this is a comment i received on my “the one” post and i think it bears some talkin’ about:
“…I would love your thoughts on “spark”, “chemistry” and attraction and if we put too much emphasis on that in the beginning or if we should make choices on other important factors even if the “spark” is not there like we would hope it to be… (but assuming there is at least *some* attraction and you aren’t totally unattracted to the person)”
i got totally distracted. there’s like a 20 minute gap between the quote and when i started writing again because craig turned on show about moonshining with a guy named Tickle on it and i found myself fascinated.
anyway, chemistry. right? that’s what we’re talking about? crap, i’m still stuck on moonshine. i really like moonshine. so let’s turn that into a terrible analogy.
making moonshine is an art form. sometimes the way things mix is caramelly and warm and magically delicious. other times…lighter fluid. but either way, if you drink enough of it, the result is the same. you get loaded and loopy.
it’s a lot like being super attracted to someone. it’s a little scary. it’s a lot exciting. it could be dangerous. it can make you feel super awesome and has the potential to make you physically sick.
i’ll let you interpret that last one however you see fit.
just like with moonshine, you have to look at the pros and cons of chemistry and find the balance that works for you. preferably a balance that will keep you from getting arrested.
chemistry pro: it feels really good. oh man. there’s nothing that i-can’t-wait-to-get-my-hands-on-you feeling. so. good.
chemistry con: some people get addicted to that i-can’t-wait-to-get-my-hands-on-you feeling and spend their whole life chasing it; assuming once that’s over, so is the relationship.
chemistry pro: it’s the magnet that draws you to someone.
chemistry con: jumping straight into the deep of the lust pool can actually hinder a relationship from gaining any depth. the physical aspect becomes the priority instead of the cultivation of the emotional and intellectual connection.
chemistry pro: it ebbs and flows with physical and circumstantial changes.
chemistry con: it ebbs and flows with physical and circumstantial changes.
the culture of today would tell you that you can’t know if a relationship is going to be successful unless you know that the sex will be good. the culture of today can totally bite me because that’s complete and utter bullshit. until the last few decades, most marriages began with at least one of the participants being a virgin. and those divorce statistics are WAY lower than they are today.
because commitment to vows was valued over anything else.
chemistry is awesome. oh man. it can be really, really awesome. trust me. i now have a podcast about it every week. The Wednesday Nooner, every Wednesday at 12 Eastern/9 Pacific. check your local iTunes. but commitment to each other, regardless of whatever gets thrown at you, trumps chemistry every time.
butterflies, spark, grab ass, whatever you want to call it is never going to stay at that OMG MORE MORE MORE level. it just isn’t. in those times when the flame is just a wisp of smoke you’ve got to cling to a deeper bond. the one that makes us all smile when we see a couple of octogenarians holding hands and laughing with each other.
is chemistry important? yes. no doubt about it. especially up front, because there’s really nothing else to bank on yet. just make sure as you get into a relationship that you are grooming and growing the things that will hold you together when there appears to be no spark at all. because if you can do that, the spark will always return.
how important do you think chemistry is?