I see what you are saying, MOL. And yes, I do know within five minutes or sooner whether I’d have sex with a guy or not. But…can’t one be wrong? I mean what if the answer is “Maybe. It depends.”?
But I see what you mean…anyway, I’ll back out here since other people are making more sense than me.
I don’t think she’s saying it’s a waste to spend an evening with someone new. She’s saying it’s probably a waste for her to spend an evening with someone if she’s already determined that she’s not into him.
On preview: MOL has it right. It’s about actively wanting to see the person again, not about wuv twoo wuv.
Most of us?
You, maybe. I’m a 38 year old single mother. Naturally I have a lot to do in terms of work, chores, taking care of my son, etc. I also have a lot of things that I’m interested in, and projects I’d like to do and books to read and so forth and so on. It’s hard to find time to do those things. I do make time to date, however.
So, assume I have a free evening. Actually, I have a free evening tonight. Here are some choices of what I could do:
All of those prospects sound a lot more appealing than spending time with some guy who’s company is merely pleasant. All of the above choices are either genuinely enjoyable to me and/or will pay off later in terms of being able to spend more time or have a better time with people that I genuinely and truly like to spend time with–especially my son! I’d much rather have an hour with my son than an hour on a date that I already know is going to be mediocre.
So what am I going to actually do? Certainly the following:
2. Run the errands
12. Take a shower
11. See my guy
Other than that, who knows?
DC doesn’t have option #11 at the moment, unfortunately. I suppose she doesn’t have option #9 either. But she wants to invest some time in the dating thing tonight.
Does it make more sense for her to go out with Mr. Ho-hum or spend the time on option #10–chatting with a new and interesting person or maybe searching for a new and interesting person?
I think it depends on the setting. I mean, meeting a stranger is different than being introduced to, say, someone within your circle of friends ie a friend-of-a-friend’s hot cousin or something.
It also varies from person to person. I’ve dated a lot of women and had a really good learning experience from this. In my early twenties I was pretty clingy because quite honestly, I was horny as hell. I wanted to get in a relationship and all that sappy stuff, but I simply hadn’t learned what I wanted and more importantly what i DID NOT WANT. The concept of chemistry, to me was just some bullshit excuse women threw because they were too cowardly to be blunt and say “you’re too plain/boring/spazzy/etc”
So I stupidly tried to win over every single woman I went out with, even the ones I honestly thought were uglier than sin or boring as dirt. I got in a couple of relationships that didn’t really go anywhere, but it was a really good learning experience. The concept of chemistry crept into my own evaluation, and like some other posters, sometimes I’d meet someone who seemed nice ‘on paper’ but in person, I just wasn’t feeling it.
I’ve gotten much choosier now, and its made me much more confident.
I’ve never done online dating so I’m not sure if there’s a difference but I can usually tell in one date if there is much zing. I’ve been fooled before so I will usually go on two or three just to make sure I wasn’t missing something. Sometimes people are too nerved up on their first dates to be themselves.
I think this is an excellent approach. I read an article in a magazine I can’t remember where a woman did a coffee meeting with every single guy who communicated with her on her online dating site. Well, every guy that didn’t TyPe LIKe tHIs or give serious weirdo vibes. She said she found a few guys that were really nice and (at the time of the article) was still dating two of them casually that she would have never gone out with in the first place because of their initial contacts.
I could have written this. So many people (not just guys) think sex should be happening at around three dates so many guys really resent you “wasting their time” if you’re not going to put out. Even if I like the guy and am interested in him sexually there’s no way I’m having sex after just three dates, but that’s another thread.
I do think the expectation of sex (or at least physicality really close to sex) keeps me from giving those non-spark guys more than two-ish dates. Dating can be disappointing and frustrating for people (read almost any dating thread here) without dragging it out when I’m just not feeling it. When I was in my early 20s I’d go out on 4 or 5 dates before throwing in the towel, but the older I get the more I just don’t want to waste my time or theirs if it isn’t happening.
It doesn’t even have to be that much. Just repeatedly finding a particular someone on my mind (in a positive way, of course) counts as chemistry to me. If a dude easily blends in with the rest of the background noise of your life and you have to make yourself remember his existence, then there is no spark.
