SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

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.

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.

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)]

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.

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... )

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

JRazz, you are my sister from another mister!

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.

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!

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)]

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.