I like him. A lot.

 

I think you and I discussed him previously? I indicated his is the only book I recommend as opposed to the Man up, Game, RP, Pickup stuff I have read previously. I have not yet read "Everything is F* cked - A Book of Hope"

He writes like you could be having a conversation with him at a bar or coffee house.

 

OK this is a very cool topic. I have read most of the article, and I definitely have some thoughts, but I can't put them down right now. I will say I have made sort of an informal personal study of compatibility when I was trying to figure out why my 1st husband and I failed spectacularly at marriage when We seemed so perfect on paper. And now I am a perfect fit with a man that no one would have expected me to marry and vice versa

 

Interesting article.

One problem. According to the definition of chemistry as given, my wife and I have excellent chemistry. So I wondered where the sexual mismatch comes in, because it sure didn't fit the definition of compatibility. So, sure enough, the article then says chemistry is reflected in the bedroom, which is how I would have guessed before reading the definition of chemistry.

So even though we fit the preliminary definition of chemistry, we also fit the bedroom definition of having little chemistry.

I think this construct needs to be laid over the HD/LD construct as I suspect there are many possible permutations beyond the simple four square chemistry/compatibility matrix presented.

 

Rocky,
Yes - chemistry has multiple facets. M2 and I make each other laugh more than all the rest of the people in our respective lives combined. We love playing puzzle games with each other and impromptu estimating games. She is super fun and playful while being competitive in a good way.

Non sexual touch chemistry - great.

But our sexual chemistry - has varied a lot over 29+ years together - I only have one rule: No pretending

But man - sometimes my ego takes a beating....

 

Could this article be summed up as saying there's more to relationships than sex and there's more to relationships than friendship? And the favorable and unfavorable combinations of the two? I think there's more meat to his article about not giving a F.

But for the article in question, I don't think it addressed how both chemistry and compatibility may change over time. Probably chemistry more than compatibility. Leopards don't change their spots; I can look at my wife today, and look at what she wrote in her diaries 44 years ago, and it's the same person. But the chemistry has certainly changed over time. In fact the chemistry changed shortly after we met. Chemistry can change from fun & wild seeking mode to conservative settling in, I've found it mode.

 

Casual,
Chemistry is definitely more fragile than compatibility. And - at risk of offending my brethren - I’d say that chemistry is sometimes highly correlated to the degree of fragility of the ego of the man in the relationship.

I don’t think they realize it, but many men - seem to crave a level of stability that is incompatible with passion.

I have a sufficient dose of that to recognize it. For example, our sexual routine is excessively patterned. That’s driven by my fear of doing something M2 doesn’t like.

Now my (sexual) situation is somewhat unusual in two regards:
- M2 is unusually competitive and wishes to be considered an excellent wife and fully grasps the physicality of that role
- She has this intensely conscientious mindset, especially where maintenance of anything is concerned (oil changes, teeth cleaning, ...)

And she considers sex part of relationship maintenance. I know - that sounds somewhere between: Stepford and Aspergers - but the actual experience is quite good and she is highly engaged.

A lot of folks describe how the staircase of stability was inversely related to their sex life:
- got engaged - sex life decreased
- got married - decreases more
- had first kid - became sexless
- had last kid - sex stopped totally

 

I really liked Models.

He is much more respectful than a lot of the alternatives.

 

I have often wondered if the deep, long lasting type of chemistry is tied to the level of compatibility. By level I do not mean more or less compatible. I mean how deep the compatibility goes. For example, I would consider both people in joying tennis or both people in joy and classic rock or both people in joying Mexican food to be the shallow type of compatibility. The deep compatibility is something I have started calling core compatibility. It has more to do with the inner workings and drives of a person and less to do with how much school they have had or what type of movies they like. I believe that in order to sustain the type of kimustry that bonds people, whether it be sexual or non sexual, there must be core compatibility. I will talk more on this later when I am not using talk to text.

 

I think whenever we make the quintessentially human effort to take behavioral patterns, along with emotional states and categorize or put them in a box, it's going to get dicey. I also keep in mind that the author is a relatively young, and recently married guy.

The referenced article was actually written back in 2014 ... prior to his marriage.

I don't believe that either compatibility or chemistry are static. Both are subject to erosion, if not actively tended to, as well as growth in some cases, over the course of a LTR. I'd argue that on the chemistry side, which I'll simply qualify as making the bedroom a playground, it appears far more common, and far easier for women to transition the outstanding balance in the chemistry account, over to compatibility ... and generally those funds don't transfer back over to chemistry.

I do believe that the article does a decent job of summarizing scenarios many of us have been in ... such as the sexually electrifying relationship where you can't get enough of one another, yet outside of the bedroom, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of making it long term.

 

I think whenever we make the quintessentially human effort to take behavioral patterns, along with emotional states and categorize or put them in a box, it's going to get dicey. I also keep in mind that the author is a relatively young, and recently married guy.

The referenced article was actually written back in 2014 ... prior to his marriage.

I don't believe that either compatibility or chemistry are static. Both are subject to erosion, if not actively tended to, as well as growth in some cases, over the course of a LTR. I'd argue that on the chemistry side, which I'll simply qualify as making the bedroom a playground, it appears far more common, and far easier for women to transition the outstanding balance in the chemistry account, over to compatibility ... and generally those funds don't transfer back over to chemistry.

I do believe that the article does a decent job of summarizing scenarios many of us have been in ... such as the sexually electrifying relationship where you can't get enough of one another, yet outside of the bedroom, you stand a snowball's chance in hell of making it long term.

IME, that would seem to be the case.

This is the one I have a hard time wrapping my head around. If I can't stand someone outside the bedroom, I'm not going into the bedroom with them in the first place. I'm sure if I forced myself to, the sex would be anything but satisfying.

 

Good article.

This bit:

“High levels of chemistry with major incompatibilities is bad news. Really bad news. These relationships usually begin quickly and passionately, exploding like a flaming geyser, which then extinguishes just as quickly as it began.”

Is interesting because it highlights the challenge of having to bring your gut instinct in alignment with rational thought when picking a partner. Usually, one is good at one or the other (picking someone using your gut or your brain) but not always together...
Some people are unable to pick any other way than with your gut and often that’s why it never works and they jump from one relationship to another, making the same mistakes.

Though if I’m really honest, I did pick my wife mostly using instincts (maybe 80% instinct, 20% logic). And the reason it works (so far) is because she is not stubborn and is adaptable.
I, on the other hand, would probably be on my own by now with anyone else. I am stubborn and annoying as ****.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You've hit it on the head.

99.9% of our critical discussions are like the book "The One Minute Manager", in 30 seconds or less.

🙂

 

Really enjoyed the read!
The line, "A high degree of chemistry will mean intense, life-altering, heart-pounding sex that causes your mind to cosmically splatter itself on the walls of your consciousness. "
was figuratively insightful!