Concerned about sexual chemistry

[ellebelle88]

I mean, there has to be some chemistry if they're sexing 2x a week. Now if she said she'd rather be waterboarded, I'd have a different answer. But I'd chalk this up to the 80-20 rule. He sounds great in all other categories, but just regular good in sex. That's not a dealbreaker.

Maybe its not how good he is in the bed,,but rather she isn't just sexually attracted to him. I know a guy who is pretty good in bed, but I just wasn't sexually attracted to him enough to enjoy it. He was good in so many other areas tho like intelligence, high-achiever, dedication, etc. I don't know why he didn't do it for me sexually though...

 

[chronicity]

- You are caught up in equating drama and longing with love and chemistry. Again, time for some real examination of your own psychology to see if you're self sabotaging.

I think this plays a part of it, at least the longing part (not the drama). And it probably has to do with me being a emotionally private person. When there's distance between me and the other person, infactuation is more likely to occur. And for this to happen, I probably need more distance than the average person. I don't know why I'm wired like this. It could be the result of protracted periods of singleness, I dunno. It could also be my introversion.

From the beginning I told him that I need space so that I can miss him. But seeing each other 1x a week soon became 2x a week, then 3. I find it very difficult to tell him that we see too much of each other, because he misses me so much. If it were up to him, he'd probably be seeing me everyday.

 

[BEAUTYU2U]

Maybe its not how good he is in the bed,,but rather she isn't just sexually attracted to him. I know a guy who is pretty good in bed, but I just wasn't sexually attracted to him enough to enjoy it. He was good in so many other areas tho like intelligence, high-achiever, dedication, etc. I don't know why he didn't do it for me sexually though...

She did say she enjoyed it though.

I think it's more a case of moving too fast / seeing each other too often. OP is late thirties, used to doing her own thing, so the 2-3x may be too much right now.

 

[BEAUTYU2U]

I think this plays a part of it, at least the longing part (not the drama). And it probably has to do with me being a emotionally private person. When there's distance between me and the other person, infactuation is more likely to occur. And for this to happen, I probably need more distance than the average person. I don't know why I'm wired like this. It could be the result of protracted periods of singleness, I dunno. It could also be my introversion.

From the beginning I told him that I need space so that I can miss him. But seeing each other 1x a week soon became 2x a week, then 3. I find it very difficult to tell him that we see too much of each other, because he misses me so much. If it were up to him, he'd probably be seeing me everyday.

You should stick to your guns. Maybe allow his 2-3 days one week but 1 day the next week?

 

[FoxxyLocs]

As a married woman, physical chemistry is very important, especially in the long term. I would try to work with him to see if you can improve things, but don't downplay the significance of having that connection. It's not just for taboo relationships. I think it's ridiculous to think that you shouldn't expect to have sparks with your husband.

 

[PeaceFlow]

I may be crazy, but I really don't think sparks are all on one level, more like a scale. Sometimes my sparks with certain guys have been fun, other guys have been violently intense and I want to run away

I believe different situations give different types of sparks also

Like the type of sparks a woman gets from an emotionally distant "bad boy" SO might be very different from the sparks from a lovey dovey "I want to prove my love" SO.

It can also depend on whether you are long distance, or always together. Whether you're both single, or having an affair. Whether you've been waiting years together, or just met.

Generally for this reason I don't compare sparks as long as I'm attracted to the person and we have good energy (bounce off each other). Trying to compare new sparks to old sparks with men who were completely different is a recipe for disaster. I don't bother and see vibes I have with individuals as just different.

I don't believe sparks are rare. However it kinda depends on what you're imagining and how intense you expect it to be.

 

[RegaLady]

I may be crazy, but I really don't think sparks are all on one level, more like a scale. Sometimes my sparks with certain guys have been fun, other guys have been violently intense and I want to run away

I believe different situations give different types of sparks also

Like the type of sparks a woman gets from an emotionally distant "bad boy" SO might be very different from the sparks from a lovey dovey "I want to prove my love" SO.

It can also depend on whether you are long distance, or always together. Whether you're both single, or having an affair. Whether you've been waiting years together, or just met.

Generally for this reason I don't compare sparks as long as I'm attracted to the person and we have good energy (bounce off each other). Trying to compare new sparks to old sparks with men who were completely different is a recipe for disaster. I don't bother and see vibes I have with individuals as just different.

I don't believe sparks are rare. However it kinda depends on what you're imagining and how intense you expect it to be.

YES to all of this! I don't thinl sparks are so black and white. Sure we know when its not there or it is there. But I agree.

