"Chemistry" Revisited

[Tag-n-bag]

chem·is·try   [kem-uh-stree]
-noun, pl.-tries.
the science that deals with the composition and properties of substances and various elementary forms of matter. Compare element (def. 2).
2. chemical properties, reactions, phenomena, etc.: the chemistry of carbon.
3. the interaction of one personality with another: The chemistry between him and his boss was all wrong.
4. sympathetic understanding; rapport: the astonishing chemistry between the actors.
5. any or all of the elements that make up something: the chemistry of love.
Origin: 1590–1600; chemist + -ry; r. chymistry, chimistry

Based on the definition according to Webster's dictionary, the word chemistry, when used in the non-scientific sense of the word, has absolutely nothing to do with chemicals, biology or really anything 'scientific'. When applied to human interaction, or relationships, the definition of the word  chemistry simply refers to the way two human beings react and/or relate to one another.

Several responses from members in my last topic, 'Chemistry 101' would lead you to believe that chemistry is something almost magical and always instantaneous, i.e. when you meet someone for the first time, either you 'feel' that you have chemistry with this person, or you do not. "Love at first sight', either it's there or it's not, and if not, chances are that it never will be.

 I subscribed to this definition of chemistry for a long time as well, then I began to consider that perhaps what we associate the word chemistry with, really has nothing to do with chemistry at all, but actually more to do with a physical or even emotional attraction. The sense or feeling of attraction you have for someone the very first time you meet, by definition is not chemistry at all, but rather lust, passion, desire, craving, appetite and so on...but NOT chemistry. According to the definition, chemistry is not instantaneous at all, but something that occurs over time due to interaction with someone.

Chemistry is not biological and it is not instantaneous at all, it is strictly the way two, or a group of individuals respond to each other over time.

Chemistry has become a "buzz word" for so many of the woman on agency sites, that the actual definition of the word has been lost. Anyone who has ever been in a serious relationship, or even a marriage that started with a "chemistry" and then later ended, and usually badly, will tell you that basing a relationship on the common misunderstanding of the word chemistry is more often than not, a bad idea. How do most affairs in a marriage begin? Physical attraction, lust, craving, desire...but usually not chemistry, at least not in the real sense of the word.

Anyone who is clinging on to the idea that attraction, or "chemistry" must be immediate and apparent before entering into a relationship with someone is entirely missing the big picture and are setting themselves up for a melt down.

As many of the wonderful and intelligent ladies here wanted to know, "How long does chemistry last and what do you do when it fades?"

Now that I have a better grasp on the definition of chemistry, I will tell you what I would do. Stop using the word chemistry as an excuse not to at least attempt a relationship with someone. We all know what can happen when you base a relationship on lust or  physical attraction only, if not, then why all the questions about what you should do when the misunderstood definition of the word "chemistry" disappears, and it always does...disappear that is.

So people...reach out! Reach out to the social misfits, those not blessed with killer good looks, those who are not quite up to your standards. Who knows, you may be surprised.
If not, all you have to do is tell them, "I'm very sorry my dear, there just is no chemistry present between us."  :-)

[Vaughn]

So people...reach out! Reach out to the social misfits, those not blessed with killer good looks, those who are not quite up to your standards. Who knows, you may be surprised.

I've preached this same approach many times and it usually falls on deaf ears - between which are two eyes unwilling
to part with the prospect of a Madison Avenue 10....  regardless, so many great ladies are overlooked or dismissed by
simple virtue of the numbers. While some guys spend the better part of a decade searching for the "perfect" woman,
I swear if I could have cloned myself a dozen times, I could have found a dozen fabulous FSUW to share a life with.
 
Chemistry, a true buzz word. I prefer the real thing - it's called simpatico.

[Shostakovich]

A more mature post than the last time but, at day's end, one should always go for what one wants.

[Aloe]

Not gonna happen. It is in human DNA, both men and women, to go for the most attractive mate they can get. Of course we may lower our attractiveness requirement if a candidate demonstrates a plentyful of other great qualities. Or be completely turned off by an attractive candidate who demonstrates bad qualities, but in general, all else being more or less equal, people tend to choose the best looking body they can get.

[Shostakovich]

Going for what one wants involves more than just appearance. Lots of men don't need or want the 10.  Anyone who has dated said 10 knows there is always someone ambitious to take your place and, like children born to wealth, the very attractive woman has often failed to develop a balanced personality.

[Lily]

Tag-n-bag,

I understand your point that people shouldn't go essentially for good looks. But would you eventually elaborate why you believe that people should go for social misfits? What do you understand by social misfits here?

[Misha]

Lots of men don't need or want the 10. 

They are willing to settle for the "9.5" with a good personality 

[Gator]

It is in human DNA, both men and women, to go for the most attractive mate they can get.

Disagree - from the male point of view.  Most attractive?  No, we choose the woman with the biggest rack regardless of her othe features. 

I never lined up women and focused on the prettiest unless the others were dog ugly.  I simply had to find a woman physically attractive (a "6" or "7"). However, once the minimum threshhold for attraction was satisfied, it was all about chemistry, values, etc. 

Having said that, I did three times manage to marry very beautiful women and passed opportunities with a couple of others at the time who were even more ttractive.  If the DNA were compelling us to seek the prettiest, we would bounce from one woman to another.  I have known some married men who have cheated and seen the other woman.  Frequently the other woman is not as pretty as the wife at home.   

