SurvivingInfidelity.com Forums
New Beginnings
User Topic: Let's talk butterflies...
cmego
Member
Member # 30346
Default  Posted: 9:19 PM, April 12th (Saturday)

After a "good" first date, which I'm not even sure what that means any longer, I was having a discussion with another SI member about butterflies and/or lack thereof.

Met guy at 4pm and a local restaurant. We sat at the bar, which he beat me there and grabbed seats. He is cute, no doubt. We ordered a drink, and eventually a pizza. I looked at my watch and 3 hours had gone by. We sat and talked for 3 hours straight, never once about either of our exs, and overall had a good time. Fun conversation, but little to no flirting and he didn't compliment me.

I did not have butterflies. Maybe a slight flutter, liked him, but wasn't blown away, KWIM?? What I did notice is that we talked so easily with each other.

But, I also know that first dates are only to determine if you want second. I would go out with him again.

So, if the date overall goes well..but there are no butterflies…does that mean friend zone? Or do you go out on a few more dates and see if it develops? In my head, the guy makes the decision really quickly if there is "sexual chemistry", i.e. butterflies.


me...BS, 43 years old, 2 small kids
WS, 41, multiple gay affairs
M 15 years, together 17
Divorced

"For whatever we lose, like a you or a me, it's always ourselves we find in the sea" ee cummings


Posts: 4100 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Virginia
norabird
Member
Member # 42092
Default  Posted: 9:59 PM, April 12th (Saturday)

I'm not dating right now, so my input may be useless I.e. even I may be singing a different tune once the rubber meets the road!

But to me right now, the date you describe is exactly what I want for my future dating life. I have had so many butterflies in my life. They obscured my thinking. They blinded me to important things and I do not intend to trust them again, not right away.

You say he's cute. I think the attraction can develop as you get to know each other--that it doesn't have to be there right away in your stomach, not when you are able to get along and be engaged with each other.


Sit. Feast on your life.

Posts: 4041 | Registered: Jan 2014 | From: NYC
better4me
Member
Member # 30341
Default  Posted: 9:34 AM, April 13th (Sunday)

Butterflies have steered me wrong plenty of times...They may be a good predictor of "heat" maybe, but they're not a good indicator of whether the fellow is a good man with the characteristics I deserve in a partner...

I know I need to have a "chemistry" connection with someone. I dated a really nice man for 5 dates without having any "sparks" with the way he kissed me (the opposite actually) and I broke it off with him because of it...I don't think chemistry is the same as butterflies necessarily though...

I've read that women make a decision quickly too regarding sexual chemistry...not just men...but we are grown ups now, we can wait and see what develops. You'll know soon enough.

[This message edited by better4me at 9:34 AM, April 13th (Sunday)]


DDay 11/17/2010 BW:52
Divorced

Posts: 3063 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Iowa
Kajem
Member
Member # 36134
Default  Posted: 11:17 AM, April 13th (Sunday)

I think talking for 3 hours and not noticing is a good thing. I'd see what develops. It sounds like it could go either way friend or love interest.


I trust you is a better compliment than I love you, because you may not trust the person you love, but you can always love the person you trust. - Unknown
Relationships are like sharing a book, it doesn't work if you're not on the same page.

Posts: 4991 | Registered: Jul 2012 | From: Florida
Jrazz
Guide
Member # 31349
Default  Posted: 11:59 AM, April 13th (Sunday)

Butterflies have steered me wrong plenty of times...

^^ Totally this.

I think that no blutterflies doesn't necessarily mean "meh." If you had a nice time and wouldn't mind seeing him again, I say go for it.

(For me, butterflies almost always represent my perception of a little bit of danger... )


If you can't learn to enjoy your life when you have problems, you may never enjoy it because we'll always have problems. - Joyce Meyer

Posts: 16807 | Registered: Feb 2011 | From: California
better4me
Member
Member # 30341
Default  Posted: 3:45 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

(For me, butterflies almost always represent my perception of a little bit of danger... )
JRazz, you are my sister from another mister!