Can’t speak for the OP, but I understand where she’s coming from. For some people, meeting new people over and over again without establishing a true connection to them is about as fun as folding laundry. I think it’s fair to say that they aren’t dating to meet new people; they are dating with the intent of forging something deep and emotionally satisfying with one person who interests them a lot. It’s like going to a restuarant with the expectation that you’ll be served a great, filling one-course meal, but instead getting a variety of dime-sized appetizers that taste only okay and leave you feeling hungry no matter how many you consume.
No. The vagina doesn’t lie.
Oh, sure, not to its owner!
Good thing, too. Just try administering an oath or affirmation.
Out of curiosity, how often do you people have chemistry with online dates? I’ve met 17 guys via okcupid and wasn’t compelled to have more than 2-3 dates with any of them. Is that typical? Seems like this could take forever.
Online dating is different than, say, meeting someone at a neighbor’s backyard barbecue and chatting them up. In that instance, you have the opportunity to see if there’s any sort of attraction beyond “Please pass the potato salad.” If there’s no attraction, you leave the barbecue and never think about it again. If there is, then one or the other of you suggests getting together again. You’ve already established the interest, or you wouldn’t be out on the date.
With the online thing, you don’t get to find out that you have that attraction until you’re already on the date. You spend days or weeks exchanging emails (which is time consuming in and of itself), then phone calls, THEN eventually meeting. OL dating is convenient in some ways (I know all the men are already looking), but is harder in other ways.
I think you’re gonna know yourself better than we do. I sort of assume it’s different for everyone. You may be a “develops gradually” person, you may not be.
Me, the chemistry is either there or it isn’t. I know within the first 5-10 minutes of conversation; mainly because the conversation is easy, and fun, and I’m comfortable and laughing and making jokes.
I once made the mistake of soldiering on to “give the guy a chance” when I didn’t immediately feel anything. I’d been given some truly lousy advice that sometimes “love blossoms over time” so I figured that if he was interested, I should try it and wait for the love to hit me later. And, well, it didn’t, and he got pissed when I finally said “this isn’t working” and it ruined a perfectly good friendship. Aside from the fact that I had to break up with him three times before he finally understood that we weren’t together anymore, after it sank in he started lashing out at me in petty passive-aggressive ways, to the point we have never spoken to each other since.
If I like you I’m not going to kick you out of my orbit even without chemistry, so I can say that it didn’t develop later with anyone else, either.
So for me, personally, it’s not worth it to drag it out if it’s not immediately there. Because I know it won’t be there later, either. Chemistry is a funny thing. There might not be anything “wrong” with the other person, but you can’t manufacture it if it just isn’t there.
At this point, most of the time.
Something’s going wrong. It could be your screening process.
When you see the guy’s picture, do you think to yourself “mmm!” or "I could work with that"or “well, looks don’t matter?” Well, looks do matter. He may not have to be an Adonis, but he should be above your minimum threshhold of non-hideousness. (And if you meet guys without seeing their picture, stop that immediately!)
Do you feel chemistry before the date, or are you hoping that it will happen on the date? 'Cause it’s far more likely that you’ll feel chemistry electronically and then none in person than the other way around.
For another possibility–these are some hard questions, but here goes…
Since chemistry works in both directions: Could it be that some of this lack of chemistry is because they guys aren’t attracted to you once they meet you. If one party is definitely not interested, a lack of chemistry that both parties feel is usually the result.
Why might a guy not be attracted to you in person? Are the pictures you share recent? Do they accurately represent your looks, including your weight? Are you misrepresenting yourself in any way on your profile? Is there something that you are being honest about but could be misunderstood as a misrepresentation?
How do you dress and present yourself on a date? Do you wear pretty feminine clothes and nice shoes? Do you wear makeup and do something with your hair? Do you schlep your regular humongous black hole of a pocketbook or use a smaller “going-out” bag? Is there anything about you that might suggest that your hygiene is not up to snuff?
I know a lot of you are thinking “oh, I never wear makeup” or “I only wear jeans and sneakers” or whatever, but a first date is like a job interview. It’s not about any particular thing. It’s about presenting the whole package. It’s about showing a guy that you’re confident in your own sexuality. Some guys dislike any makeup and some dislike a woman in heels, but most of the time, most guys react positively to markers of femininity. Yes, you should be yourself, but maybe some people should consider expanding their definition of what “themself” is.
