. Also think about it... relationships were not this complicated before. My parents met, got married in 3 months... that's how things used to be. People developed relationships slowlier in a way, although they got married relatively fast. Sometimes I wonder if it leads to a more solid relationship.

Also, just look at this site. All the girls coming here to complain that guys are super into them and then disappear out of nothing. It's a jungle out there and I was trying to think of going another route.

Not saying I will do it lol, just want to hear people's experiences.

What is motivating you to try a different way?

August 31, 2015

Not all instant chemistry crashes and burs. It all depends on what you do with that chemistry. If you spend 24h a day from day 1 than you're burning the candle by both ends. You still need to give time to instant chemistry and let it burn slowly.

I know - as I said ALL my LTR happened through instant connection.

BUT... as you know very well (I do see a lot of familiarity in your threads to my own experiences), dating sucks these days and things are different than 10-15 years ago. Just trying to think if there is another way.

As for the second option. Honestly it's a trick of the brain. If you leave 2 strangers on an Island eventually they will build attachment. So if you date someone long enough you will get attached but I can't garantee you will fall in love. I mean think of the Stockholm syndrome even hostages will develop affection toward their kidnappers over time.

I agree. But there is something to be said for developing things slowly with someone. Perhaps even with someone you're not super crazy about in the beginning.

When I met my ex-boyfriend it was instant chemistry. If we could have spent every minute together we would have but there was the distance, life, his kids, our jobs etc so we saw each other 2 times a week for a while. It was hard but I honestly believe that is why our butterflies lasted for so long. We let the fire burn slowly instead of letting it get really big and then die.

You're right. Maybe I am the issue as when I'm really into someone chemistry-wise, I myself go all the way - too fast. But it's hard to fight who I am in this case.

Edited August 31, 2015 by edgygirl

August 31, 2015

When you refer to your parents you have to keep in mind it was 'another place another time' my parents married after 8 months and have been married 50 years. Divorce was shameful back then, women had no economical power so could not leave. They had to make it work and many endured abuse in the name of their vows.

August 31, 2015

From my open experience....

Generally I font expect love at first right.

Generally I don't have much luck at random meetings like meeting someone at a bar and by the evening exchanging numbers.

I have only had instant chemistry in a random meeting only 3 times in my life. My luck it ends up they were already in relationships....

I have meet others randomly and exchanged numbers but there wasn't that instant chemistry. The instant chemistry is something more. It's still separate from a relationship.

With online dating its a little different. On initial dates I have had some success but there was some conversation before the date so I wouldn't call it instant chemistry because we already had talked some.

The 3 times with instant chemistry...none of them became relationships. One could have but I backed off of it because I had found out some fundamental differences between us that would be a problem in marriage. We are still good friends.

August 31, 2015

That's what I'm saying too. I am not sure that the crazy chemistry we have with some people is necessarily a good indicator of a good partner for marriage.

Of course it's better to have it all - have amazing instant chemistry with someone and then marrying them and a loving end.

But I want to know how it works when people develop it the other way around.

One could have but I backed off of it because I had found out some fundamental differences between us that would be a problem in marriage. We are still good friends.

August 31, 2015

It's there or its not. I married the girl that made me feel like no other. We did not have to look for reason or learn to love respect relate to each other. Everything just fit and worked, open honest team. We rather knew would be together a long time at first sight and always treated each other as if married from about the first week.

The slow hope build up ended up being ex and divorce. Accomplished more in under two years then ex of near fifteen.

August 31, 2015

From my own experience: the 'encounters' that led to long-term relationships were always the slowly build type of thing. I mean, I obviously found them attractive and interesting from the start, but it was not like it was love at first sight or something similar.

Whenever I felt an immediate strong reaction it led to an intense and emotional fling, but usually fizzled out after a few weeks or months.

I think not being totally crazy about a guy from the start allows you to think more rational and make better choices in the beginning, including what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what boundaries you want to establish and keep.

When my hormones led I often allowed behaviour and made decisions I later regretted. For my money a slow and steady building of chemistry and a relationship is my favourite scenario. Obviously there has to be a spark or something from the start, but ideally it should not be a wild fire.

August 31, 2015

I do not defend the notion of "Instant Chemistry" or the "Spark", I typically pass over dating profiles of women that actually SAY this in their profiles that there MUST be that "instant spark" or "chemistry", or else they complete dismiss it.

The idea of familiarizing themselves with the individual over time is out of the question to them.

I know some people like this, they seem to acknowledge the "instant spark" philosophy, only to see on Facebook later is wound up being over as soon as it started.

It is fleeting, but this something that's never acknowledged as this is a tell-tale sign that ignore, and they wind up repeating it constantly.

I hear this crap about how "A woman will know if she'll want to sleep with you in the first 5 minutes of meeting you!", this is also quite laughable as this stems from so-called PUA advice. First of all, the focus on sex is something I dismiss from this notion and not forming true bonds over time.

The notion of "starting off as friends" is alien to them.

I have friends that defend each of the two situations.

Their argument for each usually goes like this:

1. instant chemistry:
- many times leads to the crash and burn situation because both parties get too excited and goo too fast and just as fast as things happened, doom is eminent...
- there are psychological theories saying that usually we are unconsciouly viscerally attracted to people who are not right for us. Anything from daddy issues, childhood traumas, going for the bad ones and self-defeating for whatever psychological issue we may have had during our lifetime.