DDay 11/17/2010 BW:52
Divorced

Posts: 3063 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Iowa
cayc
Member
Member # 21964
Default  Posted: 3:59 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

I think not having butterflies/heat/excitement or whatever word you want to call it to see someone sounds grim. And depressing. And ho hum. And not fun. For me, I have to feel some excitement about a person else I''m not interested. That goes for friendships too, not just dating.

I''m not sure why being excited about seeing someone/being with someone has become associated with you''re about to get fucked over by an asshat. I guess I just don''t see it that way.


"The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, the pig is committed." -Martina Navratilova
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -Ayn Rand

Posts: 3043 | Registered: Dec 2008 | From: Mexico
cmego
Member
Member # 30346
Default  Posted: 5:41 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

But I NEVER feel it on a first date. Well, I take that back, I have and that was with xSO, and that was a really bad relationship. My IC said we were so physically drawn to each other it was crazy…but there was nothing else there. Same with XH. Sparks were instant, but mostly because he was pursuing me so hard, I felt flattered.

So, I'm always "maybe" or "no" on a first date. If he is overly flirty on the date, I am turned off by that. A pushy guy is always going to turn me off. I don't like being pushed.

I haven't heard from him, so I'm assuming its a no from him anyway. And I was interested enough to see him again, but not too worried. For me, it is the second date that is the telling date. When you let your guard down a little…then sparks will fly a little bit more for me.

I think if guys don't feel something immediately, they are an instant no. It doesn't matter if we can talk for three hours…it is just no.

Next!


me...BS, 43 years old, 2 small kids
WS, 41, multiple gay affairs
M 15 years, together 17
Divorced

"For whatever we lose, like a you or a me, it's always ourselves we find in the sea" ee cummings


Posts: 4100 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Virginia
persevere
Member
Member # 31468
Default  Posted: 5:43 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

I also know that first dates are only to determine if you want second. I would go out with him again.

I think this is smart. I think getting to know someone is just that - there may be butterflies up front, there may not. You enjoyed the date, you talked for three hours straight - say date #1 leads to date #2 - where you get to know each other a little better and see what develops. I really think it is just that simple. Happy for you cmego.

eta - just saw your post - and if it doesn't lead to date #2 - you still had a nice time and you move on.

[This message edited by persevere at 5:44 PM, April 13th (Sunday)]


Me: BW-44
Him: XWH-44
Together 9 yrs
DDays: 1/10/2011
Status: Divorced 4/27/11

Above all, be the heroine, not the victim. - Nora Ephron

It is our choices...that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.
- J. K. Rowling


Posts: 4436 | Registered: Mar 2011 | From: Texas
notmeanymore
Member
Member # 9772
Default  Posted: 7:48 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

I am in a similar situation. I've been on two dates with a guy who seems nice, I find him attractive, but he's not knocking me over with his wit (my kryptonite).

I've realized in other situations with guys who are super witty I'm so overwhelmed with that one feature that I like so much that I overlook a ton of things I shouldn't.

I also found this on baggage reclaim.

http://www.baggagereclaim.co.uk/do-you-have-to-feel-instant-attraction-why-its-time-to-stop-acting-like-youre-a-love-psychic/


"Put the cuckoo back in the clock baby" - Four Brothers

Posts: 865 | Registered: Feb 2006
Phoenix1
Member
Member # 38928
Default  Posted: 7:50 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

With current BF, I had no butterflies in the beginning at all. Just easy and very comfortable conversation, which we both apparently enjoyed. He didn't even try to kiss me until date three, which was fine by me, but when he finally did the proverbial rockets went off! The butterflies hit after that, along with plenty of fireworks! The chemistry was/is there, but the slow pace just took us a while to realize it.


BS - Me
XPOS - too many OW/OCs over 20+yrs
Kids - DDs 22,17 -DS20 Deceased
M Dissolved 2013

This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man ~ Shakespeare, Hamlet


Posts: 1021 | Registered: Apr 2013 | From: Rising out of Hell's ashes!
cmego
Member
Member # 30346
Default  Posted: 8:16 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

Here is the deal…I get that for me, the butterflies come slowly and that is GOOD.