A couple of times on this board, I’ve seem the same people who assert that they never wear makeup, style their hair, wear skirts, etc. complain about guys they’ve met online not being interested in them. Well, put on some lipstick and a dress, then!
(Yep, I’ll bet I’ll get flamed for this stuff. Oh well.)
I won’t flame you, but I will disagree, and I’ll also kind of agree a little. Ladies, contrary to what some of you may think, you are not compromising your integrity, nor are you single-handedly bringing down feminism by wearing a cute top on a date. Look pretty. It’s okay! I swear! That said, I’m pretty good at dressing down and looking plain on first dates. The way I see it is if they don’t like me with my hair pulled back, wearing a tee shirt with a punchline on it, they’re probably not going to like me very much. I’m kind of a tom boy. My date needs to like tom boys. This works pretty well for me. Then again, I’m a pretty forward person, and by the time a boy asks me out, he’s knows what he’s getting into, and would probably be surprised if I showed up to our date in heels wearing a bunch of make up.
MOL–I realize that I didn’t make this clear enough, but my comments were directed ONLY towards women who find that they’re consistently getting poor results on first dates with guys they met online but still insisting on not gussying themselves up.
So what I said doesn’t apply to anyone who’s particular presentation is working for them.
Heh. That’s exactly what I was getting at. 
Nope, hasn’t been much electronic chemistry. I do stick to guys that are decent looking and seem to have some interests & values in common with me. After that I just try to keep a conversation going.
I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with telling women to dress up a bit for dates.
Oh great. Now I want foie gras and dried dates, with a touch of balsamic and fleur de sel.
I’m not ragging on online dating, I think it’s a great tool, but I do wonder how my perception of ‘chemistry’ changes depending on circumstance. In my mind chemistry is something that happens in small doses, with someone you run into at parties, work with or see around town. There’s a tingle and you like seeing them. I’m no romantic, but having already screened your date, I do wonder if a first date that’s been set up online is a great environment for sparks. As others said, I think the best it can do for many people is rule out whether you definitely *don’t *mesh.
Then I gots nothing.
Sorry for suggesting that you might be a hideous smelly liar who wears stretch pants and bedroom slippers on a date. 
Green Bean - how flirty are the e-mail and IM interactions?
I feel like there’s a chicken and egg problem here - some good flirting could make chemistry, but I don’t really want to flirt with anyone until there’s chemistry in the first place.
Well, my answer to that might not be relevant to you.
Yes, the emails and IMs can be pretty flirty, but not always. The part that makes my approach different from many people’s is that sexual compatibility is of the utmost importance to me. So before I meet someone, I make sure that we’re on the same page sexually. Which means that the flirtiness is interrupted by a frank talk about bedroom habits. Some guys make certain assumptions about me because of this, but they’re easy enough to weed out.
I hear you on the chicken and egg thing. I think your best bet would be to start some mild flirting in the IM stage and see how it goes.
Coming at this from pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum from Green Bean - which is to say not much in the way of online dating battlefield experience, though I’ve dabbled, and speaking as a male - I would say don’t try to force things that way. You won’t be comfortable, you won’t seem comfortable, and it will by definition be unnatural. Be flirty when you feel at least a little bit like it. For what it’s worth, nothing in the pre-face to face communication I ever had online included anything but perfunctory “are you insane or not” butt-sniffing; far from flirting. And I’m kind of a schmuck, which flirting with me wouldn’t make me into not a schmuck.
Also, I don’t think there’s anything particularly striking about the 0-for-17, especially if you mean by that that you’ve accepted 17 people into the sort of initial phase of the process, and not that you’ve had meaningful extended interactions with 17 people. Most of us are in the end schmucks. If you don’t feel like flirting that’s not terribly surprising and I feel like it’s well within the realm of plausibility that you just aren’t liking the ones you’ve found. Who’s to say that you ought to want to date at least one out of every 17 people that come along, even if they are filtered beforehand by which side of the bed they like to sleep on, or whatever? Especially if you’re in the Happy Valley I know.