Heh, I dare ya to take a crack at this one...

[Clay]

I just a had thought land on my brain, and this is strickly an opinion based poll - IE. no right or wrong answers here...

I wanted to see how everyone defines 'Chemistry'.  That ever elusive magic that makes two people click.  It's dang near impoosible to define, but I'm interested in how everyone here would define it.

Is it a questions of similar interests?

A matchup of like attitudes?

A beaming lust that quickly fades into....?

What criteria do you ascribe to 'Chemistry'?

Take for example my first girlfriend.  We could talk for hours.  I loved talking to her.  In person, over the phone, or whatever.  One could call this good chemistry, right.  I mean the kind of conversation where I once stepped out for a smoke, she soon followed, and the next thing I knew we had missed "Empire Strikes Back" (A friend had the videos, and invited everyone over to watch all three). It was effortless.  However, soon after, I started realizing that intimate conversation would only take place over the phone.  We never talked about anything substantial to the relationship, face to face (except when she dumped me).  I thought we had chemistry, and passion, quite a bit of passion - I was wrong...

Another Girlfriend.  Fantastic chemistry, right from the start...  Lots in common, first girl to actually make me laugh.  First girl to make me think there could possibly be such a thing as a healthy, beneficial relationship between man and woman.  Over time I started to realize she wasn't that clever.  She had a repetoire of conversational topics which were fun and interesting until I'd heard them several times...  We had common interests, common goals, we were on the same wavelength - so to speak.  There was a major connection at that lower level, ya know - the kind you really can only feel.  Thought she would be a long-termer - I was wrong...

Another girlfriend.  Not necessarily a lot in common, really.  But we could sit in silence and be comfortable.  Lots of teasing, I love to tease, and get it back in return.  A lot of chemistry and attraction, but still a no-go.  She musta decided the chemistry wasn't that good after all...

Another girl.  A lopsided affair.  She had the hots for me, but I was at a point where I didn't have any interest in trying.  Almost a ten year age difference.  But man, in the sack?  It was the most comfortable I'd ever been with a woman.  It was easy and carefree.  Not like ANY other woman I've known.  Hey, they say it's not everything, but it sure does count for something....  Enough chemistry there for us to hang out, and have fun.  Heh, she may not be the best example because I KNEW it would never go long term, but hey - this is about chemistry right?

So how does one 'Cut to the chase' and make a real assessment about someone you get to know in a limited fashion?

Personally it's never seemed to be an issue for me.  I seem to have an ability to connect with anyone.  Everyone has something to offer, and in my opinion, connecting is something you build between two people through mutual understanding and effort to find that common ground.  Yeah, sometimes it's easier than others, and sometimes the connection is obviously platonic or obviously romantic,  but how do you separate the two when it's not so obvious?  That first girlfriend?  I didn't feel the chemistry at first, it popped up a little bit later on (hmmmm, mebbe I've made this whole post rhetorical?)

eh,  I'll leave it at that....

Asking for $.02 - anybody got it ;-b

Clay

[Jeff S]

... in response to Heh, I dare ya to take a crack at this o..., posted by Clay on Mar 21, 2002

I've always thought of chemistry as lust. You know, that thing that makes your heart go pitter pat when you're together. While this may be nice, it really has little bearing on the success and happiness of a long term marriage. You see couples all the time who are madly in-love at first, and end up in divorce court. Likewise, there are lots and lots of arranged marriages where the couple hadn't even met, yet they turn into long term, loving relationships. It's all about comittal, about communication, and willingness to put the effort in on an ongoing basis. Marriages have to be worked at, and ascertaining who is willing to do that and deciding who you yourself are willing to do that for, is what makes or breaks marriages. Sure, you need to find someone who wears well, who you enjoy doing these things for, who's face you can gaze at for hours, but there seem to be no shortage of candidates for that. Figuring out who's in it for the long haul is the trick. Just MNSHO, your mileage WILL vary greatly.

- Jeff S.

[LP]

... in response to I don't think it matters much., posted by Jeff S on Mar 22, 2002

.... well said.

True reality is often at odds with perceived reality (what one conjours up in his/her own head.)

The trick is knowing when you're being your own worst enemy.

[Ramblin]

... in response to I don't think it matters much., posted by Jeff S on Mar 22, 2002

Very wise post.

[thesearch]

... in response to I think you got it right., posted by Ramblin on Mar 22, 2002

Now you are probably thinking that I will disagree with Jeff's post. I do not. I totally agree except for one point - that being that chemistry is lust.

