Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

what is "chemistry"?

Page 5 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Previous topic | Next topic

The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,096
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

30 Jul 2017, 2:03 am

886 wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Lol men always thinking it has to be something sexual. It is to a certain extent, but not completely.

One can be sexually attracted to someone they have no chemistry with.

Weirdly I was just looking at a WhatsApp profile photo of someone I know. He's still attractive to me, but we had no chemistry.

we couldn't talk to each other. It was mostly uphill. We would just misunderstand each other so often. I didn't get his motivation and he didn't get mine.

It was two gears that don't go together.

No chemistry can also mean, "I found the conversation dull or too difficult. Not enjoyable"


it's a spot on explanation. some people think it's always sexual attraction. and surely it plays a factor. recently i dated a gal that we were both extremely attracted to the other, but had ZERO chemistry. we constantly misunderstood each other, we never got each other's jokes, we never knew what the other was thinking or feeling. when we were trying to have a conversation by text, it was riddled with one word responses, in person, most of our time was spent looking at our phones or, well, making out. which, was awesome. but all of those things let to a lot of unnecessary hurt feelings and fights. i guess for some people attraction is a pre-requisite for all of those things to be in place, but we very much had that and just could not get along. that is no chemistry to me.

i've met girls on dating apps (when i used such things) that i could stay up and talk to about anything and everything, joking and laughing, until 5am with having just met. this girl and i just could not do it after 2 months.



You two are changing the meaning of the word; what you are describing is called *Compatibility*.
Also bonding and connection are not the same as "Chemistry" - all these require time while the latter doesn't.

That's not the popular definition of Chemistry; which often described as something that happens on the very first meet up.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

30 Jul 2017, 2:21 am

886 wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Lol men always thinking it has to be something sexual. It is to a certain extent, but not completely.

One can be sexually attracted to someone they have no chemistry with.

Weirdly I was just looking at a WhatsApp profile photo of someone I know. He's still attractive to me, but we had no chemistry.

we couldn't talk to each other. It was mostly uphill. We would just misunderstand each other so often. I didn't get his motivation and he didn't get mine.

It was two gears that don't go together.

No chemistry can also mean, "I found the conversation dull or too difficult. Not enjoyable"


it's a spot on explanation. some people think it's always sexual attraction. and surely it plays a factor. recently i dated a gal that we were both extremely attracted to the other, but had ZERO chemistry. we constantly misunderstood each other, we never got each other's jokes, we never knew what the other was thinking or feeling. when we were trying to have a conversation by text, it was riddled with one word responses, in person, most of our time was spent looking at our phones or, well, making out. which, was awesome. but all of those things let to a lot of unnecessary hurt feelings and fights. i guess for some people attraction is a pre-requisite for all of those things to be in place, but we very much had that and just could not get along. that is no chemistry to me.


Yes, I think that is correct. I also think sexual attraction needs to be there, but sexual attraction is too nonspecific (and common) to by itself be chemistry. I rather think that there is a minimal level of sexual attraction that needs to be in place for somebody to be interesting as a potential partner. There are research studies that confirm this both for men and women.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,096
Location: Sweden

30 Jul 2017, 2:26 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
You two are changing the meaning of the word; what you are describing is called *Compatibility*.


But I think they are related. Compatibility in communication traits is required for chemistry, but it is not enough.

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
That's not the popular definition of Chemistry; which often described as something that happens on the very first meet up.


Yes, I agree.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,940
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

30 Jul 2017, 5:37 pm

rdos wrote:
886 wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
Lol men always thinking it has to be something sexual. It is to a certain extent, but not completely.

One can be sexually attracted to someone they have no chemistry with.

Weirdly I was just looking at a WhatsApp profile photo of someone I know. He's still attractive to me, but we had no chemistry.

we couldn't talk to each other. It was mostly uphill. We would just misunderstand each other so often. I didn't get his motivation and he didn't get mine.

It was two gears that don't go together.

No chemistry can also mean, "I found the conversation dull or too difficult. Not enjoyable"


it's a spot on explanation. some people think it's always sexual attraction. and surely it plays a factor. recently i dated a gal that we were both extremely attracted to the other, but had ZERO chemistry. we constantly misunderstood each other, we never got each other's jokes, we never knew what the other was thinking or feeling. when we were trying to have a conversation by text, it was riddled with one word responses, in person, most of our time was spent looking at our phones or, well, making out. which, was awesome. but all of those things let to a lot of unnecessary hurt feelings and fights. i guess for some people attraction is a pre-requisite for all of those things to be in place, but we very much had that and just could not get along. that is no chemistry to me.


Yes, I think that is correct. I also think sexual attraction needs to be there, but sexual attraction is too nonspecific (and common) to by itself be chemistry. I rather think that there is a minimal level of sexual attraction that needs to be in place for somebody to be interesting as a potential partner. There are research studies that confirm this both for men and women.


Having experienced what I'd call chemistry myself I'd say part of it certainly is sexual attraction, but it certainly does go deeper. Like when I first met my boyfriend in person there was a noticeable rather difficult to describe feeling that made me feel more drawn to him partly sexual attraction but also feelings of having always known him somehow and it was over all a kind of tingly feeling. Also I could easily make eye contact, with him which I don't tend to do with new people.

I've only experienced that sort of feeling with two other guys in the past, while I have dated around 8 guys in my life. I was sexually attracted to all of them but that alone isn't enough for chemistry to exist...otherwise I would have had chemistry with all of them.

Also it has been suggested I think that women use the term more than men, which could be...but my boyfriend is certainly the one who mentioned the term. After I headed home from the first time we met he texted me that he thought we had good chemistry and should certainly get together again.


_________________
We won't go back.