Dating and "the Spark"

[Seraphim]

Your also an ass

 

At least I am not in a dry spell. And my gpa wasn't 0. Lol

[surfdiva]

I just turned 30.

 

And nope. The guys that you went out with sound desperate, quite frankly.

 

We can dispute whether or not guys are primarily attracted through our eyes. Then, our next debate can be whether or not the earth is flat XD

 

Do me a favour.

 

 

 

 

Maybe we were miscommunicating, I fully agree that most men (I don't speak for everyone) are attracted through their eyes, I think that's a given.

 

So "do me a favour". What's that about?

[Jabron1]

LOL! Now I get it

 

Well, you certainly don't get the guys that are on dates with you and spewing BS.

 

"I'm looking for a chemistry!" LOL. Some guys really actually say that?

[surfdiva]

Well, you certainly don't get the guys that are on dates with you and spewing BS.

 

"I'm looking for a chemistry!" LOL. Some guys really actually say that?

 

Maybe, just maaaybee. They're looking for more than getting laid. They're looking for. Wait for it.....a "relationship", LOL! Dude, not spouting any sort of BS, I have my opinion, you have yours. I don't call your thoughts and opinions BS, debate nicely

[katrina1980]

 

So "do me a favour". What's that about?

 

Hmmm, this is starting to get interesting.

[Jabron1]

Maybe, just maaaybee. They're looking for more than getting laid. They're looking for. Wait for it.....a "relationship", LOL! Dude, not spouting any sort of BS, I have my opinion, you have yours. I don't call your thoughts and opinions BS, debate nicely

 

I think a guy telling you that he's "looking for chemistry" hasn't found it on your date. What a thing to come out with XD

 

I said that they are spouting BS, and I'm sticking to it.

 

Yeah, "more than getting laid". Typical woman's argument. It's as if that's a bad thing.

 

Women: relationship first and sex second (with particular men )

 

Men: sex first and relationship second.

 

I date for sex, fun, and all sorts of other things. A relationship happens when I meet a really good fit for me. It certainly doesn't happen with a woman that plays silly games regarding intimacy.

 

If you want to filter for a whipped man, that's up to you. But to act like this is a moral paradigm isn't a reality that someone like me is going to accept - either in real life, or on the internets.

[surfdiva]

Jabron,

 

You obviously didn't read my replies to you where I agreed with several of your points. You seem to just want to spew your thoughts. So on that note, have a great night! I have a date tonight and have to go get ready, have a great weekend

 

P.S. And you still didn't explain what "do me a favour" meant.

[Batya33]

I don't think agree. The initial spark is based on hormones not factual compatibility. You can and I have, on a number of occasions had a spark that led to a relationship with somebody who was entirely incompatible with, at least three of these relationships have been abusive. No amount of recovering the spark will make it work with somebody who isn't right for you. You need to get to know somebody to appreciate what they bring to the table and if you make a good team. You don't do that in one date, there's much to learn about somebody new.

 

There was no spark with my current partner, on the fifth/sixth date I told him I wasn't feeling it, that there was no chemistry. We are now 3 months in I am so glad I reconsidered. I feel so happy and comfortable with him, like I've never experienced before.

 

I agree -read my previous posts if you prefer -that the spark need not be there on the first date. If it is, sometimes it is based on just sexual chemistry but other times people just sense that they click. I've had the latter a few times - one LTR started that way -I didn't find him particularly attractive but I found him intriguing and kept thinking "he sparkles" -and this was from the inside. Truth is that the attraction part was an on and off issue when we were together but that initial spark was based on who he was as a person that shone through from the beginning.

[Batya33]

I don't know. After going through this whole thread, I think one date is enough time to figure it out. I don't want it to feel forced. I don't want to get too far down the rabbit hole where someone gets feelings and the other doesn't. I don't want to waste my time (going on date after date without any butterflies is so exhausting to me). Literally, that all sounds awful.

 

No butterflies, no date 2. That's where I'm at.

 

And if I'm on the fence, sure for another date - but if I'm just meh, I'll be moving on.

 

As I mentioned above, you're entitled to narrow your dating pool as much as you want. At some point depending on your reasons for narrowing it, you might not really be entitled to complain that you are unhappily single. I do like your thought about going on one more date.