I think this plays a part of it, at least the longing part (not the drama). And it probably has to do with me being a emotionally private person. When there's distance between me and the other person, infactuation is more likely to occur. And for this to happen, I probably need more distance than the average person. I don't know why I'm wired like this. It could be the result of protracted periods of singleness, I dunno. It could also be my introversion.

From the beginning I told him that I need space so that I can miss him. But seeing each other 1x a week soon became 2x a week, then 3. I find it very difficult to tell him that we see too much of each other, because he misses me so much. If it were up to him, he'd probably be seeing me everyday.

Very interesting! I have heard some women say the same thing. In that case, design the relationship in a way he knows you are still interested and you can have your needs met. Then you will know what you are working with.

 

[ambergirl]

I think this plays a part of it, at least the longing part (not the drama). And it probably has to do with me being a emotionally private person. When there's distance between me and the other person, infactuation is more likely to occur. And for this to happen, I probably need more distance than the average person. I don't know why I'm wired like this. It could be the result of protracted periods of singleness, I dunno. It could also be my introversion. From the beginning I told him that I need space so that I can miss him. But seeing each other 1x a week soon became 2x a week, then 3. I find it very difficult to tell him that we see too much of each other, because he misses me so much. If it were up to him, he'd probably be seeing me everyday.

Yeah this is a tough one because it sounds like he needs a certain amount of contact to feel connected while you need a certain amount of space to desire connection.

I agree that you should try and create a little space to meet your needs but ultimately if you want to be married you're going to need to move out of your comfort zone on this. I think you might be on to something about this being related to being single for long periods of time. People tend to adjust to fit their lifestyle. It could also be a defense mechanism because on some level you fear getting too attached and accustomed to his presence. Again you know yourself best.

I say try to work it on both levels. Try to create more space and also work on moving out of your comfort zone. Within a couple more months you'll have a good sense whether this relationship will work for you,

ETA: ultimately so much about our lives is about choice. If you really want to be with this man you can choose to experience chemistry with him because we can choose our emotions and thoughts and how we frame our experiences.

First stop telling yourself there's no chemistry. Second, are you in love with him or willing to be? If so allow yourself to really connect with him emotionally and physically during sex. Think about how much you enjoy being with him, feeling him, having his hands caress your body, his kiss, his smell, his voice. how he looks at you, his desire for you, and his sexual response. Look into his eyes and just allow yourself to love him. When you bring that kind of emotional vulnerability to your love making things will likely shift.

 

[carcajada]

This thread is making me sad. My goal is to have sexual chemistry and to love/be in love with my partner. Majority of the posts makes this seem like this is rare.

The situation in this thread was somewhat presented in a way that the responses followed suit. In other words, since the op has painted a picture of an awesome relationship and one thing is lacking, the advice is going to address both sides of that situation. IMO, you shouldn't generalize it to your future when you aren't even in it.

 

[CaraWalker]

and also - im not a pessimist, and like i said, i do believe such a thing IS possible, no matter how infrequently it occurs - i will note that not one person in this thread has actually said that they are in a marriage or relationship that is dominated by a sexual spark, or that they didn't have to make concessions on that front.

 

[carcajada]

and also - im not a pessimist, and like i said, i do believe such a thing IS possible, no matter how infrequently it occurs - i will note that not one person in this thread has actually said that they are in a marriage or relationship that is dominated by a sexual spark, or that they didn't have to make concessions on that front.

What you posted was practical, not pessimistic. Like the 80/20 rule. Sometimes you have to work with that 20 because the 80 is just too good and hard to find to let go. Although some of the posts emphasizing personal importances of having a spark were just as practical, they also came from a different set of experiences.

Overall, I think the OP got some great advice and was able to evaluate her situation. She's definitely in a good position in her relationship. If the only problem is sparkly feelings, then she's doing pretty good for herself.

 

[chronicity]

First stop telling yourself there's no chemistry. Second, are you in love with him or willing to be? If so allow yourself to really connect with him emotionally and physically during sex. Think about how much you enjoy being with him, feeling him, having his hands caress your body, his kiss, his smell, his voice. how he looks at you, his desire for you, and his sexual response. Look into his eyes and just allow yourself to love him. When you bring that kind of emotional vulnerability to your love making things will likely shift.

I will try this. Especially the first sentence.

 

[ambergirl]

and also - im not a pessimist, and like i said, i do believe such a thing IS possible, no matter how infrequently it occurs - i will note that not one person in this thread has actually said that they are in a marriage or relationship that is dominated by a sexual spark, or that they didn't have to make concessions on that front.