For men, I don't think that happens, or at least not with me.

He did text me, but it was very "vanilla", said he enjoyed talking to me, but didn't ask me out and I can see he is back on OLD. So, although we talked for 3 hours, he isn't going to ask me out again, I can tell.

I don't think guys think about this nearly as much as women. If that spark isn't instantly there, they keep looking instead of realizing that being able to talk to a girl is a real plus.

I haven't quite figured that part out yet. I know some guys are attracted to me, it is just a needle in a haystack to have them BOTH match. Where I like him as much as he likes me. It only happens about once a year for me.

I still think this is NEXT! But, I had fun and met a new person.


me...BS, 43 years old, 2 small kids
WS, 41, multiple gay affairs
M 15 years, together 17
Divorced

"For whatever we lose, like a you or a me, it's always ourselves we find in the sea" ee cummings


Posts: 4100 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Virginia
cayc
Member
Member # 21964
Default  Posted: 8:29 PM, April 13th (Sunday)

I''ll concede that with OLD, you are meeting a stranger for the first time and so .... sometimes, sitting there with a total stranger? How the f*ck would you know if there are butterflies? I guess in those situations I''m judging it as ... did I walk away from the first date saying "boo yah! I like this guy!" or am I walking away from it analyzing it.

For me, if I walk away analyzing it, that means I''m trying to talk myself into giving a guy another chance (date) because I think I should, because I worry I''m too judgey, because everyone on SI says no butterflies initially is good and leads to better relationships and so on. Not because I really want to.

I went on a date this weekend with a guy who I think has Asbergers. Or he''s on the spectrum. Or he''s just odd. He''s handsome. He''s nice. I like him. He''s just such a nice person. But NO butterflies. None. All I could think about is how anyone I introduced him to would think he''s odd. (I know, I''m kind of ashamed of that feeling). He really likes me. So because it''s OLD, I''m going to give him one more date to see. But it would be so much better if I were excited about it, kwim?


"The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, the pig is committed." -Martina Navratilova
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -Ayn Rand

Posts: 3043 | Registered: Dec 2008 | From: Mexico
nomoreplease
Member
Member # 32755
Default  Posted: 3:37 PM, April 14th (Monday)

In my head, the guy makes the decision really quickly if there is "sexual chemistry", i.e. butterflies.
I think if guys don't feel something immediately, they are an instant no. It doesn't matter if we can talk for three hours…it is just no.
I don't think guys think about this nearly as much as women. If that spark isn't instantly there, they keep looking instead of realizing that being able to talk to a girl is a real plus.
I can’t speak for all guys, but I can give you my thoughts on this since there is a lot of speculation going on.

I think, a big difference could be the importance each gender places on different aspects of “sexual chemistry.” For example, men are (generally) more visual, so if they find a woman attractive she may be very much closer (or even all the way) to “sexual chemistry” than if the genders were reversed which could account for it seeming like men make the decision much quicker.

Personally, I think I have only ever felt "instant butterflies" once, with XWW, and if I felt it again it might be a dealbreaker for me, now. I have been dating over the last few months, and I even went on ~6 dates with one woman because the conversation was great and we had a lot of fun, but I still never felt chemistry with her. I have felt chemistry with a couple different women, but in neither case was it instant and was probably most of the way through the second date before I felt it with either. Again, this is just me, and I often feel like I’m very different than a lot of my gender in this respect so take this for what it is.


'one walks away saying "I fought to save God's ideal," and the other must always admit, "I fought to destroy God's ideal!"'

Posts: 401 | Registered: Jul 2011
Lonelygirl10
Member
Member # 39850
Default  Posted: 8:17 PM, April 14th (Monday)

I usually don't feel butterflies on the first date, especially with OLD. It's sometimes just awkward meeting strangers, and a good date to me is one that doesn't have awkward pauses. I think the second and third date is where I expect the butterflies. If I'm not feeling any type of excitement after third date, I end it. I think it's unrealistic to expect a stranger that you don't know to give you butterflies. Those should come once you get to know someone. But with that said, there have been some definite nos for me based on first date since I was actually not attracted to the guy at all.


