What do you prefer in a partner when dating - attraction and chemistry or someone who knows how to be in a healthy relationship and is self aware

[FineStrawberry]

I have often realised and also see from a lot of dating advice/relationship advice from psychologist pages that chemistry and attraction is a signal that the partner feels familiar to your relationships in your past (with parents), so if that was unhealthy then you're subconsciously attracted to someone that feels the same, because we are looking for a different ending. I have also experienced that whenever I have felt intense chemistry/passion in the beginning, the relationship has been extremely toxic. There are people I go on dates on now that feel mature, stable and secure, and seem to know how to communicate well but I don't feel the same chemistry/passionate feelings with them. What would you give priority to? Attraction/passion/chemistry or a healthy secure partner (that might feel boring at times)?

[Wiseman2]

Unfortunately both seem like settling  rather than carefully selecting. Neither boring nor toxic seems like a good idea to pursue.

[TheCrow]

26 minutes ago, FineStrawberry said:

I have often realised and also see from a lot of dating advice/relationship advice from psychologist pages that chemistry and attraction is a signal that the partner feels familiar to your relationships in your past (with parents), so if that was unhealthy then you're subconsciously attracted to someone that feels the same, because we are looking for a different ending. I have also experienced that whenever I have felt intense chemistry/passion in the beginning, the relationship has been extremely toxic. There are people I go on dates on now that feel mature, stable and secure, and seem to know how to communicate well but I don't feel the same chemistry/passionate feelings with them. What would you give priority to? Attraction/passion/chemistry or a healthy secure partner (that might feel boring at times)?

If I don't feel hugely physically attracted to a man I don't care how healthy or secure he is, I won't proceed to find out about it. I need to feel that initial mad rush of lust and stomach-flipping desire to want to find out who he is as a person. 

[Kwothe28]

It depends on a person. I always, even as a younger, prefered more stable women then some "10/10" fancy women. Where I would feel just blind attraction but nothing else. I mean sure those women I did go out were pretty to me but never look at them as "wow" nore required them to be. To me other stuff was way more important. For example school or what they are passionate about. For example one woman I have been dating before told me on first date how she quit smoking for good and her ways of dealing with people. I thought that showed character and maturity. 

In contrast I had a best friend. She alienated herself from all of us as friends now. Anyway, she was never that pretty, guess she is OK in looks department. But she always just looked at pretty guys. So in contrast her love life reflected that. One of them had a kid while he was in high school. Cheated on my friend while he was in college. Other was local pretty boy. Guess what happened there? She spiralled a lot, never finished college even though she was an honor student her whole life and started working basic jobs. At the end she found 10 year younger guy. Pretty guy and inexperienced and she could dictate everything. But she left him at the end as he got matured and wanted more from life. So now she went to other town and found some guy there. Pretty no doubt about it. But given her relationships past, kinda doubt about the quality. 

Anyway, what I am trying to say is that beauty can take you just so far. Aside of "feeling butterflies", if you want a secure relationship, you would have to look at other stuff as well. 

[Batya33]

To me it never worked to try to analyze it in that way.  I knew what I needed for an LTR was to be reasonably sure that the person was right for me and reasonably excited to be with the person -combo of head and heart -meaning I accepted that passion and chemistry and attraction can strengthen and wane and I accepted that certain non-core shaking doubts are reasonable especially when making a huge forever-type decision whether that's marriage or some form of long term commitment - but to me it's friendship caught on fire basically.  

(Oh and that whole psychobabble stuff about "why" you are attracted might be true -had no relevance to me because -others can disagree -when you feel that earth shattering passion with someone who the heck cares why - unless it's because of something really unhealthy -meaning if you are a person with real issues and you only feel chemistry with people who are totally inappropriate to pursue - then the why matters but I've never heard someone come home from a great date and say "when we kissed it was like magic and then I told him it's because you have that same expression my dad did when he laughed at a joke")

Whenever I felt the need to list pros/cons about a particular person it meant I was trying to convince myself to be with the person and likely settling.  By contrast -with specific situations I do that and it helps my love and commitment.  For example if my husband does something that irritates and annoys me I might not tell him because in my head I list pros/cons like "ok he promised to have our son do the thank you notes/promised to arrange the get together with the parent/fill out those darn school trip forms and he didn't again and now I have to remind him again and I hate doing that!!!" 