Really? I don't believe everybody makes concessions. I hope it's that people come by chemistry through different paths. Because a lifetime of feeling no spark for your partner sounds pretty bad.

 

[CaraWalker]

Really? I don't believe everybody makes concessions. I hope it's that people come by chemistry through different paths. Because a lifetime of feeling no spark for your partner sounds pretty bad.

well, what would you say, from your personal experience of relationships? i ask because i always assumed concessions (or "compromises," if that sounds more amenable) were unavoidable.

(and let me also say that, in case im giving off the impression of a sparkless romantic life, i spark with almost every guy i meet, one way or another. it just takes a lot for me to have that sexual spark, and these days its becoming based on more, uh, different and different things. sparks are insignificant for me in different ways.)

 

[ambergirl]

well, what would you say, from your personal experience of relationships? i ask because i always assumed concessions (or "compromises," if that sounds more amenable) were unavoidable.

Chemistry is both a physical and an emotional thing. I don't have sex with men I don't find physically attractive and the emotional piece develops over time. So personally I don't see it.

ETA: Also about sheer mechanics. Some men are just bad in bed. So if your faced with that then you do have to make a choice.

One last thing. Sometimes for whatever reason you can 't generate sexual feelings with a man. One guy I dated just seemed more like a brother then a lover and so the sex creeped me out.

 

[GraceJones]

IDK I really don't think that have less frequent sex is the answer. Either you have it or you don't. If that is important to you, maybe you should look somewhere else?

I think you are doubting this because he looks great on paper and you would passing something great up. Even if it isn't necessarily great for you

 

[CaraWalker]

Chemistry is both a physical and an emotional thing. I don't have sex with men I don't find physically attractive and the emotional piece develops over time. So personally I don't see it.

well, i suppose i was asking more directly whether you date men with both, as that seems to be the sticking point in this thread. what youve said seems to imply that youve conceded the emotional for the physical, but it doesnt sound like you view it that way.

i think chemistry, good chemistry, is an explosive thing, and as such very rare. ive had some extraordinary chemistry before but even with that i know for other people there exists a capacity for intensity beyond what i've experienced. does that mean i have to hold out until i find it? there are people that "spark" so intensely they're willing to kill over it, literally, you know what i mean?

myself, i dont have the time to live a life waiting for the rarity. i honestly believe sometimes people get caught up in "not wanting to settle" and thinking that anything less than 100% ideal is settling. this isn't about the op, because i think she has a very clear headed perspective on what works for her and what doesn't. just my observation about a population that has been harangued for its chronic singleness. its like theres women who settle for bottom of the barrel just to have something, women who hold out for a unicorn that doesn't exist, and no perspective in between. i know that i want to get married within a reasonable time frame - im not trying to be 30+ still trying to figure out the concessions equation. in order for me to do that, i think i need to choose my battles. wanting to jump my significant others bones every time i see him is not a requirement. you can have sexual attraction for your mate without the "spark" (as op has described) - idk, it just seems like such a silly, silly concept to base a relationship on imo.

eta:

One last thing. Sometimes for whatever reason you can 't generate sexual feelings with a man. One guy I dated just seemed more like a brother then a lover and so the sex creeped me out.

ive never really experienced that, so im also coming from that perspective.

 

[MrsHaseeb]

I don't usually respond to threads like this. But after reading through the entire thread, OP, I do not believe lack of sexual chemistry is your problem. I believe it is somewhat incorrect views on what love and relationships should be like. We have been taught that you're supposed to have butterflies and all these intense emotions but many times when that alone is present it is because the man is severely lacking qualities in other areas. Thinking about how great he is throughout the day and what makes him a good man will make a far more lasting relationship than thinking about sex all day. Why? Because passionate emotions and sex can blind you to a persons true character at times. I think the absence of that "passion" we have been taught that's it is normal to feel is allowing you to see his character and all the good things about him. Don't let expectations of some overwhelming passion cause you to question an otherwise good man just because they are not there. I really don't believe longevity and true happiness can be gauged by intense sexual desire. I actually think those sexual desires can be deceptive. Just my views.

