Understanding Social Chemistry
This is a picture of me 10 minutes before I left the house for my date on Friday night. (No, it never occurred to me to take the picture vertically so that you would be able to see more of the dress; but, yes, now that I think about it, that would have made sense.) Anyway, so, if you wanna hear the play-by-play of my date with Simon, check me out at Nerve.com [slightly NSFW]. Okay, so, back to the FBC. If you’ve been to my blog before, you already know that Mondays are reserved for manly topics: “Manly Monday”. Sometimes there’s a profile of a specific man (e.g. that reader who sent me a picture of his penis). Sometimes it’s a question about the bedicked persons of the earth in general (e.g. Should balding men shave it or save it?). Today’s topic is more like the latter; it’s a general question about “chemistry.”
In the physical world, “chemistry” explains how elements combine, behave and relate to one another. In the social world, “chemistry” explains how *individuals* combine, behave and relate to one another. I don’t believe in love at first sight, but I do believe in chemistry. I have an uncanny ability to read people. (Maybe it’s my natural inclination, the degrees in Sociology, or some combination of both.) At any rate, within five minutes of meeting a date for the first time, I can usually tell whether or not I’m going to like him. And, most of the times, I can also predict why the relationship won’t last. More on that some other day, for today I wanna stick with the topic of chemistry.
My friend Paz has the most interesting definitions of chemistry that I’ve ever heard. She warns that, in dating, people usually click with instant chemistry for one reason: each person sees their own “issues” in the other person. According to Paz, people instantly click because (subconsciously) they recognize that the other person is dealing with a familiar issue. For example, emotionally unavailable people usually have chemistry with other emotionally unavailable people because it means that neither one of them will challenge the other to be emotionally available.
In some respects, I agree with Paz wholeheartedly. But, her theory of chemistry makes me slightly uncomfortable because it makes chemistry seem pathological — a bad thing, a pattern that needs to be corrected. I think chemistry *can* be that (i.e. abused women who habitually have chemistry with abusive men), but I think that chemistry is also a good thing. Is it possible that chemistry is just the opposite of what Paz said? We’re all works in progress. Everyone is flawed. So, then, is it possible that “chemistry” is the ability to instantly recognize in another person beautiful imperfections that nicely compliment your own (i.e. introverted guys who have chemistry with extroverted women)? I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on chemistry — especially the guys out there. However, anyone (male, female or other) who’d like to use the comments section below to share their thoughts on “chemistry” is welcome to do so.
May 21st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
You know, I never really use the word chemistry to explain my attraction for someone, but I do equate it with “being on the same wavelength” or “he/she gets me”. Weirdly, the people I had the most chemistry with ended up being good friends, not lovers. My lovers usually compliment my personality: (his strong silent type to my social butterfly, his businessman to my artist, etc.). As for my friends, I usually seek out the familiar. Take one of my guy friends I used to work with. We had everything in common: same music taste, theories on life, we even had a nice emotional bond. So why didn’t we ever get together? He’s a gay vegan, I’m a straight meat-eater :)
May 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Thanks Stolie, I don’t know how or why but now I have ‘Chemistry’ by Semisonic running through my head:P. I generally tend to relate better with people I have things in common with; similar taste in music or movies or books type thing. It’s just easier to get conversing that way.
On a completely different note, I *LOVE* your dress! Any chance of it being sold over on this side of the pond?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
That dress is HOT! I can’t wait to read about the date on Nerve.
I always thought that chemistry was more about pheromones and attraction that isn’t related to how you get along emotionally with a person. Hopefully you find someone with whom you have both great chemistry and an emotional connection. Chemistry without a connection would make a good fuck-buddy, I think.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:18 pm
hey gal. i kinda like people who i don’t click with at first. oh sure, i can blab with a kindred soul, get on like a house on fire, even sleep with them. but the long, drawn out silences at the beginning often suggest something deeper is stirring, something profound, something neither of us is likely to admit to. when someone makes me go quiet, i tend to think something real is happening.
of course ‘real’ isn’t to everyone’s taste. oddly enough they end up annoying me. they get under my skin. but after i go away and think about it for awhile, i kind of go ‘huh, what was that about?’ vive la difference, n’est ce pas?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:47 pm
With the exception of my best friend in the States, all of my long-term ‘best friends’ were people I could not stand at first, probably because they ‘got’ me before I got them, or just because they called me on it when I was BS-ing…
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:23 am
sexpotdonna: Wait a minute … First you tell me you’re straight, then you tell me you’re a meat-eater???? You never told me any of this before!!! I feel as if our entire relationships has been one great big lie. It’s like McGreevey in reverse!!! ;-)
Darwin: In friendships, I completely agree with your sentiment: “I generally tend to relate better with people I have things in common with.” In dating, I tend to seek out my opposite. Thanks for the compliment on the dress, BTW!!!
MamaChristy: GOOD observation. And, that is sooooo true. What a PERFECT definition of a fuck-buddy: chemistry without an emotional connection. I should write a post about fuck buddies again.
kevster: Love, love, LOVE it when my male readers speak up!! Vive la difference, n’est ce pas? Mais, bien sur!!!
ErrorBoy: So, does this mean that we’ll never be long-term “best friends”? I mean, you know, it’s not like you “couldn’t stand” me the first time that I met you. ;)
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Damn you should hire a different photographer. lol
As for chemistry, I think its different betweeon both man and women. Lemme elaborate
women: look at men and think about babies, marriage etc
man : look at women and think wow nice ass or damn shes got some big boobies!
Ok now im bit exagerating, because its not all men…Ok ok maybe 90%, but thats where men start and after that comes the fact, hmm is she a keeper or a one night stand.
just my 2 ct
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
An interesting definition your friend has and I would say that is the reason my boyfriend and I are together now. I visited his blog and discovered that he deals with a lot of the same issues that I deal with. It was like looking at a male version of myself. I can honestly say that he gets me like no other.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:50 am
You’d call me on my BS, I think… Anyway who needs friends when you have the raw sexual chemistry we do?!?
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Grizzbabe: You’re dating a blogger?!?!?! I don’t know if I could ever do that. Hmm … this gives me an idea for tomorrow’s post.
Errorboy: You’re too much. :)
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Perhaps. My DH & I, we have nothing in common, opposites in every way. My best friend is the same. My best friend’s husband? Me, only male–he’s my husband’s best friend. It’s funny that the problems we have and the problems they have are the same, only twisted.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Wow … That’s interesting that you guys have the same problems, but only in reverse. It’s funny how that works out.
March 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
продам Форд-Фокус 2008 года за 200 тр. торг возможет. срочно!!!
+7 960 200 9209