But..... he [I list all the things he does do and has done and is reliable about].  I do that pros/cons first and then I figure out how to approach the irritating situation whether it means I let it go, partly let it go with a much gentler approach, or plan to let it go till X time to see if he actually does the thing.  In that way I think pros/cons of being with a person works quite well. But not the foundational part for me. 

Some people can compartmentalize "ok if I meet my best friend but I have to hold my nose to kiss him or if kissing him is just not the same as it was with my ex that's ok because ex was a jerk and wasn't a true friend and it's hard to find a best friend to marry."  One of my best friends did that -she told herself and all of us she was so in love with her new boyfriend. 

They married 8 months later. He was at that time a good guy.  And she was desperate to be a married mom.  She convinced herself she was in love.  She convinced herself that she felt enough chemistry.  But really she was in love with the idea of finishing her search for a husband. Of being a SAHM which he was on board with. 

She was able to choose this situation by compartmentalizing and it worked ok for about 15-20 years.  Often it was totally awful.  She told me later she lied to herself.  I was actually so jealous of her because it seemed so easy -her analysis, her decision.  It wasn't so easy 20 years later with 2 of her 4 kids still living at home and she had no $ to her name.  

Give priority to both and ask yourself -is it really chemistry you feel or the thrill of the chase -of winning over an unavailable hot looking man? Do not settle unless both of you are and both of you are cool with that -if both of you want to marry your best friend, you each don't care either way about how good your sex life is - and there's complete openness about this marriage not being a passionate match.  I've never met anyone like that -no couples where unless it was an arranged marriage -they both wanted that.  But maybe they exist?

Also it's so very unfair to tell yourself that you can only feel chemistry with a bad boy/unavailable man - that's on you to get to the core of why that is.  I remember those exciting feelings with bad boys.  I get it.  But the answer is not to throw away the chemistry requirement and settle for best friend who treats me well.  IMO.

 

[Seraphim]

Ideally, both things matter . 

[Lambert]

4 hours ago, FineStrawberry said:

I have also experienced that whenever I have felt intense chemistry/passion in the beginning, the relationship has been extremely toxic

I don't think these are connected, but super attraction to someone can cause a tendency to ignore red flags.

as others have stated I think both are important.  It's a balance. Attraction and chemistry is needed because without it, that's a friendship kind of love. However, if the relationship isn't healthy, one or both people won't be happy either. 

Many people settle on one area of the other. It's a choice.

So option three- If I can't have both, I stay single.  Both are that important to me.  

[Andrina]

You normally have to date a boatload of prospects to find one that meets ALL of your main needs. Not impossible, but often not easy. It's a lot of work. The trick is to cut the losers loose as soon as you see a dealbreaker, so you can be free to continue your search. 

If you're lugging emotional baggage into relationships, you shouldn't be dating until ridding yourself of it.

People who possess a healthy self-worth and have a fulfilling life solo besides dating tend to have better luck in attracting the right partner.

[catfeeder]

I don't think of too many things in terms of black/white, either/or.

While I wouldn't date anyone I found boring, I don't tend to go bonkers with lust right off the bat. I can sense 'potential' for attraction, but I need to get to know a person over time because intelligence and humor are important to me.

If you lose yourself in instant lust, chances are your overall judgment and ability to spot red flags of toxicity might be impaired.

So why not hold out for a combo plate of attraction AND respect for someone who has their life together? 

[Cherylyn]

I'm thinking back to my early dating months with my husband,  our engagement the following year and marriage the following year;  all in our early 20's.   We had a brief courtship. 

We had the spark, chemistry and attraction.  As for me,  in my mind,  I was marriage minded.   I wasn't about to waste my time,  energy and resources just remaining as "the girlfriend."  

