Tags
attraction, blogging, chemistry, insanitybytes22, love, marriage, opinion, romance
I don’t believe in chemistry, not the love kind, not really. I’ve read a frightful number of articles today all about making sure you have good chemistry with the one you love, because this magical, mystical thing called “chemistry” is the glue that holds a relationship together.
No wonder people get married and complain that their spouse is a different person! Of course they are, nothing remains stagnant except perhaps pond water. If your faith has been placed in something ethereal, vague, this unexplainable concoction of mystical pheromones we call “chemistry” than what happens when the weather gets bad? Life attacks? Illness? Conflict?
Pheromones, hormones, “chemistry,” are fickle things that tend to ebb and flow, that are vulnerable to our diets, our emotional states, our environment, our thoughts. All in good fun here, but I remember “chemistry” a couple of times, alas, boys can trigger that sort of thing. “Chemistry” that lasted about ten days. “Chemistry” that vanished into the abyss as quickly as it came.
I suppose I dislike these notions of “chemistry,” because they tend to set people up for failure, they are disempowering, they tend to create an idol out of something we falsely believe we have no control over. “Chemistry” renders us powerless, whereas an understanding that we can influence our own chemistry puts us back in the driver’s seat.
We really can influence our own “chemistry.” We can change our entire mood by simply taking a walk in the sunshine. Sometimes a change in our diet can positively impact our chemistry. Our thoughts certainly influence our chemistry. The words we speak over ourselves and others have incredible power. So too does the chatter going on within our own brains.
In marriage we can reverse engineer our own chemistry, that is, kill it off with our thoughts and behaviors…..or bring it back in the precise same way, by changing our thoughts and behaviors.
So, it is with some frustration that I read things like Scott’s, “Why chemistry matters…” because the real conversation we all need to be having is about the malleability of our own chemistry, what we do in marriages to kill it, and how we can empower people to embrace it. I really dislike this American cultural attitude that insists there is always a pill for ails us, or in this case, a pill that caused our ailment. People are so much more complex than “chemistry,” and this propensity we have to perceive ourselves as powerless victims, completely helpless when it comes to our marriages, our relationships, and our sexuality, serves no one.
john zande said:
You need the right chemisty, or else you end up with this
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahh, yes Zande, “chemistry,” that war in your teflon brain that makes you uncertain whether to go with the homophobia or the outright sexism in your endless quest to bash Trump within the confines of a politically correct world. As I’ve seen from you in the past, that chemical urge to bash Trump always takes precedence over good taste. Sexism,misogyny, and homophobia it is!
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
I don’t recall speaking to you about Trump before??
You did vote for him, though, didn’t you?
LikeLike
Citizen Tom said:
@insanitybytes22
Zande is either off topic or going off topic these days.
😀
It is kind of neat that Trump has Liberals on the other side of the planet so worked up they can’t make any sense. Not they did before, but now we don’t have to put up with the smugness, just their lame efforts to offend.
Anyway. The topic. I see your point. Most people think love just happens, but keeping a marriage together is an act of will. The Bible tells us to love each other because love is a choice we make. When a man and a woman love each other, chemistry matters, but the choice to keep loving our mate matters more. It makes the chemistry possible day after day, year after year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“When a man and a woman love each other, chemistry matters, but the choice to keep loving our mate matters more.”
Oh, I like that,Tom! That’s what I’m trying to say, chemistry is a choice, it is something we make happen. Needless to say if your attitudes, thoughts, and emotions about your spouse are all negative, chemistry is going to leave the building.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
CT, you might like this dose of actual reality, with real facts, not your “alternative” kind
https://fareedzakaria.com/2017/02/17/trump-is-putting-on-a-great-circus-but-what-about-his-promises/
“The first few weeks of President Trump’s administration have been an illustration of writer Alfred Montapert’s adage, “Do not confuse motion and progress. A rocking horse keeps moving but does not make any progress.” We are witnessing a rocking-horse presidency in which everyone is jerking back and forth furiously, yet there is no forward movement …
Since winning the election, Trump has dominated the news nearly every day. He has picked fights with the media, making a series of bizarre, mostly false claims — about the magnitude of his victory, the size of his inauguration crowd, the weather that day, the numbers of illegally cast ballots, among many others … Now he is embroiled in a controversy about ties to Russia. But in the midst of it all, what has he actually done? Hardly anything.