 

[ambergirl]

well, i suppose i was asking more directly whether you date men with both, as that seems to be the sticking point in this thread. what youve said seems to imply that youve conceded the emotional for the physical, but it doesnt sound like you view it that way. i think chemistry, good chemistry, is an explosive thing, and as such very rare. ive had some extraordinary chemistry before but even with that i know for other people there exists a capacity for intensity beyond what i've experienced. does that mean i have to hold out until i find it? there are people that "spark" so intensely they're willing to kill over it, literally, you know what i mean? myself, i dont have the time to live a life waiting for the rarity. i honestly believe sometimes people get caught up in "not wanting to settle" and thinking that anything less than 100% ideal is settling. this isn't about the op, because i think she has a very clear headed perspective on what works for her and what doesn't. just my observation about a population that has been harangued for its chronic singleness. its like theres women who settle for bottom of the barrel just to have something, women who hold out for a unicorn that doesn't exist, and no perspective in between. i know that i want to get married within a reasonable time frame - im not trying to be 30+ still trying to figure out the concessions equation. in order for me to do that, i think i need to choose my battles. wanting to jump my significant others bones every time i see him is not a requirement. you can have sexual attraction for your mate without the "spark" (as op has described) - idk, it just seems like such a silly, silly concept to base a relationship on imo.

I think we have different definitions of chemistry.

 

[chronicity]

(and let me also say that, in case im giving off the impression of a sparkless romantic life, i spark with almost every guy i meet, one way or another. it just takes a lot for me to have that sexual spark, and these days its becoming based on more, uh, different and different things. sparks are insignificant for me in different ways.)

I wish I could say the same! Even though I've experienced intense chemistry before (so I know what it feels like), it's a relatively rare phenomenon for me. I've noticed that when I'm out with other girls, they have an easier time spotting men who interests them physically. Whereas months might pass before I see one guy I'd look twice at. For instance, last night at the club, my aunt was crushing on 2 different guys within an hour of being there. But weren't nobody up in that piece I could see giving my number.

With that all said, though, winning my heart has always been more difficult than turning me on.

 

[CaraWalker]

I think we have different definitions of chemistry.

no, i think you're on to something here. because i wonder about this when i see women who are single, and think there are no good men out there, or don't know where to find them or how to meet them, or don't date, or have little in the way of a romantic life... and it can be summed up under the general heading "i don't like the men i meet."

why is that?

i remember reading one of those online dating studies that compared compatibility rates and described some women as having "high compatibility" with all different types of men across the board. is it that some women are more compatible - and therefore, frequently "spark" and have chemistry with men - than others? that for some women, having chemistry with a man comes naturally, while others, for whatever reason, have to work at it?

i view dating differently (you're right about that) and im willing to admit i may be an outlier in this respect. because, like i said, sexual attraction for me generally seems to be a foregone conclusion. bluntly, if i am dating a man that is physically attractive to me, i have sexual chemistry with him, in the sense that i desire sex with him. and it isn't really any deeper than that. for me the real chemistry comes from some unexplainable mental, temperamental, or intellectual connection and that is much harder to come by, and much more important. sexually though - no. inconsequential.

eta: i think the perspectives that differ from mine are VERY important though, because like i said, this was an issue in my last relationship. we both knew we had the "spark" intellectually, but i think he valued, and wanted, a more sexual spark, and it wasn't that important for me. frankly, i just am pretty incapable of putting that high a premium in a partner that inspires a raging libido. i can feel that way casually dating. it's important then for me to have a high sexual attraction for partners i am casually dating (otherwise why bother?). but in a long term relationship, it's not as important, and i recognize that a lot of men may feel the exact opposite.

oh no. i think i have a madonna/whore approach to long term relationships

 

[chronicity]

There's seems to be some cloudiness as to what "chemistry" means.

In my case, it means lustfulness. Infatuation. Craving his body and his affection. A visceral longing to be near him. Needing sex with him, not just wanting it. Having an animal connection with him, not just a mental one.

Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking this is not essential. In a previous relationship, I felt the same lack but that case was different because 1) sex was often bad (he had ED), 2) our values were different, and 3) his immaturity when it came to finances bugged me.

He's coming over today. I think I might broach this subject with him and get his thoughts. Wish me luck.

 

[ambergirl]

I wish I could say the same! Even though I've experienced intense chemistry before (so I know what it feels like), it's a relatively rare phenomenon for me. I've noticed that when I'm out with other girls, they have an easier time spotting men who interests them physically. Whereas months might pass before I see one guy I'd look twice at. For instance, last night at the club, my aunt was crushing on 2 different guys within an hour of being there. But weren't nobody up in that piece I could see giving my number. With that all said, though, winning my heart has always been more difficult than turning me on.

Yeah from what you've written I sensed that. So the question is do you believe you're just built that way or do you believe that this is something you can and are willing to change? Because your beliefs around that will help you figure out what to do next.

