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 share your thoughts with other readers below.

To hear what I think and how it impacts your love life – go to www.findingtheoneonline.com/.

Talk to you soon!

Evan

1
0

Join 7 Million Readers

And the thousands of women I've helped find true love. Sign up for weekly updates for help understanding men.

I hate spam as much as you do, therefore I will never sell, rent, or give away your email address.

Join our conversation (26 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 1
    Cilla

    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?!

  2. 2
    Dana

    Chemistry’s one of many important things, but without it, who cares?

  3. 3
    Dana

    I didn’t express that well. Chemistry alone won’t sustain a relationship, but without it, there really isn’t a relationship worth sustaining.

  4. 4
    JuJu

    It may not be THE most important, but it’s equally important with other factors.

  5. 5
    Andy

    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!

  6. 6
    happy girl

    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.

    1. 6.1
      brooklynmermaid

      Thank you! I agree! I have had sooo many failed relationships based on the “Illusion of Chemistry” as Marc stated. I just came out of another terrible relationship that had great “chemistry” and very poor compatibility. I’m currently dating a wonderful man that I have little physical chemistry but strong compatibility. At the age of 57, I’ve come to realize physical chemistry will not cultivate a long lasting nurturing relationship. yes, I had to compromise and would prefer someone who is: emotionally available, can fight fair, is consistent in demonstrating his care for me and is emotionally and financially stable. And yet . . . I’m still hung up on an ex who was emotionally abusive using stonewalling as a means to avoid conflict.
         I’ve learned it’s not important to have it all :) 

  7. 7
    Zann

    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.

  8. 8
    Elle

    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.

  9. 9
    A-L

    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.

  10. 10
    Jane

    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

  11. 11
    lisaq

    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!

  12. 12
    Selena

    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.

  13. 13
    Sara

    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.

  14. 14
    Selena

    Sara #13-

    You don’t have chemistry with someone after you’ve fallen in love? I don’t understand how that works.

  15. 15
    Roger

    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

  16. 16
    A-L

    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.

  17. 17
    starthrower68

    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.

  18. 18
    Roger

    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.

  19. 19
    A-L

    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.

  20. 20
    Roger

    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

    1. 20.1
      Lily

      I was married to a narcissist for almost 30 years. What does this say about me? I made the best of a bad situation for the good of my children. What does this say about him? He was controlling and took away my self confidence. Will a woman be happy in a long term relationship with him? Probably not. And I don’t know how she would know without living with him a year or two.  Having been in a long-term relationship is no assurance that a person is a good partner. I also dated a man for two years and, after having broken up with him, became friends with his ex-wife. They were married for 28 years. Her story is very different from his. (He didn’t know why she had an affair.) her therapist told her he was a narcissist, though. He had been in a very long term marriage but was not a good long-term partner for her or for me. 

  21. 21
    Athina

    After having relationships that had massive amounts of chemistry from the start, yet all ending in flames I thought I’d try a different approach. When I met my current boyfriend who I’ve been with for 5 years now even though the chemistry wasn’t there at the start I thought that because he was a wonderful, kind, loving, dependable man I’d give it a go in the hope that the chemistry may appear based on his traits. It hasn’t so not sure what my next step is. So while chemistry isn’t the number one factor it has to exist for a fulfilling relationship

  22. 22
    Hanna

    I disagree with Roger I don’t think human relationships are all totally logical, we can have our checklists of ideals but that alone won’t guarantee or even increase your chances of a good relationship. Oh and by the way past LTRs say absolutely nothing about the QUALITY of that relationship or that person, it just reveals the long span of time that person had spent their life on, it doesnt automatically make them more noble or “skilled” at working out relationship problems. Bad unhealthy relationships can endure many years just as good healthy ones can, it simply is not enough to know about the person and I would enter a relationship with that person with just as much caution as any other. As for meeting their kids that should not even enter into the dating picture until you get to know each other well, and that can take a while. Why do so many people have stories of their mate looking good on paper (dependable, good looking, great job, kind, loyal, etc…) and coming to the realization that accomplishments and character traits alone is not enough to truly be connected to that person, we may admire those traits and even like the person but we are looking at them logically, projecting our own expectations on them that is disconnected from who that person actually is and without that tiny spark why would we be motivated to get to know them deeper? I think without the spark and genuine interest it then becomes a strategic relationship of convenenience. I believe that the spark eludes logic for a reason, people are complicated even the “simple” ones. Without that intangible elusive healthy dose of chemistry, I’m not even talking about “on fire hot and heavy” type of chemistry, I’m just talking about that little spark of being inspired to know more about that person. The main thing I’m learning is that you must trust yourself to find out if someone is right for you, based on your own gut feeling that tells you if there is potential there or if something is “off,” I think that once you feel that spark is when you can start using logic to get to know someone better.

  23. 23
    sean

    I recently broke up with my perfect and loving down to earth girlfriend after 1.5 yrs. It was the most hard decision ive made. I broke her heart. But we lacked sexual chemistry. Which was really wierd considering she was da hottest chick in any club or place we went. After reading blogs and tryin to understand the importance of chemistry and myself. I realised it is essential to have chemistry. Without chemistry u are in a sense forcing yaself to commit. And da truth is. If u stay the real reason is because u dont think u can have more. U r stayin out of fear rather than love. I realised i need to give my x what she deserves. Someone who can love her in a way that i cant. Chemistry is very very important

    1. 23.1
      sister

      thanks so much for this post! I wholly agree.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>