On Thursday, Trump said at a news conference, “There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time.” Matthew Yglesias of Vox observes that at this point in his presidency, Barack Obama had signed into law an almost-trillion-dollar stimulus bill to revive the economy, extended health insurance to 4 million children and made it easier to challenge discriminatory labor practices. In their respective first 100 days in office, FiveThirtyEight calculates, Bill Clinton had passed 24 laws; John Kennedy, 26; Harry Truman, 55; and FDR, 76.
Despite having a Republican House and Senate, Trump does not seem likely to crack 10 in his first 100 days.
Yglesias notes that the Trump White House has not even begun serious discussions with Congress on major legislation. According to The Post, of 696 key positions that require Senate confirmation, the president has yet to nominate 661 of them.”
I also think we should see Trumps tax return’s now, don’t you?
I think the world should learn just how much money Trump owes to Russia
LikeLike
Citizen Tom said:
@John Zande
What makes you think anyone needs to go to an argumentative Australian for American news media reports? Do I have any reason to do so? Not really. I would only do so just to find out how distance warps perspective.
I live just outside DC. My environs are quite well saturated by the American mass media. Since our media is mostly Liberal, I already well know what the other side has to say. Since the public schools are run by members of the National Education Association (a Democratic Party stronghold), I have had my fill of indoctrination by modern Liberals. I am just fortunate that the practical experiences of life and some self-education have slowly overcome the constant pressure to conform to the group-think that is Modern Liberalism.
Apparently, you have a similar problem in Australia. Pity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
By “argumentative” you of course mean, accurate and truthful… Qualities you are, self-evidently, offended by.
Anyway, this post isn’t about Comrade Trump and his staggering incompetence, or how much money he owes the Russians, or the perverted sex tapes they are blackmailing him with, so I won’t take this any further.
LikeLike
Citizen Tom said:
@john zande
“Argumentative” means accurate and truthful in Australia. No wonder our news confuses you.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
@jz
Have to get an apology out of the way to the host here for contributing to the detour you are providing. Sorry msb. But hopefully, this will put you back on track.
When reasonable people hear the word ‘marriage,’ as used in the sense of this post about chemistry, they AUTOMATICALLY know it is a union of opposites as it were, a melding of the sexes, male and female, man and woman. No argument.
Now here you come along, and speak of ‘perversion, tapes, blackmail,’ and one could wonder how and what you have used to determine what is perverse, since in your world view, NOTHING is perverse.
A man ‘marries’ his turtle. A bit slow says he, but he ‘loves her……….’ Who are you to say this is not perverse?
A woman ‘marries’ a zebra because she likes striped sheets. Who are you to say this is not perverse? Who are you to say their ‘chemistry’ is artificial?
You say this is a terrible point? Really? How then do you decide, according to your own words, in a world where there are no absolutes, WHAT is perverse?
Careful there, your answer if it is correct will be biblically crushing to your nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Marriage?
I believe in traditional biblical marriage
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Tkx for making the greater point, even amidst your attempt to paint God as criminal.
It is THE heart of man which seeks mischief, much like what you present on a regular basis.
Apparently my comment sailed right over your head.
Maybe you missed the part about ‘from the beginning it was not so…………’
Or ‘because of the hardness of your heart……………’
God is blameless, and your tongue will fall off before you can find one word to fault God.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Methinks Zande suffers from the affliction of chemistry idolatry, as in he remains completely baffled as to how there could possibly be any chemistry between Trump and the American people. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
ColorStorm said:
You just coined a new meaning to CSI, (chem suffering idolators) and who said there aren’t Chem trails………..
Heck, there are trails in blogsville daily. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Okay, so you’re admitting the bible is false information.
Got it. Thanks. I agree.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Of my many shortcomings, stuttering is not one of them.
Do I need to repeat?
‘From the beginning it was not so……….’
Gee I wonder what happened that would make a man leave his wife for a thousand others.
I could add to your list also; that is, document the shortcomings of humanity, and yet you would not see the REST of the narrative, that God is good, full of redemption and mercy, and yes, loves you while you drown in a cement will.