In agreement, I will say that basing a relationship upon chemistry is a dangerous thing to do - if that is all you are basing it on. You want to make sure that all that Jeff mentioned is a part of the relationship you have with anyone if you want to increase your odds of longevity.

But, Chemistry is not LUST. Lust however, is easily confused with chemistry. It happens all the time. But they are different. Chemistry is real, it is powerful and it is what can set apart one couple from another relative to quality of relationship. People that have chemistry not uncommonly are the people that after 20 years of marriage are those that onlookers in a restaurant think must be newlyweds by how they are interacting. Of course there are people who did not have what they would call chemistry when they met but also reflect this behavior however, I highly doubt that it is as common to see such.

Lust is real also and arousal of the animal instinct involving testosterone gives a similar feel in one aspect as what one feels when there is chemistry but they are different. The only way one would understand this is if they have experienced both and were able to compare the two. Even if you have experienced both, the only way you could compare the two is if you were observant enough to see the difference in the first place. And if you have concluded that lust and chemistry are the same at some early point in your life, you would not be looking but already dismissing that there is a difference and thus you most likely would not see it.

Mutual chemistry of strong magnitude of equal nature for both parties is not easy to come by. It is not needed at all for a wonderful marriage. However, it does enhance a relationship significantly IMHO.

[Patrick]

... in response to Not so fast, posted by thesearch on Mar 22, 2002

When I met my last American girlfriend, I encountered a woman who had blond hair, wore a mini-skirt, and had great legs and a chest that entered the room well before anything else did.  I was certainly attracted to her, but it was a physical attraction.  She was great for the ego, especially for someone recently divorced, but there was never any point in the relationshipship where I said "wow, what an incredible woman."  Well, maybe I did think "incredible," but I was probably thinking about her body.

When I met a Latin woman beside a swimming pool about a year and a half later, I walked away from the first conversation with "wow" going through my head continuously.  It wasn't a "wow, she's hot," but rather a "wow I really LIKE that woman."

For me, chemistry is definitely different from lust.  I can be physically attracted to a woman who I don't even like.

Every once in a while you meet someone and walk away whistling to yourself thinking about how great the PERSON is.  I don't believe in love at first site, but I do believe in infatuation after a first conversation, and that's what I would call "chemistry."  Certainly it's got to have a physical aspect, but it goes beyond that.

[Jeff S]

... in response to Not so fast, posted by thesearch on Mar 22, 2002

.

[Wayne]

... in response to Heh, I dare ya to take a crack at this o..., posted by Clay on Mar 21, 2002

Often when two people get together they have fantastic chemistry.

What happens as the relationship progresses often determines if the chemistry will fade or stay.

Good communication, mutual respect, and a good control of the temper during times of stress fosters on-going chemistry.

Nasty fights and losing control will put the fire out in a hurry.

When couples are cruel to each other during fights, I believe this extinguishes the chemistry permanantly.  Yes, yes...there is forgiveness and all that, but it is never quite the same.  The trust is never the same after you are cruel to each other.

A new relationship is a bit like a brand new porsche.  Nice paint and no dings.  After a good wreck, you can have it repaired, but it's never the same.

I think it is important to find out the style in which your partner handles conflict to determine your chances for a healthy happy marriage.  Does she get vicious, pout, throw tantrem, or try to compromise and stay loving.  How do you handle conflict?

The strength of a relationship and the depth of love is really only tested by your behaviour when you are really angry at your partner.

I believe that chemistry is often permanantly snuffed out by lousy behaviour by one partner or the other.

I have a Colombian wife, but I used to have a Russian wife.  Do I get to still post here:)?

Wayne

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Heh, I dare ya to take a crack at th..., posted by Wayne on Mar 21, 2002

Wayne, As long as you're giving decent advice I think we can let you play with us. Some advice is pertinent whether we're talking RW's, latina's or any other Ws.

I got one question for you. When I started looking at international dating I steered away from the latina's just because over their famous volatility. And the RWs kind of selected me. When I ran an internet ad 99% of the responses were from Russians and Ukranians.

So anyhow, my question is do you really think that there is a difference between the RWs and latinas as far as being emotional and passionate? I had a long term relationship with one RW. She was hot tempered, passionate, incredibly sexy and at times dangerous to be around. A lot like the sterotypical latina that I avoided writing to. Life with her was exciting but we couldn't make a lasting relationship.

Gross generalizations are allowed when you answer this question. I know that all women are different. But still our cultures do dictate our behavior to a degree.

[Wayne]

... in response to Re: Re: Heh, I dare ya to take a crack a..., posted by Zink on Mar 21, 2002

So anyhow, my question is do you really think that there is a difference between the RWs and latinas as far as being emotional and passionate?

