If you don't feel the "spark" on the first date, should you still go on a second date?

I think I've been socialized to feel that if I'm really meant to be with someone, the chemistry will be there from the start -- it won't be forced, or learnt over time like a course you take in school. It should be natural... At least with my "soul mate..." And ideally, that's what I'm looking for.

You know, you date to find out what you like or don't like before you settle down, but I can't decide whether or not it's a waste of time to continue seeing someone with whom there is no chemistry from the start.

By no chemistry, I don't mean to say that you don't get along really well, or that you find them physically repulsive... But that you just don't feel any sort of romantic interest, despite having no particular reason for it.

Thoughts?


0|0
3|2

Most Helpful Guy

  • Honestly, the relationships that have lasted the longest for me are the ones where I initially didn't "feel" anything for them. It wasn't until getting to know them that I finally saw what was missing, and by that point, things just seemed naturally.

    On the other hand, I've dated some people where I thought there was something there, but it was really just me being blinded by them being attractive or something similar. It was more wishful thinking than anything else, and eventually, that facade fell away.

    1|0
    0|0
    • Yeah, most of my relationships have developed from friendships. But dating is completely different... Because you kind of skip the friendship phase, you go into it specifically looking for a romantic connection. So if it's not there initially, it feels kind of disappointing. That being said, I know that it's possible to for attraction do develop over time. But I think that if you feel unexcited, but obligated because you can't justify your lack of feelings for them, it's a red flag.

What Guys Said 1

  • Generally speaking, I think if you meet someone and there isn't that "spark" or connection with the person, I'd give it a 10% chance of turning into something better.

    But, there is a chance and it's different for everyone. I know there's people who can meet and know right away if he/she will have potential and there's people who need more time to get comfortable.

    Maybe he or you needs more time to get comfortable but maybe it is what it is and it's just two single people trying to make cake out of poo.

    My dating philosophy is if I didn't get much from the first date, I'll just scratch it off and move on (unless she's hot, then I'll try to stick around and bone her).

    0|0
    0|0
    • I agree. Haha... And I laughed out loud at your last sentence... It's true; you might as well have good sex while you're waiting on Mr. (or Ms.) Right.

What Girls Said 3

  • I hate to tell you this, but there's a difference between Hollywood love and reality. There is no perfect person out there and if you are holding out to meet the impossible, you are going to end up alone. The sooner you accept that this isn't a reality, the better.

    That said, you don't owe someone anything beyond a first date. If you aren't feeling the chemistry and don't envision yourself with this person in a broader sense, trust it. Just remember to keep an open mind and give that person a fair shot on the first date and be realistic.

    0|0
    0|0
    • I am fully aware of the fact that nobody's perfect. But I do believe that two people can complement each other perfectly, and I want to spend the rest of my life with someone, having no regrets or insecurities about whether or not I've made the right decision. What I'm getting at, is if something doesn't feel right from the beginning, then is there any value in giving it a second shot, in hopes that it will feel more "right" the second time around?

  • if you didn't like them the first date, you won't on the second.

    1|0
    0|0
  • there a difference between lack of attraction and repulsion. A lot of times I feel moderate as in he isn't unappealing but didn't turn me on and then after getting to know him I felt attracted. Then there are others that I am repelled by. Hopefully you know how to tell the difference. I di think the idea of initial sparks is a novelty socialized as normalcy

    0|0
    0|0
    • I was just using "repulsion" as a reason not to date someone. Of course, if I were only moderately physically attracted to them, but really clicked with them on other levels, then that wouldn't be much of an issue, and attraction would build with time. I know exactly what you mean by the "moderate" kind of lack of attraction, feeling neutral, in terms of sexual tension. But I have met people with whom there were sparks from the get-go. It's not "normal," but that's what makes love special.

    • Okay sorry I misunderstood. if there is repulsion I wouldn't continue I need a sexual connection. Since girls may not care as much but I want good sex. If a guy repelled me I would break it off because it won't be fair to either party

    • Some not since

Loading...