But false information? Ha. Every word is good and serves a purpose. God wastes nothing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
No, no need to repeat. You said the bible was false… Or do you support all the examples of traditional biblical marriage?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
I’m pretty sure mr zande, that in this zip code, you will not find one person that agrees with you that I think God’s word is false. I pointed this out to wisp, that misinterpreting and mistranslating are not twins.
You are guilty of taking my words and making them your own. Strange thing though, you believe none of it, and pretend to understand all of it, while I believe all of it, and see God’s unfolding hand of consistency, love, faithfulness, instruction, and complete truthfulness throughout all of His word.
You may want to do an exhaustive search and study of marriage (hinted at in this post btw) that will result in your being rescued from issues that had nothing to do with you. ‘Rightly dividing the word of truth’ comes to mind. Kind of hard to adjudicate if one is not aware of certain divisions.
But you embarrass yourself when you assign such lies to others. Hello? The bible is false……? geez louise.
LikeLike
john zande said:
OK, my apologies, but I’m confused.
So, do you believe in traditional biblical marriage?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Well let’s see here. Since ‘traditional’ has always meant the union of opposites, that would automatically mean that the union of ‘sames’ would not be traditional, as in, a different kind of ‘chemistry.’
A man taking his dead brothers wife to carry on his name would not be traditional so to speak, but understandable. Tevye from the Fiddler on the roof sang: ‘the first day I met you was on our wedding day,’ and they learned to love……..living a ‘traditional’ good life and long years. One man. One woman. But hey, stuff happens to challenge tradition.
But the greater issue for you is this: WHERE did Cain get the idea to murder his brother……….get this right, and all your other misunderstandings will be as dust in the wind.
Then there is the New Testament which explains quite well why humans go sideways and choose their own way as opposed to God’s ideal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Alright, so a woman (the victim) being forced to marry her rapist is “traditional” marriage in your eyes, as to is the union between the male kidnapper and his victim, the kidnapped girl.
You support these kinds of traditional biblical marriage, including polygamy, harems of female slaves, and the forced marriage of war prizes (virgin prisoners) to men.
Got it.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Are you aware jz that ‘the law’ is good, if a man use it lawfully?
Are you aware that the law magnifies sin? Or do you need reminded not to steal your neighbors cow?
Are you aware that most people, cough cough, do not use the law lawfully?
Are you aware that the law works wrath?
Are you aware that while scripture documents the actions of men, King David was punished for his indiscretions?
Are you aware that the law was a schoolmaster, until………..?
Are you aware that Abraham was a just man, long before the law was given?
Are you aware that the whole law can be summed up in two commands?
Are you aware that your argument is borrowed, stale, and is actually worse than any trespass you try to highlight? Why? Because the issue has long been settled.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
So, raping a girl then forcing her to marry you is good.
OK, got it. Thanks.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
jz
Would you be so kind to examine your motives on this thread, beginning with your first comment.
But rest assured, God is blameless, his ways above yours, His character perfect, and His word consistent, from innocence to covenants to law to grace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Hey, I didn’t bring up this diversion. You did. If you want to spare Inanity, then stop talking. Simple.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Hey, I didn’t bring up this diversion.”
You certainly did! You’re in a thread about marriage and attraction blathering on about Donald Trump, rape, and the bible.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
You could write a post on how to make homemade ice cream, and John Zande would make it about Donald Trump, rape, and the bible.
I suspect he secretly loves all three.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
You are like a turd in a swimming pool, John.
Everybody splashing around having a nice time, and you float in. Next thing you know, everybody needs a shower and the place has to be disinfected.
You are a fine one to hurl accusations of moral depravity around for sure. Every word that come from your keyboard comes straight from the pit of it.
I’m know to be slow, though. So perhaps you could clear us all up on what your thread of comments here has to do with the post as written.
Wait..never mind. Stupid here figured it out on his own.
Answer: Not a thing, but I am just so hate filled that any forum is proper for my vitriolic spewing hate of all things Christian and American.
Weird…and sad really
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
You don’t like me quoting the President of the United States?
