Oct28
Do You Think that Chemistry is the Most Important Factor in Deciding on a Partner? Think Again.
Do you think that chemistry is the most important factor in deciding on a partner?
Please respond in the comments below.
Don’t forget to register for my free teleclass, The Top 5 Mistakes You’re Making Online and How to Understand the Opposite Sex Online, tonight at 9pmEST/6pmPST.
http://www.findingtheoneonline.com/teleseminar/
Talk to you soon!
Evan
Filed Under Online Dating Tips & Advice
Read More...
- Are Women More Likely Than Men to Require Chemistry to Go On A Second Date?
- Apparently, ANYONE can give advice…
- Why “What Are You Thinking Right Now” is the WORST Question to Ask a Man
- Chemistry and Matchmaking with Evan and Tyra
- Why You Shouldn’t Have Sex With Your Friends - Or Should You?
Cilla Oct 28th 2008 at 07:58 am 1
Not the most important factor, no, but it has to be there along with the other elements. I’ve been on dates with guys who look great on paper, but with whom I have no spark. Zero. Nada. Not gonna happen. My screening process has increased because of this.
Then there are those guys who grow on you. There is a little kernel of something there at the start that is worth pursuing. Chemistry can develop over time, but there has to be at least some little hint of it at the start. It can even be in the form of an antagonistic relationship that starts out as “Arrggh! He drives me crazy!” and morphs into “Mmmmm! He drives me crazy!”
Unfortunately, when I find too much chemistry right off the bat, it usually means I’m headed for an infatuation type relationship, usually highly physical, that can’t stand the test of time. Damn! Why can’t we have both?!
Dana Oct 28th 2008 at 08:22 am 2
Chemistry’s one of many important things, but without it, who cares?
Dana Oct 28th 2008 at 08:25 am 3
I didn’t express that well. Chemistry alone won’t sustain a relationship, but without it, there really isn’t a relationship worth sustaining.
JuJu Oct 28th 2008 at 11:13 am 4
It may not be THE most important, but it’s equally important with other factors.
Andy Oct 28th 2008 at 11:31 am 5
My reply is exactly like Cilla’s. Every relationship that had a huge spark in the beginning was very physical and tended to burn out almost as quickly as it started. I actually went out with a woman recently that i liked but didn’t have a huge spark for and i figured…hmmmm…..let’s see where goes. I figured the “friends” thing could build a lasting relationship but alas, she broke it off ’cause i didn’t have the “it” factor for her. She said that she really liked me and was very comfortable with me and it wasn’t the physical attraction that was a problem but she didn’t fall head over heels for me. I tried to explain to her what the experts say but none the less she had made up her mind. I often wonder what the human condition is that prevents us from having both as Cilla said. Yeah it sucks!
happy girl Oct 28th 2008 at 11:39 am 6
no, to me chemistry is not the most important factor. It is great if there is chemistry, but really there are other criteria that are very important to me too. I look at the whole “package” of factors. Is he consistent, does he really follow through when he says he is going to do something, is he a good listener, can he hold an interesting converstation? Is he caring…not afraid to show affection…does he know how to compromise…….well you get the point here.You learn these things over time about a person.
Chemistry as Dana says, and I agree, does not always stand the test of time.
Zann Oct 28th 2008 at 12:35 pm 7
From my experience, instant, intense chemistry is usually a bad thing in predicting whether a guy and I are capable of a more in-depth relationship. Chemistry is important but can be deceiving. ISo if a guy has a great personality, insight, sincerity, and other qualities I value but there’s just a slight spark, I’m willing to stick with it and see how it goes for us. But if there is no chemistry whatsoever, there’s just no point pursuing an intimate relationship, hoping that something will ignite. It’s rare that I feel that absolute lack of any spark with a guy, but it does happen, and I’ve learned to pay attention to that, give it the credit it’s due, and respectfully move on. Finding both spark AND the great human qualities in one package is what seems to be so difficult …in fact, sometimes lately it seems impossible.
Elle Oct 28th 2008 at 01:30 pm 8
Although it may not be the MOST important factor, it is definitely something that is necessary. I dated a successful record producer who was everything on my 11-point checklist but I didn’t feel that spark with him. Because he was everything on my list I tried my best to make it work over the four months that we dated — to force myself, if you will, to become attracted to him and it simply didn’t happen. Needless to say, I’ve now revised my list (only 5 points) and one of them is Chemistry.