Well, let me go and get my can opener for this can of worms.LOL

I was married to my RW for 3 years, and I've been married to my Colombian wife for 3 months.  This hardly makes me an expert, but I'll take a stab at it.  I dated many Colombian girls down in Cali, so I got a little feel for their personalities.

From my experience and the experiences of my friends with Colombian girls, I think the reputation of the hot tempered latina is over rated.  Since there are so fewer eligible men in Cali, then women, the girls seem quite patient and warm with their men.  They appreciate them.  The women stay quite calm, and few things seem to rattle them.  I think living in such a dangerous country such as Colombia changes their perspective on what to get upset about.  When my wife gets frusterated or angry, she gets more sad and quiet, then aggressive.  From my experience, the Latinas are fiercly loyal to their men and from what I've heard, they  hold on to their marriages tightly.  Their catholic backgrounds keep divorce as a very last option.

My experience with my Russian wife is actually pretty similar.  She was fiercly loyal the 1st 2 years and very warm to me.  She was calm, and never abusive when she was frusterated.  Her communication skills were really awful though,(her english was perfect) and we had trouble connecting when things got tough.  I think really what surprized me most about my Russian wife was the ease that she dropped her life with me to move on to the next.  It was kind of like the same way she dropped her country for mine.  Madly in love with me one minute treating me like a king in all aspects, and then me watching the rear bumper of her new Toyota go down the road the next.  The whole thing was really quite weird.  I don't think I'll ever really understand what exactly went down.

So in other words, I don't think they are really that different in the end.  They both want good family lives in most cases, and just to be happy.

I do believe that if your marriage is rocky and borderline, the Latina is more likely to "hang in there" to try and work things out.

I have a friend that is divorced from his Russian wife, and is now happily married to a Latina after 5 years.

Another friend of mine had the Russian wife from #### that filed false domestic violence charges on him and had him locked up trying to get the green card.  He now is very happily married to his 2nd Russian wife with 2 kids!  Talk about persistance...

In the end, it comes down to the individual, not the country that you find them in.  It really only takes one, and she can be found in any country.

A pretty Russian girls accent still drives me crazy, but Spanish is much easier to learn.

Wayne

[Zink]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Heh, I dare ya to take a cra..., posted by Wayne on Mar 22, 2002

I was just curious about your perceptions. My Russian girlfriend watched Brazilian soap operas about fiery latinas. She decided that was the way a woman should be. It suited her temperment. I have no experience with the latinas. I've only met a few that came here as exchange students. The ones I knew were pretty calm and sweet.

[LP]

... in response to Heh, I dare ya to take a crack at this o..., posted by Clay on Mar 21, 2002

...The problem I have with "chemistry" is this:

Which one are you talking about? As I see it, there are three kinds:

First, none. (happens often enough) We can dispense with this.

Second, the "real" thing. (supposedly rare)

Third, and this is where it gets sticky: The "chemistry" felt based on the relationship's "newness". You know, the stuff one may feel in the begining of a relationship when its rapidly blossoming. (quite common)

Is the third one an illusion? How do you tell the second from the third? Time? If so, how much time? And if it *is* time, then how useful a test is it? Or am I looking at this completely wrong?

Isn't it possible to believe "real" chemistry is there when its only the third type? After all, every guy who married and is now divorced thought he had it when he first met and married his wife, even if she turned into a Mrs KenC down the road. (sorry Ken, you just provided a vivid example.)

Lets not even mention the countless failed relationships that started out with perceived "chemistry" and exploded a few months later.

This is what puzzles me about people who just "know" shes the one after a short time together. Every couple who stands on the alter today believes they had chemistry when they met and believes they will endure. Thats why they're getting married, isn't it?

Off course, half will be ready to kill each other down the road, so someone explain this chemistry thing to me so I'll understand it because I've been there many times and believe its overblown. And don't tell me I'll know it when I feel it, or that it represents compatibilty, which I feel is far more important for longterm success.