 

It's a shame that you need "butterflies" to be motivated to get to know another person for a handful of dates. That's really about you - about your hormones/chemicals, etc - and not about being at least partly focused on getting to know a new person. I don't know - in general I found people interesting and liked hearing their stories. If I was bored/repulsed then sure, no next date- but if it was just a question of no intense chemistry, yet, I gave it at least 4 dates.

[browneyedgirl36]

As I mentioned above, you're entitled to narrow your dating pool as much as you want. At some point depending on your reasons for narrowing it, you might not really be entitled to complain that you are unhappily single. I do like your thought about going on one more date.

 

It's a shame that you need "butterflies" to be motivated to get to know another person for a handful of dates. That's really about you - about your hormones/chemicals, etc - and not about being at least partly focused on getting to know a new person. I don't know - in general I found people interesting and liked hearing their stories. If I was bored/repulsed then sure, no next date- but if it was just a question of no intense chemistry, yet, I gave it at least 4 dates.

 

The only guy I've ever really had intense "butterflies" with was my last ex, and that was a disaster. Sure, there was physical chemistry immediately but that pretty much obscured the fact that we were otherwise pretty profoundly incompatible.

 

I've dated a few guys where there was no physical attraction/chemistry (for me, anyway) at first, and I gave it a few dates and realized it would never happen. I didn't even want to kiss them, so I knew I'd never want to go any further with them. This wasn't just 100% a physical thing, though -- I wasn't intellectually/mentally/emotionally interested enough to keep going, either. If I had been, the physical attraction might have grown over time.

 

With my current boyfriend, I thought he was cute when I first met him -- much more handsome in person than in the picture our mutual friend had showed me -- and on our first meet, I immediately noticed how smart, kind, and hilariously funny he is. I didn't look at him right away and think, "I want to rip off his clothes and pounce on him!" BUT...I DID think, "Wow! This guy seems great! I really hope we go out again so I can get to know him better." After each of our early dates, I felt excited to see him again, and found myself looking forward to what I would learn about him on the next date. We kissed on the 4th date, after spending 14 hours together, including 5 hours over cake and coffee, and I remember thinking, "Yeah, I really like this guy a lot!" I still feel really happy when I know I'm going to see him, and I am very attracted to him. But, those "butterflies" that I had with my ex -- that sort of obsessed feeling I had about him -- aren't there at all. For me, that's a good thing! I feel happy, calm, and comfortable with him. With my ex, yeah, I wanted to pounce on him all the time right away, but....that's pretty much all that was there -- on both sides, I think -- and it wasn't enough to keep things going.

 

Sometimes, that instant lust thing is a red flag. It's often an indicator of drama to come. This has been true for me and a lot of people I know, as well as posters on ENA.

[Batya33]

What's hard is figuring out exactly what the OP means by spark but if she means that overwhelming intense feeling/intense attraction -that "wow!!!!!" - then that has little to do with who the other person really is. I had BEG's approach -if I didn't want to kiss him by the 4th date, I moved on. If I was repulsed/nothing much to say to each other -same thing. But if we had a nice time, things in common, I found him at least pleasant to look at - then, 4 dates.

 

I had a friend in the early 2000s who was in her early 40s at the time and insisted that unless the sex was amazing the first time -and she had sex within the first 3 dates -usually the first - she moved on. She didn't care what the reasons were, she was done. She claimed to really want to marry or at least have an LTR. She's in her mid-late 50s now and I am quite sure she is neither married nor in an LTR.

 

Often it's about the person not really being motivated to put in the effort to meet someone and instead wanting it to be like a car wash -the butterflies wash over you and propel you forward with minimal effort needed to consider much about the person other than that self-absorbed infatuation "in-love" feeling.

[thornz]

I agree -read my previous posts if you prefer -that the spark need not be there on the first date. If it is, sometimes it is based on just sexual chemistry but other times people just sense that they click. I've had the latter a few times - one LTR started that way -I didn't find him particularly attractive but I found him intriguing and kept thinking "he sparkles" -and this was from the inside. Truth is that the attraction part was an on and off issue when we were together but that initial spark was based on who he was as a person that shone through from the beginning.

