Okay, I signed up for one of those online dating sites. I thought it would be an efficient way to meet eligible men (that is, I meet lots of men every day, but it seems that most of them are married or otherwise attached).
So, the site matches me up with men who (whom?) I am supposedly compatible with. We read about each other, exchange Q&A, send some emails, yada yada yada, and then we arrange to meet for coffee or a drink or dinner. And then…
I’ve met some very sweet, very nice men, and spent an enjoyable evening or two or three; and even though there is nothing WRONG with them, there’s no…chemistry. No attraction, no particular desire to see them again. It’s kind of like if you went to a PTA meeting and had a conversation with one of the other parents; pleasant conversation, but then you go your separate ways.
Generally speaking, the majority of the men I’ve gone out with have been interested in pursuing a relationship farther than I am. But I feel like I’m wasting their time and mine, when I don’t really feel the attraction. I’ve got another “first date” with one man and a “second date” with another man coming up in the next week or so.
So my question is, is two or three dates enough to tell if there is an attraction? Am I expecting too much, too soon, and should I give them more time? Ladies, how much time does it take for you to know you are interested? And Men, if a woman went out with you four, five times and then said she wasn’t interested, do you think you were treated unfairly?
To the latter part: not if you genuinely didn’t know, and didn’t really do anything to make me think you did. As long as we were still in casual territory, if’s fine.
I’ve had this discussion with friends many times. Realistically, we generally agree that we can tell within a few minutes whether we have chemistry, but unless he does something that really turns us off, we’ll go out with him twice just to make sure. A few times, I’ve gone out with a guy three times because he’s one of those “looks good on paper” types who it seems like I should have chemistry with, but I just don’t. The limit for me is about five dates; at that point, men want it to go further, i.e., sex or at least making out, and if I don’t have chemistry with someone I don’t want to go there.
But I can tell within a few minutes whether the guy is someone I want to be close to physically, someone I want to kiss. Lest that sound too looks-centric, I assure you that I am interested in way more than that–the last guy I dated, for example, was short, bald, and paunchy, but he was so smart and funny and charming that I fell for him.
For me, it’s one date to tell whether we have chemistry or not. For compatability, and deciding whether it’s worth pursuing, I’d say three dates.
As kapri said, it really only takes a few minutes to know whether there’s chemistry or not. Chemistry isn’t everything, but it is a huge part of dating.
Now, I’m supposed to have a first date with a guy tomorrow night. We’ve talked on the phone but this our first face-to-face. He suggested we meet at a local restaurant. Didn’t specifically say, “for dinner”, but that seems to be implied. Seems promising, but again, I don’t know if there will be chemistry.
Usually I suggest that we meet for a drink; that way, neither of us is obligated to stay for very long (although, usually that drink stretches out to two or three hours). Do I let him pay for dinner? It seems that the guy is expected to pay, but I hate to have him spend $100 on a dinner if there is no chemistry.
Do I suggest that we sit at the bar for a while, and then if we both want to stay for dinner, do so? I hear about so many guys saying that women soak them for free dinners. But I feel like if I say, “Well, let’s see if you want to stay for dinner first”, that shows a lack of self-confidence on my part. But I truly don’t want to make him feel obligated if he’s not interested, or feel used if I’m not interested. This place is not cheap, but he can afford it; but I’m sure if men go out on three or four “first” dates a month, this can get expensive.
Just as an alternative viewpoint, I didn’t have chemistry with my husband the first time I met him, which was a blind date. We got on well, but it took about 3 or 4 dates before I felt really attracted to him in that physical way. We moved in together four months later and married 2 years after that, so it moved pretty quickly once we did have chemistry.
So I would say that it really depends. If you like the person on the first date, I wouldn’t write them off too soon. You may waste more time that way, but maybe better that, than writing off a future spouse…
If you’re worried about dinner being too costly for him, you may want to insist on a more low key setting for a first date. If you do two dates, you might let him pay for the first and then make sure you pay for the second one.
Isn’t dinner a not-very-good early date idea? I’ve noticed while having lunch with a friend that even if I get along with him quite well and share many of the same interests, there are lulls in our conversation. If even friends have lulls, it’s unrealistic to expect two strangers not to, especially if they go to an expensive restaurant where the meal will last 45-90 minutes. But when silences happen on dates, they often feel awkward, which isn’t what you want to feel during a date.
I’ve taken to making those first meetings “meetings”, not dates. So a coffee, a drink, maybe a quick lunch- but that’s the limit. If you don’t call that first meeting a date, there seems to be much less pressure. I’ve found that a lot of men view it as a date if they’re paying, too- so go dutch. If we hit it off at the meeting, then I’ll set up a date.
As for chemistry, I’ve found that for the most part, I can tell within one or two dates. But there are occasional times when a guy will get much more attractive to me after I’ve gotten to know him.
I had a first date last night via a dating site - it went very well, and there was definite chemistry (it helped that she’s incredibly cute). I’ve always based chemistry off of one date, compatibility off of two or three. I happily pick up the tab on the first date - I have very good chemistry with just about everyone, so it’s always time well spent. It also assures me of a very good chance at a second date, where we usually split the tab. Last night she offered to pick up the tab at our second date, which she brought up and arranged there on the spot.
So no - you’re not off-base in thinking that you can pick up on chemistry quickly. That’s what chemistry is. You can also judge a fair bit about compatibility, but that’s going to be a tad more time-intensive as various nuances get ironed out. But if you see he’s a messy or picky eater, and that’s a real turn off for you, that could be a big part of your decision process.