2. building chemistry slowly:
- many cultures do that, including blind weddings where partners learn about each other slowly and develop friendship and later on, love. The theory is that it actually works perhaps better than the "romantic love" notion created in the last centuries.
- when you don't feel infatuated by someone like crazy to start with, and the similarities are not that obvious, you learn about the person slowly and might end up liking them much more than you ever thought to begin with... also because it develops slowly and feels more "secure".

I am now in both situations, I've been dating a guy I do have rapport with, but it's not a passionate instant connection.

Then I met someone this week with whom I felt immediate pure chemistry with, we couldn't stop talking and the night flew in one second. It was like it was only me and him at that crowded bar, I was wired to his brain. It didn't hurt that I also found him sexy.

From past mini relationships I know that the immediate connection many times leads to crash and burn.

So which is it? What is generally better? I just don't know anymore to be honest. In the last months with this slowly-developing guy I thought it might be a good idea to get to know someone and build it up slowly.

Now I don't know anymore. What are your thoughts on this? Hope to hear from people in LTR as well to see what did work

August 31, 2015

I do not date based on "instant chemistry" as I am a highly practical and goal oriented person, as well as a realist, who doesn't have their head in the clouds.

I am looking for a solid relationship, therefore, starting with a "like" of the person in front of me at first sight, I am open to discovering their pluses and minuses and possibly growing closer. I have very clear criteria for a partner and they all pertain to character and compatibility.

Dating this way doesn't work "instantly" either. You could give a chance for something to develop with more than one man, and things DO NOT develop. That doesn't mean that the alternative, is more effective at all. And it doesn't mean that you forgo the butterflies. Eventually, I think that if you persist, you can find true love this way with a much higher chance than through the alternate method. I did. Hopefully, I won't need to do it again, but I'm 100% sure I'd use the same method.

August 31, 2015

Without feeling that spark, I feel no motivation to date someone. It feels like a chore. With the spark, there is nothing I would rather do than just be next to that person.

I have had situations in life where attraction built over time. But it was always in natural environments, as in social groups, school, work. I never thought "it's building over time" and we weren't dating in the "building" phase.

Neither of these really worked better than the other in long term.

The problem with slow building chemistry and OLD for example is that you are supposed to go through the motions of dating while you are still not feeling it. I have tried it and it makes me cringe so much that I would never try it again.

August 31, 2015

I do not date based on "instant chemistry" as I am a highly practical and goal oriented person, as well as a realist, who doesn't have their head in the clouds.

Right, usually this is the mindset of younger people, thinking that the notion of "sparks" is the foundation of relationships, when it's not.

As people do get older, they mature and also come to the realization that it's best off the more practical when getting to know someone.

Online dating hasn't helped matters much either as some of the women I've read through profiles online where quite a great match for me, only for me to get a non-response.

Chances are if we've met in person, she would have easily gone out with me if allowed the demonstration of my personality right in front of her.

Just think of the missed opportunities online that would have otherwise been a great match if they'd met them in person.

August 31, 2015

That's where I'm getting at as I mature. Of course crazy sparks feel awesome and make you feel "alive" and excited... but I am not sure most times it necessarily means long-term potential.

Specially because while I'm adventurous at heart, I value and need stability.

I have very clear criteria for a partner and they all pertain to character and compatibility.

August 31, 2015

That's where I'm getting at as I mature. Of course crazy sparks feel awesome and make you feel "alive" and excited... but I am not sure most times it necessarily means long-term potential.

Specially because while I'm adventurous at heart, I value and need stability.

For me the Sparks came definitely and all the walking on clouds feelings. But they came after I got to know him and we got closer. Not at date 1 or 2. At the first dates I just liked him and had a warm feeling. That grew as I kept learning how awesome of a person he was. That's how it works for me. But for some people all that may matter is the physical and yeah that doesn't change, a person will look the same at the first or the 20st date. Nothing can grow if that's your focus. The bad news is that nobody changes so if that's what the focus is on this is how it is and how it's going o be and its going to be a ton of luck to have a match happen

August 31, 2015

I think it's more about what sparks one's attraction and illicits the feelings of chemistry than whether or not one should pursue strong chemistry or not. If you're attracted to superficial traits (ex. Looks, career success, wit, charm etc.) chemistry will be fairly meaningless in terms of predicting relationship success.

If deeper traits spark chemistry (ex. Empathy, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity) then by all means, hold out for chemistry.

August 31, 2015

I think it's more about what sparks one's attraction and illicits the feelings of chemistry than whether or not one should pursue strong chemistry or not. If you're attracted to superficial traits (ex. Looks, career success, wit, charm etc.) chemistry will be fairly meaningless in terms of predicting relationship success.

If deeper traits spark chemistry (ex. Empathy, trustworthiness, honesty, integrity) then by all means, hold out for chemistry.

The thing is, traits like empathy, trusworthiness etc can't be revealed at the first date. So that's why that type of chemistry can't be "instant"

Sign In

Instant chemistry vs. creating chemistry

Recommended Posts

edgygirl

RecentChange

kilgore

edgygirl

kilgore

edgygirl

kilgore

Gaeta

edgygirl

kilgore

edgygirl

edgygirl

Gaeta

Ami1uwant

edgygirl

Vercetti

Gottabestrong

LookAtThisPOst

BluEyeL

Eternal Sunshine

LookAtThisPOst

edgygirl

BluEyeL

Weezy1973

BluEyeL

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...