 

Did the attraction issues contribute to your break up?

 

I didn't have sparkles with my current partner either, there is still no spark or sparkles but that wasn't what I was looking for. I want a team mate in life if I'm ever to settle down.

 

Perhaps I'm a little jaded from past relationships, maybe I would have felt that spark if I wasn't so wary of going head over heels. My reconsidering was down to the knowledge that we both shared many ambitions and hobbies and that on paper we should be very good together, which we are. He treats me very well. I believe we could build a future together and be very happy. It's probably my best relationship to date so far (most were terrible even at this early stage).

[Batya33]

Did the attraction issues contribute to your break up?

 

I didn't have sparkles with my current partner either, there is still no spark or sparkles but that wasn't what I was looking for. I want a team mate in life if I'm ever to settle down.

 

Perhaps I'm a little jaded from past relationships, maybe I would have felt that spark if I wasn't so wary of going head over heels. My reconsidering was down to the knowledge that we both shared many ambitions and hobbies and that on paper we should be very good together, which we are. He treats me very well. I believe we could build a future together and be very happy. It's probably my best relationship to date so far (most were terrible even at this early stage).

 

Yes, I believe they did, and some of the back and forth (well, there was a lot of back and forth) was because of the attraction issue but mostly it was a sense that something was not quite right and that included a possible lack of chemistry if that makes sense. There were other important reasons -like not being able to communicate with him because of our different personalities/level of openness with each other. I did not realize that until months after our last break up.

 

My sense is you are not feeling the spark because you chose someone you primarily feel safe with as opposed to being attracted to and then exploring whether the two of you have what it takes for the long haul. I knew I had to have both - to be at least reasonably excited (sparked!) to be with my partner and reasonably sure that he was my long term partner for marriage. I knew that I would not make it for the long haul without the spark and without feeling secure that during challenging times (like being up half the night with our child and exhausted/cranky) we could revive the spark and were committed to doing so.

 

I was desperate in my early 20s to be married and start a family so, naively, I chose a guy who was right on paper, who I had a lot in common with, and then couldn't understand why I wasn't excited to get engaged (other than the idea of getting engaged/married). We were engaged for 5 days. It was only when I became the right person, later on, and knew that the spark/chemistry was essential, and knew that I wasn't desperate for marriage, that I made better choices.

 

If you are happy in your current relationship and your partner is too, that is all that matters.

 

Hopefully the experiences I shared shed some additional light on what the OP says she needs as far as a spark.

[thornz]

You have this great, big beautiful pre-frontal cortex capable of all kinds of complex reasoning and analysis, and you're going to surrender the future of one of life's most important decisions to your primitive limbic system?

 

Disclaimer: The human limbic system is considered primitive because of when it developed and it's specific functions. There are no person or persons being referred to as primitive by this comment.

 

Exactly my feelings . .

[Batya33]

Exactly my feelings . .

 

Yes and at the same time without chemistry, passion and sexual attraction the relationship is a friendship, not a romantic relationship. Of course friends can marry each other and have happy marriages if both are content with that arrangement. It's not about hinging a life decision on whether there is a spark, it's about including whether there is a spark in evaluating whether the person is someone you would want to marry or have a long term relationship with (in this context, obviously it also applies to whether you want to date the person even casually).

 

And yes, if there is no spark, for me personally (and if someone asked me specifically for advice) I would advise strongly against not marrying the person unless the other person was honestly and sincerely ok with not having a relationship that included that kind of spark. Typically one person feels the spark and the other doesn't, creating an unhealthy imbalance/situation.

[youareworthy]

The guy I had the biggest and most longstanding spark with turned out to be incapable of longterm fidelity.

[Batya33]

The guy I had the biggest and most longstanding spark with turned out to be incapable of longterm fidelity.

 

Yes but I don't think the answer is to be with someone where there is no spark.

[thornz]

Yes, I believe they did, and some of the back and forth (well, there was a lot of back and forth) was because of the attraction issue but mostly it was a sense that something was not quite right and that included a possible lack of chemistry if that makes sense. There were other important reasons -like not being able to communicate with him because of our different personalities/level of openness with each other. I did not realize that until months after our last break up.