As for dinner v. drinks - I rarely do dinner. But we had talked quite a bit about restaurants and adventurous eating, so dinner it was. (It’s quite amusing to watch a tiny 5’1" woman attack a house salad, bowl of soup, then a scottish burger that’s 8" in diameter.)
You’re giving up on people after one date? Nice, attractive men? No wonder men say women are too picky.
Obviously I disagree with most of the other posters. I don’t really believe in this nebulous thing called “chemistry” either. I mean, I should say, sometimes it happens, but it’s not the end-all be-all and I think maybe you might be passing up perfectly good men because you don’t feel some kind of “sopark”.
If I were single, I’d bring a girl to somewhere that had a pinball machine. If she loved it, I’d marry her. Can you tell I want a pinball machine at home but I’m not “allowed” because of too many other responsibilities?
Twenty years ago I married a perfectly good man that I didn’t feel any spark with, and grew to hate his perfectly good guts within three years. It’s a must, that spark.
I’d give a guy a couple of chances before making the call. I had a lot of physical attraction with MrWhatsit when we first met, but conversationally, he was a dud. I met up with him a second time mostly because I thought he was hot, and that time we really hit it off and sparked with each other. (It turns out that during our first meeting, he had just decided to quit grad school, so all he could think/talk about was his failed thesis project, which was on frankly a really boring topic.)
But yeah, if there’s no zing, I wouldn’t continue to date a guy. Life’s too short. The idea that you should keep dating someone that you’re not really into just because technically there’s no reason that you shouldn’t be into them, seems weird to me.
For me, I can sort a guy into “yes,” “no,” or “maybe” within a couple of seconds. “Maybe” is not a common designation, but I usually can resolve it to yes or no within a half-hour or so. If he remains a maybe, I might go on a second date but probably not.
I think it depends on the individual. For some people, it does indeed take a little while. You need to look to your own past experience to see what type you are.
DC, if I may speculate as to what’s going on with you:
At this point, you’re choosing who to meet more on the basis of “there’s nothing wrong with them” than on the basis of what’s right with them. That’s actually a great approach to take when you’re just getting into the online dating process. It’s good to get out there and meet new people and see what you like. And you get lots of valuable experience in first dates. That pays off big-time when you find someone that you actually do have chemistry with. The dating stuff becomes a lot less confusing with experience.
Since you’re getting annoyed with the current situation and you clearly are getting lots of interest from men, it’s time to be more selective.
In the wake of my separation, I met dozens of men from online sites, largely because I was still living with my ex and wanted to get the heck out of the house! Plus, I needed to figure out what it was that I was looking for. I knew I wasn’t looking for a relationship or exclusivity, but I didn’t know what kind of guy I wanted a casual thing with. I tended to give guys the benefit of the doubt and meet them if they seemed all right.
Over time, that got annoying, but I found I was getting better and better results in terms of meeting men I liked and that were suitable for the kind of non-exclusive casual relationship that I was looking for. There were some practices that I found led to those better results. So I decided to try making them into rules for myself. And I still follow them pretty strictly. I think they’d work for anyone, regardless of what kind of thing they want from the online dating process.
I go like this: Email–>IM–>Phone–>Meet. I don’t skip any steps. How many times or how long each stage goes on varies on a case-by-case basis, but I try to meet sooner than later because in-person chemistry is essential.
Here’s why it works: YMMV of course, but I have found the following to consistently hold true: If they’re boring on email, they’ll be boring on IM. If they’re boring on IM, they’ll be boring on the phone. If they’re boring on the phone, they’ll be boring in person. I give some latitude on the email thing because it’s such a static medium. And some awkwardness on the phone isn’t a problem. I have to WANT to move to the next step. Anybody that I’ve ever said, “yeah, he seems okay, I’ll go to the next step” has been a dud.
If you do decide to meet someone that you only find “okay,” that’s fine, but at least know why you’re doing it and what you’re likely to find.
Oh, and try another site that allows people to contact each other freely. Last time I checked, OKCupid will send you suggested matches but you can email anyone you want and vice versa, and you don’t have to go through their process to escalate contact.
Again, it completely depends on the individual. I either feel the chemistry right away or I don’t feel it at all. And if I don’t feel the spark, I’m simply not going to be into the guy. End of story. A guy with whom I feel no chemistry might be “perfectly good” for someone else, but he’s not perfectly good for me.
In my opinion, two or three dates is more than enough time to tell if there is an attraction. I think that one date is enough. I find that first impressions and instincts should not be ignored. When I have ignored them, the relationships haven’t worked out for reasons which were apparent on the first date.
If a woman went out with me four or five times and then said she wasn’t interested, I might feel like I was treated unfairly. A lot depends on what my expectations were and how far apart the dates were. If the dates were light and it was clear that neither side was looking for anything serious, no harm done. On the other hand, if I was under the assumption that we both wanted something serious only to be spurned 6 weeks into dating due to lack of chemistry this would be a different story.
I know if I want to sleep with a person in less than one date, and if the answer to that question is yes, I’ll stick around long enough to find out if there’s chemistry.
I agree that chemistry usually takes a very short time; I would add that if there is no particular reason to not see a guy again (no deal-breakers, no real turn-offs), I’d give it at least a second date. People aren’t always completely themselves on a first date/meet-and-greet; you don’t want to pass on a shy guy because he doesn’t talk much on the first date; shy guys can be a super catch.