29 Bgf
Dday: April 2013
Relationship ended: January 2014

Posts: 1106 | Registered: Jul 2013
SBB
Member
Member # 35229
Default  Posted: 8:41 PM, April 14th (Monday)

I've read somewhere that a woman decides within 30 seconds whether or not she would have sex with someone.

To be blunt I know I decide pretty quickly whether they are fuckable or not. Butterflies or not. Doesn't mean I AM going to sleep with them it just means that they aren't a definite no.

I decided the sad clown was a no within 30 seconds. Then later he put his arm around me and this 'chemistry'/'butterflies' happened. I blame pheromones and pining for an inappropriate but lovely guy I had just dumped (he was too young).

When I am ready to date seriously I won't be looking for immediate chemistry. I don't want the guy with lots of charm because I've seen that shit used for evil, not just good.

I'll be looking for someone I would have as a friend. Someone I would set up with a friend.

If I think about how I met my closest friends I know I wouldn't have them in my life right now if I had an expectation that we'd hit it off immediately.

I'd also want to give the guy time to work out if I am just fuckable or someone they want in their life. I don't mean am I just good to have sex with - I mean is he just sexually attracted to me or does it go deeper?


Buzz- The word you are searching for is 'Space-Ranger.'
Woody- The word I'm searching for, I can't say, because there are Pre-school toys here.

Posts: 5527 | Registered: Apr 2012 | From: Australia
cayc
Member
Member # 21964
Default  Posted: 9:18 PM, April 14th (Monday)

When I am ready to date seriously I won''t be looking for immediate chemistry. I don''t want the guy with lots of charm because I''ve seen that shit used for evil, not just good.

Yes but that''s the thing. When did chemistry get conflated with charm? Immediate chemistry is recognizing you''ve met a kindred intellectual spirit for example, not having someone schmooze you with compliments and work you. At least that''s how I see it.


"The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, the pig is committed." -Martina Navratilova
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -Ayn Rand

Posts: 3043 | Registered: Dec 2008 | From: Mexico
SBB
Member
Member # 35229
Default  Posted: 9:33 PM, April 14th (Monday)

When did chemistry get conflated with charm? Immediate chemistry is recognizing you've met a kindred intellectual spirit for example, not having someone schmooze you with compliments and work you.

They are one and the same for me given the goal of the expert charmer is to make you feel like you've met a kindred spirit.

Charmers who schmooze you are easy to spot - they know you know that they are trying to charm you. It is a dance where both parties are aware of it.

Personality disordered 'charmers' mirror your likes/dislikes, values etc to appear to be kindred spirits.

I am deeply mistrustful of this type of feeling now. They say we often feel connected to people who feel familiar - even if that 'familiar' is rooted in toxic FOO-esque behaviour.


Buzz- The word you are searching for is 'Space-Ranger.'
Woody- The word I'm searching for, I can't say, because there are Pre-school toys here.

Posts: 5527 | Registered: Apr 2012 | From: Australia
norabird
Member
Member # 42092
Default  Posted: 10:13 PM, April 14th (Monday)

I'm with SBB. To me, now, 'kindred spirit' feelings don't mean all that much. What about their values? I have felt I have connected with many men and while, yes, we had common interests and got along really well and shared tastes/attitudes, what was really happening was just that I wanted to have sex with them, whether or not they were a good fit on a deeper level.

I have been thinking lately about some of the guys I didn't go for in the last for a lack of chemistry. They were really great guys in most cases (I am friends with a few of them now). I wish I had taken a different approach. Of course it's good to have the heat. But it shouldn't be in the drivers seat.


Sit. Feast on your life.

