24 Responses

• heretoday on November 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

  Well, that was obvious, but then again, it’s true. Chemistry of some sort, and we’re talking lasting, not immediate, is important in a relationship.Words to live by.

• mollyL on November 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  Without chemistry, how can we make a relationship? I think she should have emphasized the other bits more, I think, though.

• Taggart on November 17th, 2009 at 5:29 am

  It reminds me that so many successful couples seem to see each other as best friends. I think that’s a very telling part of the chemistry that works.

• chris1203 on November 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am

  I agree. Chemistry is extremely important in a relationship–the long lasting kind of chemisty–though few of us know where such chemistry COMES from.

• justontime on November 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  Chemistry can not be underestimated, sometimes you meet a couple who are totally different and you would never have expected a relationship to work, but there is an amazing chemistry between them and it just works. It is either there or it isn’t, you can’t create it.

• Taggart on November 18th, 2009 at 5:21 am

  Considering that we change over the years, I guess it’s possible that two people’s chemistry could be incompatible at different times of meeting. Hopefully once they’ve connected, they grow together and closer, even as they change.

• justontime on November 18th, 2009 at 8:33 am

  I think in relationship terms it is sometimes the chemistry that gets you through when you have disagreements and differences.

• mollyL on November 25th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

  Yes, the chemistry we have throughout ourselves is much more than pheromones. We need to make sure that the resultant chemical reactions we set off in each other are the good kind and not the bad.

• T on December 5th, 2009 at 3:29 am

  If the chemistry is not there, the relationship will not be there either.

• Taggart on January 19th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

  Of the people I’ve met who’ve been the most significant in my romantic life, when I met them, looking back, there was a spark of interest that grew fairly quickly.

  But there wasn’t the head-turning “wow factor” of a conventional gorgeous cover model or something like that. I don’t even remember those.

• deltic on January 20th, 2010 at 7:37 am

  That is my experience too Taggart. I would say there was some chemistry there but I couldn’t really explain what it was.

• Taggart on January 20th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  In my experiences, I think I almost did a second take upon meeting the person, without realizing the implication at the time.

  The two people I’m thinking of were also born on the same calendar day, not that I pay a lot of attention to that.

• stav on January 20th, 2010 at 5:04 pm

  We humans carry our own ‘meta tags’ a subconcious set of indicators that arouse our interest when we come across a ‘compatible’ other.. Your body and mind make this connection instantly before you’ve even conciously noticed the person. This is the chemistry that first draws us and then keeps us connected.

• deltic on January 21st, 2010 at 3:09 am

  Stav that is a good way of explaining it. What I find odd is that I know exactly the type I find attractive, dark hair dark eyes etc yet when choosing/finding a life partner he didn’t fit that image at all. There was certainly chemistry and the marriage worked.

• chris1203 on January 21st, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  I think that chemistry is undefinable but we know when we feel it. I think that chemistry is what attracts us to our friends and lovers in the first place, but it takes more that than to KEEP us together.

• stav on January 21st, 2010 at 3:20 pm

  Funny enough Deltic, that’s exactly what happened to me.. Supposedly I loved tall blonde rugged men.. not too good looking.. I married a short dark devastatingly handsome Greek instead..

• Taggart on January 21st, 2010 at 6:19 pm

  Stav, your description reminds me of the cover of romance novels… Just kidding…

  I don’t think my typically ideal person had a specific color of hair or eyes, but I think self confidence and a sense of humour were always very attractive to me.

• stav on February 10th, 2010 at 10:40 am

  LOL! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Taggart.. he is good looking to me, though someone else may not think so. Again it comes back to that ‘chemistry’.

  As for romance novels… YUK!

• justontime on February 10th, 2010 at 5:11 pm

  I was interested in Deltic’s comment and Srav’s response. I think it is because when we choose a life partner we base it on so much more than looks. Looks fade but the person on the inside is what really matters. My husband has blue eyes and fairly light hair but I find ‘my type’ would be dark haired with dark brown eyes.

• stav on February 11th, 2010 at 4:48 pm

  Once again coming back to that ‘chemistry’ thing justontime.

  If aske we can all give a pretty distinct description of what we supposedly find most attractive, et life partners rarely seem to fit that ‘ideal’.

• justontime on February 13th, 2010 at 4:44 am

  I guess that is true Stav. In the real world it isn’t just about looks, in fact looks are fairly unimportant when choosing a life partner. Honesty, kindness, humour, reliability and so many other things are much more important.

• debrajean on February 21st, 2010 at 3:51 am

  Chemistry is important in every relationship. Having all three is the ideal, but many make it work with only one or two.

• stav on February 21st, 2010 at 11:40 am

  It is always something indefineable tat finally attracts us to the person we are meant to be with.

• justontime on February 21st, 2010 at 5:38 pm

  Even if the chemistry feels right, take your time. What you see as attractive at first may be irritating in a long term partner.