Interesting.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Yeah lol
That’s my beef
Says Zande the great
LikeLike
john zande said:
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Mean to say spewing hate of all things Christian and American…IB fix that so I don’t look any more illiterate than John Zande thinks I am. I need to stop commenting on my phone for sure LOL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Nonsense. Scroll up and have a look at Colourstorms first comment… He even apologises for the diversion he was about to start.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Her ya go for your reading convenience:
@jz
—-Have to get an apology out of the way to the host here for contributing to the detour you are providing. Sorry msb. But hopefully, this will put you back on track.——-
Translation: Sorry Insanitybytes22 for answering a mind numbing comment that has nothing to do with your post here.
Then again, most people understood this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Why are you still talking?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Because the zandevuhls of the world need reminded that no weapon formed against the Creator will avail to anything, other than to be a mere trinket heaped upon the scrapyard of oblivion and collected irrelevance.
God and His word have never lost an argument to ants, industrious as they may be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
john zande said:
Why. Are. You. Still. Talking?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Why are you still breathing?
Oh oh I can answer that
Because the one who spoke the world into existence allows you to
How’s that pulse doing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
The bible is not false, Zande.
The way you have gone and tried to create God in your own image is false, although a bit amusing because you’ve managed to come up with a malevolent Creator who allegedly condones every imaginable human pairing possible, and perhaps even some non human pairings.
LikeLiked by 2 people
john zande said:
Who’s talking about Yhwh?
CS was talking about marriage, and I said I support Traditional Biblical Marriage.
LikeLike
Mel Wild said:
“I suppose I dislike these notions of “chemistry,” because they tend to set people up for failure, they are disempowering, they tend to create an idol out of something we falsely believe we have no control over.”
Amen and amen! If chemistry was the most important component then all teenage romance would be the model for successful marriage! They have more chemistry than any sane person should have! 🙂
As Danny Silk says, if you fell in love, then gravity did it. You can just as easily fall out of it.
How about seeing how self-centered your perspective mate is. How do they respond when nothing is going their way? Or, to what degree does he or she need to be in control? How do they resolve conflict? Those are just a few things they just might want to know before they find out the hard way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! I enjoy Danny Silk too, he’s got some great words of wisdom.
A world full of teen age romance? Yikes, can you imagine all the drama and angst? I barely survived watching four of them and I assured each one they would soon grow out of it. It’s kind of like the chicken pox. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mel Wild said:
Yeah, we had three in High School at the same time about ten years ago…still recovering…. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL! Yes, exactly. I’m in recovery too, looking forward to going to their houses, eating all their food, and trashing the place while telling them to just chill 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Elspeth said:
It’s not really about drama and angst, IB. I think it’s more about not starting out with someone you feel “meh” about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
The thing is, how we “feel” is totally malleable. If you’re marrying someone you feel “meh” about, then I assume there would be other benefits? Then those other benefits should help you to culitvate some, uh enthusiasm.
Just the same you owe it to yourself and to the other person not feel “meh” about it. “Meh” is a complete waste of healthy, human sexuality. So when people feed this myth about how attraction is non negotiable and how chemistry is beyond our control, I think not only is that false, it’s harmful.
LikeLike
elspeth said:
There seems to be a mistaken idea that those who extol the virtue of chemistry in marriage are advocating the elevation of chemistry above character. That is not true, IB. Character and commitment are vitally important and I didn’t think Scott was suggesting otherwise. Even the most “in love” couple sometimes has to push through challenges.
I wonder at people’s inability (at least online) to be able to strike the balance between all of the variables that surround a particular topic.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“…those who extol the virtue of chemistry in marriage”
This is my problem, Elspeth. You yourself are now labeling chemistry a “virtue.” It’s a good thing, it’s a blessing, it’s something we should strive to create and cultivate in our marriages, but a virtue? Chemistry has nothing to do with virtue. We have to place love, character, values, commitment, above chemistry, because those things really are virtues, and those things are what enable us to create the chemistry we desire. When we start perceiving chemistry as a virtue all by itself, then how we feel, what is going on biologically, becomes a kind of morality marker.
So how do we do to help married people who have no chemistry? We teach them how to make some chemistry. That can’t happen if we insist that chemistry is a virtue and one we have no control over.
LikeLike
elspeth said:
You are correct. That was my hasty mistake and poor word choice (virtue was the exact wrong word) but my overall point stands.