Posts: 4041 | Registered: Jan 2014 | From: NYC
cayc
Member
Member # 21964
Default  Posted: 6:57 AM, April 15th (Tuesday)

But this is what I''m getting at. This topic always turns out to be so black & white! Why can''t you have chemistry with a nice guy? To me chemistry is about intellectual capacity and character & many of you seem to define it as sexual. That''s why if I meet someone who is my intellectual equal & sparks my mind, I see it as chemistry, there''s no cognitive dissonance there.

It''s almost like you all are saying that unless the guy bores you (how you seem to be finding the nice guys, bc it seems they are defined as the boring ones passed over) because if there''s any "ooh" there then he must be a snake charmer out to get you. I just thing that''s a really paranoid way to live.

To me, boring doesn''t equal safe or nice, it just equals boring & feeling like you like someone doesn''t equal snake charmer, it just equals you enjoy their company and would like to get to know them better.

I''d venture to say if a person is still in hunker down mode "he smiled at me he must be trying to con me!" Then you''re dating too soon. I happen to think (hope) that I''ve learned enough that if I have chemistry with a guy then he is a nice guy.

The things to avoid are the future fakers, future forwarders, the super complimenters, the fuzzy around the edges story tellers, & the ones who divulge too much personal pain too soon. Things like that are markers of being conned. Enjoying someone''s company because they light an intellectual fire (for example) or you have some interesting things in common & it feels good is chemistry etc. & I''m not sure why some of you are afraid of that. After all isn''t it the same feelings you have with your same sex friends? I get excited to see them in the same way for the same reason.


"The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved, the pig is committed." -Martina Navratilova
"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me." -Ayn Rand

Posts: 3043 | Registered: Dec 2008 | From: Mexico
cmego
Member
Member # 30346
Default  Posted: 8:07 AM, April 15th (Tuesday)

Yup, this is why I wanted this discussion. But, overall I'm still of the opinion that I don't have to have immediate "butterflies" to know that it CAN grow.

What I think is that most men don't think the same way women do.

I've dated enough to recognize instant butterflies are very dangerous. They actually mean danger to me. Heat can build, so I'm not too worried. I have a basic attraction to him and I know that spark can flame if the situation is right.

What I don't know is how he feels/thinks/is attracted to/ about me. We are still chatting/emailing and I think just going to see what happens.

My self protection mode is still set to "no guy is going to see my value". I'm still working on resetting that and it is a work in progress.

Letting go of the outcome and just facing my triggers/fear is tough stuff.


me...BS, 43 years old, 2 small kids
WS, 41, multiple gay affairs
M 15 years, together 17
Divorced

"For whatever we lose, like a you or a me, it's always ourselves we find in the sea" ee cummings


Posts: 4100 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Virginia
norabird
Member
Member # 42092
Default  Posted: 11:11 AM, April 15th (Tuesday)

I wouldn't say the guys I see as nice and trustworthy are boring. Some of them are very good friends of mine and I know how funny and smart they are and how well I get along with them. No lack of 'clicking' conversationally and interest-wise.

I just think it's wise to hold back the hormones/use them as the only gauge as they can blind me to the full picture.

For me, I got into my last relationship because I was desperate to feel loved, after dating around a lot and not getting what I wanted emotionally with guys I was very sexually compatible with. So I want to have a different, more thoughtful approach next time around, instead of just following my sex drive around.

Probably cayc is right about the strong fear of getting hoodwinked meaning that one shouldn't be dating. I'm not dating yet so I don't know how strongly that self-protective mode will still be around once I'm ready. But I do want it to stick around in part. I think I learned a good lesson about diving in too fast because of a feeling of clicking that wasn't grounded in important shared values or an objective sense of whether it was smart.

Now, if nothing builds with this guy cmego saw, that's ok. You can't force it. But allowing time and not 'nexting' when the insta-spark isn't there right away seems sound to me.

We're all just doing our best; it's not an exact science. There's a value in being trusting and vulnerable and in allowing a romantic feeling of connection; there's also a danger in it, sometimes. Everyone finds their own balance. You don't want to become too afraid and yet you also should learn some lessons from getting burned.


Sit. Feast on your life.