 

[CaraWalker]

In my case, it means lustfulness. Infatuation. Craving his body and his affection. A visceral longing to be near him. Needing sex with him, not just wanting it. Having an animal connection with him, not just a mental one.

ah. thats not what chemistry means to me at all. so fascinating! another thing for me to add to the list of issues i need to be compatible with for the husband i plan to find in 2014

 

[ambergirl]

ah. thats not what chemistry means to me at all. so fascinating! another thing for me to add to the list of issues i need to be compatible with for the husband i plan to find in 2014

Yeah me either.

To me the type of chemistry the OP is talking about is hormonal.

Some of the men I've dated have been blasting so much testosterone I would break out like a teenager when I spent a lot of time around them and climb them like a tree.

Personally I wouldn't hold out for that.

 

[chronicity]

Yeah from what you've written I sensed that. So the question is do you believe you're just built that way or do you believe that this is something you can and are willing to change? Because your beliefs around that will help you figure out what to do next.

I'm definitely willing to change. Don't really no how to do that, though. I've never been able to make myself fall in love with someone. Do you know anyone who has?

 

[ambergirl]

I'm definitely willing to change. Don't really no how to do that, though. I've never been able to make myself fall in love with someone. Do you know anyone who has?

I would look at it a bit differently. Is there something in your experiences or belief system that is blocking you from falling in and feeling love? If so it may be that you have some emotional healing to do

If not, It may be that for all of his great fitness you just don't love this guy and that is what it is. Or maybe your ideas about love and chemistry would need to evolve in order for those things to happen within this relationship.

 

[deltagyrl]

Interesting thread.
I've experienced something similar. Ime, the men with the greatest sexual chemistry were the worst for me. The ones that I had to "warm up to" were better suited for me long term.

A few months ago I broke it off with my SO who I had crazy chemistry with. I recently met someone who is a phenomenal guy on/off paper. I do not have the animalistic, primal urges yet, but this guy is so gentle and considerate and loving and respectful of every part of me that I know it's coming. He has what I need and that is sexy as hell.

Hang in there and work on it. Be really, really honest with your guy and allow things to grow.

 

[RegaLady]

There's seems to be some cloudiness as to what "chemistry" means.

In my case, it means lustfulness. Infatuation. Craving his body and his affection. A visceral longing to be near him. Needing sex with him, not just wanting it. Having an animal connection with him, not just a mental one.

Maybe I'm deluding myself into thinking this is not essential. In a previous relationship, I felt the same lack but that case was different because 1) sex was often bad (he had ED), 2) our values were different, and 3) his immaturity when it came to finances bugged me.

He's coming over today. I think I might broach this subject with him and get his thoughts. Wish me luck.

Look up or talk to older women who have been married for yearsss!! I am willing to bet, the bolded was not nessesary to have a successful relationship/marriage (if this is what you want).

Temporary or casual fun, I can see it as a nessesity. Primal raw attraction I would think would be needed for flings, otherwise why waste your time. For something deeper, I don't think so.

 

[ambergirl]

no, i think you're on to something here. because i wonder about this when i see women who are single, and think there are no good men out there, or don't know where to find them or how to meet them, or don't date, or have little in the way of a romantic life... and it can be summed up under the general heading "i don't like the men i meet." why is that? i remember reading one of those online dating studies that compared compatibility rates and described some women as having "high compatibility" with all different types of men across the board. is it that some women are more compatible - and therefore, frequently "spark" and have chemistry with men - than others? that for some women, having chemistry with a man comes naturally, while others, for whatever reason, have to work at it? i view dating differently (you're right about that) and im willing to admit i may be an outlier in this respect. because, like i said, sexual attraction for me generally seems to be a foregone conclusion. bluntly, if i am dating a man that is physically attractive to me, i have sexual chemistry with him, in the sense that i desire sex with him. and it isn't really any deeper than that. for me the real chemistry comes from some unexplainable mental, temperamental, or intellectual connection and that is much harder to come by, and much more important. sexually though - no. inconsequential. eta: i think the perspectives that differ from mine are VERY important though, because like i said, this was an issue in my last relationship. we both knew we had the "spark" intellectually, but i think he valued, and wanted, a more sexual spark, and it wasn't that important for me. frankly, i just am pretty incapable of putting that high a premium in a partner that inspires a raging libido. i can feel that way casually dating. it's important then for me to have a high sexual attraction for partners i am casually dating (otherwise why bother?). but in a long term relationship, it's not as important, and i recognize that a lot of men may feel the exact opposite. oh no. i think i have a madonna/whore approach to long term relationships

Yeah for me chemistry is driven mostly by emotions ( provided there's a certain level of physical attraction) If I'm in love with him I am going to be all up on him!

If he can't deliver we either work on it until we can make it work or it's a no go. I'm not consigning myself to a life of blah sex.