Where “chemistry” fails, character, commitment and agape are there as they should be anyway.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, what I would like us to do within marriage, is to stop thinking of chemistry as something that fails or flourishes, completely separate from us. We tend to treat chemistry as this magical thing we have no control over. It either is or it isn’t. It’s there or it’s not. In truth however, we really cultivate our own chemistry, or kill it off. It’s not magic. In the modern world we have people chasing their own chemistry outside of marriage, while marriage is sometimes perceived as the place chemistry goes to die. We’ve got it completely backwards.
LikeLike
Daria Kill said:
Reblogged this on Let me give YOU the Moe-down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Thank you, much appreciated. 🙂
LikeLike
TT said:
You may not believe in chemistry, but I bet you don’t hate romance. Everyone likes to be appreciated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lovelifeandgod said:
I knew there was a reason why I always felt angry when a perfectly decent person gets cheated on in a relationship, “because we just didn’t have chemistry anymore.” Rubbish! You chose to be a slave to your biological urges and now you have ruined what could have been a healthy relationship. If teenaged romances are bad, college romances are worse, because they involve people who are apparently supposed to be adults now…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Liberty On the Lighter Side said:
Yeah, I tried ‘chemistry’ a long time ago and not only got my fingers burnt but it also all blew up in my face. I liked what you said about thoughts and behaviours, On thoughts, I once read in a marriage book (It was either Joyce Hugget or Tim and Beverly LaHaye – can’t remember!) that the brain is our largest sexual organ, it really matters what you think about your partner and there’s nothing like resentment to quench the flames of passion! And on behaviours, now I’m reading a brilliant book by Gary Thomas – ‘Sacred Marriage’, I seem to be recommending it all over WordPress at the moment, which speaks about holiness vs happiness. It was recommended to me by a friend who didn’t meet her husband before she married him – a traditional Indian arrangement. It’s wonderful how we can grow to love our spouses more and more, simply by choosing to act like we do.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Matt said:
I think ‘chemistry’ is more sexual than romantic.
It’s easier just to not define it. If you love someone then you love them, if you don’t then you don’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie (aka Cookie) said:
here you were talking about chemistry and love and relationships…and somehow there were a few commentators who deviated to Trump…hummmm
I suppose the hysteria just is all consuming that they can’t stop long enough to ponder
amore….
“When the moon hits your eye, like a great big pizza pie…that’s amore…..”
sorry, couldn’t help but to burst into song 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
firstsamuel17 said:
This is interesting. I’ve always heard that chemistry is the initial attraction and that human connection, but falls short if it is the basis for a relationship. You might need that chemistry to connect in the first place, but after that, Love is a choice. More importantly, it is a verb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Amen! Love is a choice, love is a verb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tikeetha T said:
I used to believe that until I got serious about my faith and allowing God to lead me and allow a man that God had chosen to be in my life. Chemistry was fickle in my first marriage. However, God has led me to the man that I’m dating now and it’s not based off chemistry but a shared belief in God, his principles and a desire to consistently work at our relationship. There were no sparks or chemistry when we met, but over the course of the last year and a half there has been mutual respect and love for each other. We’re attracted to each other without believing in chemistry but the belief that we’re good for each other. Does that make sense?
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Does that make sense?”
Yes, totally! Now that’s what I’m talking about. 🙂 When we allow God to lead us, we aren’t placing our faith in something ethereal like chemistry. Chemistry can be a fickle thing, God however is steadfast. It’s a bit ironic, but when we truly build our relationships on Him, He will add the “chemistry,” He will build the attraction. Respect and love for one another is a great foundation upon which to build.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tikeetha T said:
Yes. Exactly. Thank you. God has been so steadfast that the attraction came through us allowing God to manifest and work through us on building something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Salvageable said:
Now that good-looking couple at the bottom of the post clearly shares some good chemistry!
I’ve blogged a fair amount of fiction that wrestles with the whole chemistry/romance/love puzzle. Some people, I think, fall in love with the idea of love, which is why they move from one partner to another with dismaying frequency. They’d rather fall in love again and again than grow in a loving relationship. Sad. J.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cynfected said:
Amen to that … Chemistry …. pishhhhhh……. as you say what happens when he gets prostrate cancer and cant get it up or she ends up with a messy vaginal cancer … hmmmm . apologies for being so low down on it but really ain’t that the point… that is what this so called ‘chemistry’ is all about … penis’s and vagina’s … fleshly bodily parts that sometimes do not work due to another type of chemistry going on in virus’s and yucky diseases and cancers etc….. what then??? Does that make all the caring and loving of the particular loved spouse who may be affected just disappear into nothing????