A-L Oct 28th 2008 at 02:07 pm 9
I’m with Cilla on this one. I need at least a that tiny bit of attraction/spark for a relationship to truly go anywhere. Though I didn’t really recognize the pattern until I was reading some of y’alls’ comments (sad, I know) the guys with whom I’ve had intense sparkage at the beginning have never done well for me long-term. The ones where it’s gradually built up have been the good ones. But I have no regret whatsoever for passing on the guys where I didn’t even have a small spark to fan into some larger flames. If it’s not there, then it’s not there.
Jane Oct 28th 2008 at 06:20 pm 10
I am also suspicious of the initial spark and can enjoy it but have a wait-and-see-what-is-there-after-it-dulls caution.
Sometimes, the spark can show up if the other kinds of enticements occur: consideration, appreciations for real things he sees in me, romantic surprises. mmmm
lisaq Oct 29th 2008 at 03:17 am 11
Like most everyone else I have to say that it’s not THE most important thing, but it certainly has to be there. No chemistry=no passion. Boring!
Selena Oct 29th 2008 at 04:24 pm 12
For me chemistry & compatibility are the most important and they are equal. A relationship with chemistry, but without compatibility is the kind that goes nowhere, fizzles out rapidly, or proves to be such a struggle it isn’t worth it.
A relationship without sexual chemistry is called a friendship.
Sara Oct 29th 2008 at 08:49 pm 13
In the first few months of a relationship, yes, chemistry is the most important thing but after you’ve fallen in love its not. Then, I think its about shared values especially when it comes to faith and money.
Selena Oct 30th 2008 at 09:17 am 14
Sara #13-
You don’t have chemistry with someone after you’ve fallen in love? I don’t understand how that works.
Roger Nov 20th 2008 at 01:41 pm 15
I disagree that immediate chemistry is a negative for the relationship. I do believe passion can be strong enough to overpower my better judgment about basic compatibility issues, leading to an unsatisfactory relationship when the fire cools.
I try to screen for compatibility with my core values with extra attention to having successfully maintained long-term relationships. Then, if we’re hot for each other, the basis of a good relationship is there.
Roger
A-L Nov 20th 2008 at 06:03 pm 16
I have to disagree with Roger about the importance of the person’s past long-term relationships. There are people who break off a relationship when they realize there’s no long-term potential rather than continuing on in a pleasant relationship for a while (Evan seems to have been one of those until he met his wife). Just because these people may cut bait earlier, doesn’t mean they don’t have the ability and desire for a longer lasting relationship. They’re just waiting for the right person with whom to have the relationship.
starthrower68 Nov 20th 2008 at 08:46 pm 17
Interesting posts. You might have to have chemistry to start, and perhaps even when things turn long term inot marriage. But there will be those days you don’t necessarily feel the chemistry. So the relationship has to survive based on mutual devotion. That’s when love becomes a decision more than an emotion.
Roger Nov 21st 2008 at 01:29 pm 18
I disagree with A-L that a person’s past long-term relationships are not important. I will grant that if a person is very young, their potential partners will not have had much opportunity to enter long-term relationships. (hanging together for 2 years in high school is not uncommon).
Having the desire does not equal having the ability. There are specific skills for being together and keeping the love alive that are only truly learned by doing. I messed up some great relationships as I learned those skills and I would not want to be someone’s first LTR.
Dating someone who has consistently broken off relationships for lack of potential bodes poorly for future relationship partners.
A-L Nov 21st 2008 at 03:20 pm 19
I still contend that one’s romantic history of LTRs is not of vital importance. One can also look at other close friendships, or even someone’s employment history, to see if they are able to work through problems, compromise, and remain in a good place emotionally. These are all transferable skills, which can also be applied to a romantic relationship.
Roger Nov 23rd 2008 at 12:03 pm 20
I agree with A–L that close friendships, employment history, etc. can tell a lot about a person’s ability to successfully enter a relationship.
Being 50-something, I suspect that if a person my age has not had a long-term relationship, it is probably not for lack of meeting the right person. Or if it is a case of impossibly high standards, how likely am I to measure up?
In my case, having spent 28 years in a good marriage and raising a couple of children, I would avoid a person with no LTR experience on the basis that I am not willing to wait to find out if they have the ability to keep love alive through decades of changes.
Since I am currently parenting, being with someone who has successful children makes the the issues around having a teenager in my life much easier.
Roger