Jul04
Are Women More Likely Than Men to Require Chemistry to Go On A Second Date?
<< Previous Pages: 1 2 3
You’re spot on when you recognize that first-date sparks don’t portend a future relationship. But when you say that women are more likely to cut off someone who doesn’t make them tingle, I have to challenge you. If you’re going to compare and contrast our genders, men are, by far, the more visual and chemistry-driven sex. Which means that they are more likely to conclude within five seconds of meeting a woman that there is not going to be a second date.
In general, women are more forgiving of men, as long as they are kind, respectful, and potentially good providers. In general, men are more likely to be forgiving of women of pretty much anything as long as they are young, thin and pretty. Hey, I don’t write these things, I just report them.
To me, the most interesting aspect of this is not that men, are, in fact, shallower than women. That doesn’t really qualify as news. But your point, Roger, that first date sparks don’t mean anything more than first date sparks? Well, I’m betting that’s a revelation to a number of our readers
I confess candidly that I would probably not have gotten to know my girlfriend if we had gone on a conventional date instead of meeting at a party. Nor would I have gotten to know a previous girlfriend in 2004 if we’d met on JDate. Doesn’t mean they weren’t attractive or interesting. All it means is that we all make snap judgments on dates and inadvertently cut off people who have true potential. As anyone who’s ever met through friends knows, sometimes HOW you meet is as much a determining factor as chemistry in terms of moving forward.
Alison Armstrong does a great piece about the value of chemistry. She says that while we spend our lives looking for that intense one-of-a-kind chemistry with a partner, it’s actually BAD for your relationship. She goes on to explain that we are simply not at our best when we’re crazy about someone. We become insecure and weak and needy and yes, somewhat crazy, in the presence of chemistry. …
Continued on next page >>
Pages: 1 2 3 << previous next >>
Related Posts:
 |
Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make. |
Do You Want to Attract the Partner of Your Dreams?
If so, sign up for my free dating and relationship newsletter and receive my free eBook, The 5 Massive Mistakes You're Making In Your Love Life - And How to Turn Them Around Instantly. Simple and effective advice to jumpstart your love life.
5 Comments »Filed Under Dating Tips & Advice, Favorites
JimmyE Jul 4th 2007 at 10:56 am 1
Some thoughts-
1) men are more visual and are therefore more likely to rule women out BEFORE the first date.
2) Men are expected to pursue women. Consequently there’s not much time to analyse the first few dates. If we’re having a good time, we start planning the next call and plans for the second date.
3) If a man likes a woman and finds her attractive, he’s probably going to hang about till he gets to have sex. After that, he might start to ask himself if the relationship has long term potential.
4) Women have more options in the early stages of dating, and are therefore more likely to exercise them.
5) ‘No Sparks’ is often a euphemism for more concrete factors which people are too polite to admit to (even to themselves)
feelingflirty Jul 5th 2007 at 05:50 pm 2
You have some wacky comments but I like it!
redheadfromtdot Jul 5th 2007 at 07:03 pm 3
I think that Jimmy nails it.
Furthermore:
“No chemistry” is a way of saying “lack of physical attraction”. People seem to take offense to the latter because they hear “not attracted to you” as “you’re not attractive”.
Attraction is a funny thing. It’s there or it’s not. One person can feel it while the other doesn’t. It’s hard to control.
Many of us have been physically attracted to people we didn’t like and wished we were attracted to people we did.
I’ve learned that if I’m not attracted to a guy I can’t date him even if compatibility is strong. It’s not right nor fair to either one of us, and attraction is necessary for sex. If I’m dating a guy that I have fun with, and get along well with and find compatible but I don’t want to be physical with him, I tend to date him until I convince myself to let this one go. I often hope that the attraction will suddenly appear or reappear but it rarely works that way and even then it’s not really “sudden”, but the sudden revelation of something gradual.
I’m friends with some guys that I’ve dated. If the chemistry’s not there and it feels platonic, there’s little difference between “dating” and “hanging out”.
I’ve decided that sometimes “sparks” (“stars”?) are the reaction to something new, masquerading as feelings of attraction, and then in time the feeling peels away.
And yes, how you meet is an important part of the formula.
I hope I’m making sense in my sleepy state. Forgive the rambling.
Roger Jul 7th 2007 at 06:28 am 4
Thank you Evan and everyone else for your insights. I continue to learn new things every day!
Sahaja Jul 28th 2008 at 09:43 am 5
I think redhead hit the nail on the head – There is a decided difference between good looking and attractive. There are extremely in shape men that have great bodies, but we don’t find them attractive. In contrast, there are men that not models by any means that women flock around. Women pay attention to the details – very true. And when we have a gut feeling,its usually on point. So if she doent want to meet up, call it a good thing – if it was going to happen, it would have. This is time you saved, and now you can be meeting someone else – that you can connect with.