Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I prefer to say there is no chemistry. I don't know if it's less hurtful or not, but at least we're leaving personal attributes out of the conversation, and it's true anyway--who can take that personally. You might be disappointed but it's not due to anything you did wrong.
Are you a woman? If so, then YES!! Finally a women just admitting that chemistry(really just way of saying attraction) is about looks. lol
P.S.Yes we get it that women can find body language/smile attractive the same way a man can find that attractive in a woman too, but looks have to be there.
That's still only a half truth. Only women use the term "chemistry". They avoid confrontation by nature and are almost never completely honest when ending things. Chemistry is simply cop out and it actually makes me lose respect. I'd have more respect if you said "I'm not attracted to you, it's not gonna work". At least it's the truth and I would have respect for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikelizard860
Yeah chemistry is total crap. lol It's actually kind of patronizing to tell someone that.
It most certainly is the truth. I have been out with men that I found very attractive, but if in the course of the evening our legs happen to touch or I touch his arm, I'm checking for chemistry and if I don't feel it, the dating will not continue. I do think men feel the same thing but call it something different so let me put it this way: if you are out with a woman and she could even be an attractive one, and you felt no sexual attraction--no more than you would with your sister, then chances are there is no chemistry, no matter what you may choose to call it. I have felt chemistry with ugly men, so looks are not the issue. After all, if I chose to go out with you in the first place, there is some attraction. No chemistry? No more dates--I have to at least want to kiss a man. But yeah, very few women are going to say, "I can't see myself having sex with you!" So call us dodgy.
It most certainly is the truth. I have been out with men that I found very attractive, but if in the course of the evening our legs happen to touch or I touch his arm, I'm checking for chemistry and if I don't feel it, the dating will not continue. I do think men feel the same thing but call it something different so let me put it this way: if you are out with a woman and she could even be an attractive one, and you felt no sexual attraction--no more than you would with your sister, then chances are there is no chemistry, no matter what you may choose to call it. I have felt chemistry with ugly men, so looks are not the issue. After all, if I chose to go out with you in the first place, there is some attraction. No chemistry? No more dates--I have to at least want to kiss a man. But yeah, very few women are going to say, "I can't see myself having sex with you!" So call us dodgy.
It's a half truth(if you want to call it that). And again, only women use the term "chemistry". In essence, you're taking the coward's way out. "I'm not attracted to you" is the truth. This whole chemistry thing is just to make yourself feel less guilty. It's not genuine and you're doing it for yourself. And if you want chemistry, I'll buy you a Bunsen Burner and you can do all the chemistry you want.
P.S.Yes we get it that women can find body language/smile attractive the same way a man can find that attractive in a woman too, but looks have to be there.
Yes they do have to be there but not in the way you think. I have a friend that I almost decided to date, though didn't for other reasons, but my first impression was that he was the ugliest man I'd ever seen. I soon grew attracted to the way his eyes crinkle when he smiles, among other things. The man that I ever had the most chemistry for, ever, as in I was in heat, was not good looking at all, but both these men had something in common--red hair and "crinkly when he smiles" eyes. I am attracted to red headed men and tend to be more forgiving in the looks dept if he has that. So there--yes we are attracted to looks too and the only people who don't think so are men who don't think we should be. Everyone has a type--some people are more inclusive than others and I certainly don't reject men who don't have red hair--just less likely to go out with an ugly dark-headed man.
It's a half truth(if you want to call it that). And again, only women use the term "chemistry". In essence, you're taking the coward's way out. "I'm not attracted to you" is the truth. This whole chemistry thing is just to make yourself feel less guilty. It's not genuine and you're doing it for yourself. And if you want chemistry, I'll buy you a Bunsen Burner and you can do all the chemistry you want.
Did you read my post at all? Just b/c only women call it that does not mean it's not there. Do I want to bang you or not? That is the crux of the question and if I don't, it really doesn't matter how good looking you are. Now, what do men call the issue of "Do I want to bang her or not?" I might add that this only goes for sexual chemistry but I'm not going to go off into 20 other directions of types of chemistry. I'm looking for a relationship so I want the whole package, but sexual chemistry at least has to be there.
It's a half truth(if you want to call it that). And again, only women use the term "chemistry". In essence, you're taking the coward's way out. "I'm not attracted to you" is the truth. This whole chemistry thing is just to make yourself feel less guilty. It's not genuine and you're doing it for yourself. And if you want chemistry, I'll buy you a Bunsen Burner and you can do all the chemistry you want.
Did you read my post at all? Just b/c only women call it that does not mean it's not there. Do I want to bang you or not? That is the crux of the question and if I don't, it really doesn't matter how good looking you are. Now, what do men call the issue of "Do I want to bang her or not?" I might add that this only goes for sexual chemistry but I'm not going to go off into 20 other directions of types of chemistry. I'm looking for a relationship so I want the whole package, but sexual chemistry at least has to be there.
Your post doesn't matter. There's no such thing as chemistry. It's a made up word that only one gender uses. Saying there's no chemistry to dump someone is 1)Cowardly, 2)A partial truth, and 3)Insulting. I'll say it one time just so we're clear: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEMISTRY. It is insulting to use that term to dump someone. It's selfish and it's only done so you don't feel bad.
Your post doesn't matter. There's no such thing as chemistry. It's a made up word that only one gender uses. Saying there's no chemistry to dump someone is 1)Cowardly, 2)A partial truth, and 3)Insulting. I'll say it one time just so we're clear: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEMISTRY. It is insulting to use that term to dump someone. It's selfish and it's only done so you don't feel bad.
Because you don't feel something, it must be made up? What do you call that something extra that makes you want to be with a woman but not 50 others? You never did answer that question and I still don't think you've read what I wrote. Just b/c women have a different word for it does not make it fictional and the fact that you distrust women's feelings and thoughts so much makes me think you'd have been happier living back in Henry VIII's time when men didn't have to worry about that kind of thing.
Because you don't feel something, it must be made up? What do you call that something extra that makes you want to be with a woman but not 50 others? You never did answer that question and I still don't think you've read what I wrote. Just b/c women have a different word for it does not make it fictional and the fact that you distrust women's feelings and thoughts so much makes me think you'd have been happier living back in Henry VIII's time when men didn't have to worry about that kind of thing.
Simple. It's called attraction. And nice ad-hominem at the end. Guess that's what happens when you're proven wrong and have no rebuttal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been out with men that I found very attractive, but if in the course of the evening our legs happen to touch or I touch his arm, I'm checking for chemistry and if I don't feel it, the dating will not continue. I do think men feel the same thing but call it something different so let me put it this way: if you are out with a woman and she could even be an attractive one, and you felt no sexual attraction--no more than you would with your sister, then chances are there is no chemistry, no matter what you may choose to call it. I have felt chemistry with ugly men, so looks are not the issue. After all, if I chose to go out with you in the first place, there is some attraction. No chemistry? No more dates--I have to at least want to kiss a man. But yeah, very few women are going to say, "I can't see myself having sex with you!" So call us dodgy. 