What has DNA given the male?  The male DNA gives us the gift of sex for the reason of propagation, and almost all of us men can have sex with average looking women and lower. 

What else? The human baby is rather helpless compared to other mammals.  Thus, the male human is needed for child rearing.  Because of the unique availability of the human female for sex even when not ovulating, the male tends to stay at home.

[Shostakovich]

I simply had to find a woman physically attractive (a "6" or "7").

This is the attitude most mature men take to the subject.  The ones who seek for the model looks normally are motivated by social validation.  A similar situation exists in a woman's attitude to a man's wealth.  The mature ones have a threshold for $s and once that level is exceeded the consideration goes to other things.

Personally, I think that about 25% of the female population ranks out as a "7".  I guess that would equate out to about a $90K salary?

That is extremely crude I realize and about as mature as T&B's original post, but crude fact is often suppressed in discussions like this.

[Jumper]

Now that I have a better grasp on the definition of chemistry, I will tell you what I would do. Stop using the word chemistry as an excuse not to at least attempt a relationship with someone. We all know what can happen when you base a relationship on lust or  physical attraction only, if not, then why all the questions about what you should do when the misunderstood definition of the word "chemistry" disappears, and it always does...disappear that is.

I agree with you that chemistry is a poor choice of words to decribe the overall effect..
and agree it has to do with far more than simple lust or physical attractiveness.
 
yet in your final statement you concentrate only on those two  aspects?
that seems contradictory..in a post pointing out that fundamentally there is  likely much more to it? 



I can be instantly attracted to someone by thier sense of humor, mannerisms,etc etc etc..
while someone of equal or greater physical attractiveness could be an instant turn off by certain charateristics.
(like others indicated)

It is a package deal, and why its coined (perhaps improperly ) *chemistry*,generally taken to mean a mix of many things?

I do not believe it is always instant, but  i do think it is generally very quick.
I also believe it can develop over longer periods of time ,I think there are many cases of that.I just havn't personally had that happen, I  either generally truly like a person immediately,enjoy thier company and attracted on many levels to them  ... or there isn't much chance we would become romantically involved, i'd imagine that's common for women as well.


To think that feeling  ALWAYS evaporates  is odd?

I am sure that it is possible that someone i find instantly facinating or have great *cough* chemistry with,  could fade,
 but my own experince is that *it* normally does not.While it may plateau ,, it doesn't typically fade for me.
My first wife and i had instant *chemistry*, we both knew we would end up together and pretty much spent the next decade together most every day... nothing faded ,nothing changed chemistry wise.
While we both changed over the years, our relationship adapted with those changes..
and it always seemed like we had just met.One of those truly happy couples that enjoy being together, and that  people likely love to hate 


Other situations certainly are  different , and true chemistry or complete compatabilty may not happen often..


of course, as always ..
YMMV..

[Lily]

This is the attitude most mature men take to the subject.  The ones who seek for the model looks normally are motivated by social validation.  A similar situation exists in a woman's attitude to a man's wealth.  The mature ones have a threshold for $s and once that level is exceeded the consideration goes to other things.

Personally, I think that about 25% of the female population ranks out as a "7".  I guess that would equate out to about a $90K salary?

 

Guys, chemistry does not have anything to do with income. Chemistry is instinctive, whereas wealth and social validation belongs to reasonable criteria.

Well said about some basic minimum of physical attractiveness. The other things are done by charm, wit, smartness, etc.

[ECOCKS]

To think that feeling  ALWAYS evaporates  is odd?

I am sure that it is possible that someone i find instantly facinating or have great *cough* chemistry with,  could fade,
 but my own experince is that *it* normally does not.While it may plateau ,, it doesn't typically fade for me.
My first wife and i had instant *chemistry*, we both knew we would end up together and pretty much spent the next decade together most every day... nothing faded ,nothing changed chemistry wise.

While we both changed over the years, our relationship adapted with those changes..
and it always seemed like we had just met.One of those truly happy couples that enjoy being together, and that  people likely love to hate 

Other situations certainly are  different , and true chemistry or complete compatabilty may not happen often..

of course, as always ..
YMMV..

If it's real, chemistry doesn't fade.

If it does, you're kidding yourself and confusing it with lust, infatuation or some other factor like material gain, convenience, rescue, whatever.

Yes, people change over time but that is a two-way street and both parties change in their own ways as well. More often than not, this adaptation is complementary but two people can have it and be in a destructive relationship affecting one or both of them. When that happens, parting of the ways is healthy and positive for most everyone concerned, the parties and the families for instance.

[Shostakovich]

Guys, chemistry does not have anything to do with income. Chemistry is instinctive, whereas wealth and social validation belongs to reasonable criteria.

Well said about some basic minimum of physical attractiveness. The other things are done by charm, wit, smartness, etc.

Hmmn.  In fact a given object may stimulate both rational and unconscious, instinctive responses.  A lady indeed may respond to a the chemical, unconscious appeal of wealth as these are the tokens of potential pleasure and stability for self and family.  I'd guess this response is quite frequent, at least as frequent as the rational consideration of wealth.  A lady generally does not think about the appeal of a man's wealth anymore than most men think about why they are instinctively drawn to scan certain parts of a woman's anatomy.  5 minutes consideration reveals that the business is all about sizing up a woman for the reproductive adventure, though I'd say very few men take the time for this reflection.