Posts: 4041 | Registered: Jan 2014 | From: NYC
SBB
Member
Member # 35229
Default  Posted: 9:23 PM, April 16th (Wednesday)

To me chemistry is about intellectual capacity and character & many of you seem to define it as sexual.

Chemistry is about all of these things. I don't believe you
can/should look at them completely independent of each other. It's a package. All grow or contract the longer you know someone depending on your experience of them.

In the early days your estimation is limited to what they want you to see. Same for them.

I'm focused on how *I* feel about them - it's their job to work out how they feel about me. Not mine. I'm either for them or
I'm not - it's not like I want to convince them to be with me. Nor do I want them to convince me to be with them.

This way what I feel for them isn't influenced by what they feel for me. I've made that mistake before. I'm not that interested but his interest has swayed my decision. That didn't work out so well for me.

I don't need sexual chemistry immediately but I do need for them to not be an immediate 'no' - doesn't matter how great the other parts are if the sex is a no it isn't something I can pursue.


Buzz- The word you are searching for is 'Space-Ranger.'
Woody- The word I'm searching for, I can't say, because there are Pre-school toys here.

Posts: 5527 | Registered: Apr 2012 | From: Australia
better4me
Member
Member # 30341
Default  Posted: 10:23 AM, April 17th (Thursday)

This way what I feel for them isn't influenced by what they feel for me. I've made that mistake before. I'm not that interested but his interest has swayed my decision. That didn't work out so well for me.

^^^^this^^^fits perfectly for me too. In almost every relationship I've had. I now am focusing on what I want, need, desire, deserve, how *I*feel etc. It's working much better this way.

My first reaction to someone is the way I describe "chemistry", the sexual chemistry that just feels good. It doesn't indicate anything about the other person, because I don't "know" them yet but tells me that my interest is there. That feeling is sometimes very intense, but it doesn't tell me anything about the real potential of the relationship. I just "want" them. The butterflies for me are the excited feeling after I get to know someone for awhile, the "I get to see him tonight" excitement. The deeper more important feelings of "this relationship could work" and "I like who this person is", the intimacy that happens later is the real measure of a relationship, more than chemistry and or butterflies. Ideally, the sexual chemistry is present in all of these and gets deeper and better as true intimacy and revealing occurs...


DDay 11/17/2010 BW:52
Divorced

Posts: 3063 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Iowa
cmego
Member
Member # 30346
Default  Posted: 10:51 AM, April 17th (Thursday)

I agree with the path of this discussion, "butterflies" mean varied things. Those flutterings when I"m happy to see the guy I'm dating are good. But a flutter on a first date can mean danger. I read somewhere that if woman is interested in a guy sexually first…that is all it will be. Women fall for guys via our brain, so if the attraction is physical, then it is doubtful it will ever be much else. On the flip side, guys tend to be attracted to visual first. If they are intellectually attracted first, and the visual isn't there, it is doubtful that it will turn into something else.

It is amazing men and women get together, because instant attraction is different, although the end result (wanting both intellectual and physical attraction) is the same.

So, how do you deal with (in my case) men, who aren't looking that deep? My solution, like you guys, is to realize this isn't meeting my emotional needs and move on.

*If* this current guy showed more interest, I'd probably be interested. But, since his pace is quite slow and not the "pursuer type", it chills my interest down to a friendship level. We are supposed to get together within the next week to go hit golfballs. His "pace" is different than my "pace", therefore I'm going to friend zone him, get to know him, and pursue other opportunities where there is more relationship potential that meets my needs.

The deal is, *I* want a relationship. I don't do well in slow paced, gray area relationships. I look at relationships like a ping-pong game. Two people have to be playing and lobbing back and forth for the game to continue.


me...BS, 43 years old, 2 small kids
WS, 41, multiple gay affairs
M 15 years, together 17
Divorced

"For whatever we lose, like a you or a me, it's always ourselves we find in the sea" ee cummings


Posts: 4100 | Registered: Dec 2010 | From: Virginia
Topic Posts: 25