Hardly… Well, maybe for some unfortunates. But that then is not LOVE as it is meant to be … is it! the ‘Feelings’ (Oh… sorry I mean Chemistry…oh… or do I?) one has for someone … the deep sense of intimacy, of knowing and being known, of true affection, caring and love for your loved one … does not just disappear … no matter what is going on ….
But, sadly as you so clearly say…. that is not what is being spruiked out there in the world of …. me, my, myself and I must be instantly gratified NOW and always when I want to be gratified and if YOU cant do that for me (anymore) for whatever reason… I don’t care what it is……. then I am afraid you don’t ‘love’ (chematise) me anymore so therefore I don’t ‘love’ (chematise) you anymore… Goodbye … c’est le vie … lets move on and get over it because I must find ‘the one’ who will (chematise) me (while they can)…….and so it goes on ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debbie L said:
Ah my favorite subject, marital love! Because I’ve been in all spectrums of love after nearl 42 years of marriage, including our divorce at 13 years and miraculous remarriage a year later. Trust me, I searched out the meaning of love. Our language cheapens the meaning. We love coffee and chocolate, we marry for love, we love the latest tv drama, we love our babies, I really love my grandsons in a way I never expected….anyway, the Greeks understand LOVE, as they define it in five ways! My hubby and I have experienced all five “stages” if you will! Take a peak at the definitions here: https://thetumblelees.me/2011/07/31/just-what-is-love-anyway/
I did try to just copy the section but using my iPhone didn’t work!
Anyway, I’m still trying to shake that first image of my beloved President!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maea said:
I normally try to refrain from commenting on posts like Scott’s, but one of the things I find interesting is how people don’t realize it’s a modern privilege to talk about chemistry and its importance to marriage.
It wasn’t too long ago a lot of marriages weren’t formed from chemistry– they were arranged, or semi-arranged, and weren’t unions to benefit the couple so much as a demonstration of holiness. In a lot of countries, marriages were semi-arranged by families in the early 20th century. The reason why people today go on about chemistry is because the influence of premarital sex has given us modern people the ideas to talk about these things and why you have to be “hot” for each other. If a married couple is hot for each other? Great for them! A lot of couples are happy without “scorching chemistry,” and heck they might have never experienced that anyway, so why would they bemoan the lack of experiencing something they don’t know?
Of course, it’s good to be sexually attracted to each other. People were having more babies for a reason in the past. But the idea of “scorching chemistry”? Our grandparents and great-grandparents would’ve assumed something clandestine happened before a marriage for “scorching” to be on the radar.
Besides, how often does one hear about two chaste, virginal people marrying and knowing what “scorching chemistry” is? Chaste virgins have to experience sex together as a married couple to truly know what “scorching chemistry” is. To people with more experience, their ideas of scorching chemistry come before marriage. Isn’t that the real problem, that people who have sexual experience outside of marriage are the ones setting the standard? People who set sexual boundaries before marriage are going to have different ideas.
LikeLike
politicallywag said:
I know exactly what you mean. My wife and I have little to no “chemistry”. There was some when we started dating, but love isn’t “chemistry”. We are comfortable with each other. We know each other, and we know how to make each other happy. That doesn’t come from some primal infatuation, it comes from something much deeper and much more civilized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahh, let’s hear it for comfortable and knowing how to make one another happy. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
cslewisgo said:
I’ve been saying for years good relationships are founded with two components -chemistry and timing. Chemistry is easy. Timing is a b**** (Then I actually saw a meme with my words the other day :0) You are making an excellent point – chemistry gets us to the plate, but it’s friendship that lasts 9 innings. PEA (phenylethylamine) is generated in humans when our genetics rub up against another set of complimentary genes. The PEA molecule dissipates over the course of 18-24 months. (Look back on your fizzled relationships and you’ll see they probably petered out in that time range.) If, after 24 months, you still want to be with that person, maybe because you laugh, love and enjoy the same values, you have a good chance of making it to the World Series of Love. 😉
LikeLike
Doyle explains said:
Now I’m gonna apply unstable Nitroglycerin on you 🗯
LikeLiked by 1 person