I cut through chemistry.  I zeroed in on what really mattered and to me.  It was personality and character.   I wanted an empathetic man who was kind and respectful to everyone.  I've also noticed that he's a generous tipper and I once asked him, "Why?"  He said,  "It's because waiters or waitresses tend to be starving students or single parents.  That's why."  I knew I had a winner.   It also didn't hurt he's tall, strong,  possesses an intelligent sense of random humor,  has a great career and can help provide a very economically comfortable marriage and family life.  He treats us very well.  We have a peaceful,  very stable life.  He picks up the slack and helps with anything.  We have two sons.  My husband is reminiscent of his father,  very responsible type and a stalwart.   He's a real man's man.  

 

[Jibralta]

On 4/6/2023 at 6:14 AM, Kwothe28 said:

I always, even as a younger, prefered more stable women then some "10/10" fancy women. Where I would feel just blind attraction but nothing else.

I was (am) similar. Not that 10/10 guys can't be stable. Of course they can. But I have dated for looks alone and it's unrewarding. I need more than that.

[Batya33]

1 hour ago, Jibralta said:

I was (am) similar. Not that 10/10 guys can't be stable. Of course they can. But I have dated for looks alone and it's unrewarding. I need more than that.

I went on dates with hot looking men because of the arm candy appeal many years ago but I didn't always have chemistry with them -for me chemistry wasn't really about objectively hot looking.

[Jibralta]

37 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

for me chemistry wasn't really about objectively hot looking.

I feel the same way.

[smackie9]

This is why we date....to learn about our choices, what we want, and figure out our expectations, what we learn from our mistakes, etc. After awhile you learn to see right past the attraction/chemistry part and look for what is in your best interest, instead of throwing caution into the wind.

[greendots]

Attraction, I feel, is very important in the sense that you're intrigued by that person romantically and desire to get to know them better. Like a beautiful book cover that catches your eye and now you'd like to know its content.

Ultimately, for me at the end of the day, it's all about having a compatible lifestyle and similar values. Plus, being able to accept the other person as is (flaws and all). Other relevant things: how he deals with challenges, whether he's a team player and if he's eager to learn as well as grow as a person. Stuff that you learn about someone over time.

[Batya33]

4 hours ago, smackie9 said:

This is why we date....to learn about our choices, what we want, and figure out our expectations, what we learn from our mistakes, etc. After awhile you learn to see right past the attraction/chemistry part and look for what is in your best interest, instead of throwing caution into the wind.

I am not a fan in my life of looking past the attraction or chemistry part as if that is something that's deceiving.  I think it's all part of a whole that makes up a romantic relationship.  To me attraction and chemistry were just as much in my best interest as any other aspect of my potential marriage - for one thing it's often the glue that holds thing together during hard times -meaning hard times from external or internal factors.  

I do think people should get to know each other over a period of time so that they can see if they were just infatuated (and of course needy people don't really need attraction or chemistry to latch on to an insta-relationship -they tell themselves that the person giving them attention will do just fine/they're "so nice" and showering them with compliments and cuddles and it sure beats being "alone), if they were reacting to fear of being alone, and if the person's actions match their words.

Also if a person is regularly attracted to a person who is unavailable or a challenge in a bad way then that is the issue -not the attraction or chemistry but needing the thrill of the chase of someone unavailable to feel attracted.  

I never dated men who said "friends first" when it meant that they had typically jumped into bed on the first date then chosen to get attached and hang around for good sex.  I had enough friends. I wanted to date someone who wanted to get to know the whole me and not compartmentalize as if sexual intimacy was somehow "bad".

I liked seeing sex and affection and intimacy positively -as part of a romantic relationship and happening when it made sense - meaning if waiting meant you lessened the risk of getting emotionally attached too soon, or meant you lessened the risk of bailing because the first time wasn't "amazing" or if they wanted to stay true to values that weren't consistent with casual sex - then the couple got to know each other while kissing, being affectionate, sexual -and waiting to have intercourse.

I think it's magical when two people feel chemistry and attraction -it's to be celebrated not looked past.  That's just me!!