 

My sense is you are not feeling the spark because you chose someone you primarily feel safe with as opposed to being attracted to and then exploring whether the two of you have what it takes for the long haul. I knew I had to have both - to be at least reasonably excited (sparked!) to be with my partner and reasonably sure that he was my long term partner for marriage. I knew that I would not make it for the long haul without the spark and without feeling secure that during challenging times (like being up half the night with our child and exhausted/cranky) we could revive the spark and were committed to doing so.

 

I was desperate in my early 20s to be married and start a family so, naively, I chose a guy who was right on paper, who I had a lot in common with, and then couldn't understand why I wasn't excited to get engaged (other than the idea of getting engaged/married). We were engaged for 5 days. It was only when I became the right person, later on, and knew that the spark/chemistry was essential, and knew that I wasn't desperate for marriage, that I made better choices.

 

If you are happy in your current relationship and your partner is too, that is all that matters.

 

Hopefully the experiences I shared shed some additional light on what the OP says she needs as far as a spark.

 

What was the back and forth? Breaking up and getting back together?

 

I picked him because it feels right. I admire and respect him, he is good to me and makes it known I am a priority to him. We have shared interests and goals in life and we work well together. He has all the most important attributes I would seek in a life partner, though I wasn't looking for that I would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to see where it leads. Most importantly for me I can spend a considerable amount of time with him without the need to escape (or throttle him). A very rare luxury for me, I am very intolerant. Sexual compatibility is more important to me than an initial spark. You don't find that out on date 1 (generally).

[thornz]

 

I had a friend in the early 2000s who was in her early 40s at the time and insisted that unless the sex was amazing the first time -and she had sex within the first 3 dates -usually the first - she moved on. She didn't care what the reasons were, she was done. She claimed to really want to marry or at least have an LTR. She's in her mid-late 50s now and I am quite sure she is neither married nor in an LTR.

 

 

Not surprised your friend never settled. Generally speaking i have not enjoyed sex the first few times I sleep with someone new, it gets better (hopefully) after a while. You have to get into what you each like. Poor guys aren't psychic!!!

[thornz]

Yes and at the same time without chemistry, passion and sexual attraction the relationship is a friendship, not a romantic relationship.

 

 

But these things don't always come straight away. How can you be passionate about somebody you just met? Passion is intense, you don't feel that way about somebody on a first date. These things grow over time and can fade over time. I think the OP is going to miss out personally.

[Batya33]

But these things don't always come straight away. How can you be passionate about somebody you just met? Passion is intense, you don't feel that way about somebody on a first date. These things grow over time and can fade over time. I think the OP is going to miss out personally.

 

I could not agree more as I've written in this thread a number of times. I think it can come on a first date, at first sight - why not? But does it have to in order to justify seeing the person again (and again?). No. I have written that the OP is entitled to narrow her dating pool however she chooses.

[Batya33]

What was the back and forth? Breaking up and getting back together?

 

I picked him because it feels right. I admire and respect him, he is good to me and makes it known I am a priority to him. We have shared interests and goals in life and we work well together. He has all the most important attributes I would seek in a life partner, though I wasn't looking for that I would be foolish to pass up the opportunity to see where it leads. Most importantly for me I can spend a considerable amount of time with him without the need to escape (or throttle him). A very rare luxury for me, I am very intolerant. Sexual compatibility is more important to me than an initial spark. You don't find that out on date 1 (generally).

 

Back and forth -yes breaking up and getting back together. I thought you wrote that you have no spark with him, whether initially or otherwise. I see that your relationship works for you and your partner. That is all that matters.

[youareworthy]

Yes but I don't think the answer is to be with someone where there is no spark.

Agree.

 

Spark is essential! It just cannot sway you into ignoring red flags.

[Batya33]

Agree.

 

Spark is essential! It just cannot sway you into ignoring red flags.

 

Wow -very well put - never thought of it in exactly that way and that way drives the point home even better then my old "head in the clouds but feet on the ground".

[fttruks]

The usual. If you're not the tenth of a percent that gives her a spark, you're a creepy stalker.