[KenC]

... in response to Ok, I'll bite....., posted by LP on Mar 21, 2002

LP,
I can't agree with you more except for your statement,"Every couple who stands on the alter today believes they had chemistry."  I based my decision to marry my first wife on MY love for her.  Time (20+ years) proved that a one way love is not enough.  There has to be mutual love for a relationship to be great. Before you jump on my stupidity, remember I was 20 when I got married the first time and we had been dating since I was 17.
Between marriages I dated a lot of women and became much more knowledgeable about women in general.  As you said, every new relationship starts with all the right signs. These exciting new relationships would not last past 6 months maximum and most not even that long.  As I was in no hurry to commit to any marriage, I was more than willing to wait the relationship out.  People can put on a pretty good show for a while, but eventually the real person comes forth.  When the "real" woman showed up, I dumped her butt and moved on.  I would rather be alone than to be with the wrong woman.
My answer to your question, "How do you tell the second from the third? Time? If so, how much time?", is 6 months.  Most women can keep up the charade for a while and some are better than others, but 6 months is the max.
KenC

[LP]

... in response to my answer is........, posted by KenC on Mar 22, 2002

...So let me get this straight.

You married her for love? Of course, I assumed that. So love can occur without chemistry? Oh, I see, certainly it could if it was one-sided.

I thought love was born out of chemistry. The opinion of many here (not me) is that chemistry is a crucial part of the equation. Are you saying that most who marry today don't have chemistry but have love? huh?

As for you being 20, ect, you're certainly forgiven for that aspect. No jumping on you, I've been there myself.

So we seem to agree that it takes awhile to know if this Type 2 chemistry exists. Well, half the marriages today end in divorce and I'll wager most knew each other longer than 6 months before marriage. What happened to the "real" chemistry in those cases?

While your description is commendable, it is hardly the one used by 95% of men when they talk about chemistry. Almost by definition, the term "chemistry" seems to be used only when describing the *initial* interactions between two people, not your 6 months down the road description. Unlike you, most men (espeacially in this) seem to make command decisions based on this inital Type 3 chemistry.

Wayne states in his post below that most don't have this 6 month luxury and must rely on some luck. Huh? I guess the desperate ones don't. The rest do, if one is willing to wait and develop the relationship over time. Why in the world would anyone roll the dice on marrying with less time than is required for differenciating between Type 2 and Type 3 chemistry? Domestic or FSU? Doesn't love always develop (when it does develop) *after* chemistry?

Its obvious why, and brings me to my closing points:

1) Chemistry is, in general, an overblown and useless delusion unless it is used as you describe, which it almost never is. (Especially in *this* endeavor.) Even then, its more a self induce state than anything one gets from her, and hardly useful.

2) People who say "I know shes the one", after a brief meeting or a little time spent together are deluding themselves. They clearly show thier desperation by their quickness to risk so much on so little, a rationalization so profound its difficult to comprehend. Ever try reasoning with one of these folks? lol, its facsinating.

3) Any guy who meets and marrys a FSU girl short of 1 year and several trips to see her gets what he deserves if and when it implodes on him.

Don't get me wrong, every guy is entiled to dig his hole any way (and as deep), as he sees fits. I just find this chemistry thing to be another example of some very interesting behavior where no one is at the helm.

[KenC]

... in response to Fair nuff..., posted by LP on Mar 22, 2002

LP,
I think this is a good topic that exposes the heart of "this process" and the potential errors to be made.  To me chemistry is compatibility not love.  There are many types of compatibility.  Friendship is one.  Does the couple simply enjoy being together?  Do they share the same interests?  
Goal compatibility is important too.  If you do not have similar goals, there is a great probability of future conflicts.  (BTW, this is the glue that held my first marriage together.  Raising our children and establishing a good life were very important to us both.  I always knew I wanted much more and once the kids reached an age of independence, it was over).
Sexual compatibility is another.  The old saying that all sex is good, just some is better than others does apply here.  If sex is good but not great, this too can erode the base stability of a relationship.  BTW, it has to be great for both.  This area has the greatest risk of false readings too.  Sex with a new partner is always exciting because of the newness.  Will it last?  Will it get better?  Important questions in my mind.
Spiritual compatibility.  More or less important depending upon the couple.
Someone here wrote of soul chemistry, which by my definition would be soul compatibility.  This is the closest to being love in my mind.
Time is the only true test for all of these.  Think about it.  A new friendship has all the hopes of becoming a good friendship.  Will it develop that way?  Most don't.  Talking about goals is easy, it is the follow through that is a beetch.  New sex has been covered above.  Compatibility of the soul could not even be established in a new relationship.  Hmmmm, time seems rather important now doesn't it?  Now if you factor in the fact that people are always evolving (changing) you potentially have a bigger problem.  If it is "right" now, will it be "right" tomorrow?  Scary proposition in my mind.  If you are not scared, you have to be stupid.  Ahh, but love is what ties this all together.  Love is what makes you fearless to all the pitfalls that may lie ahead.  And yes, love can also make you stupid.  Only time will tell the truth.
KenC