Chemistry
Chemistry as defined by Webster’s dictionary:
1 : a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo
2 : a strong mutual attraction, attachment, or sympathy
In high school Ted Bickel was my chemistry teacher. He was a nice man. A little odd, but nice. Looking back I never remember him teaching a lesson on how to have “chemistry” in relationships. I’ve had the line we have no chemistry used on me before. When the guy said it I accepted it, but I never believed that was what was really going on in his mind. Even now after having time pass I still don’t. There are many ways to define chemistry in relationships. It could be anything from physical attraction to having personalities that mesh. Yet, using we have no chemistry as a get out of a relationship line, I believe, is a cop out. What does that mean really? I think it is more of a way to gloss over something deeper. Instead of saying I’m scared or I don’t think we have enough in common or even I don’t like your hair color which might be the real truth we say, no chemistry. The no chemistry line seems like a less painful way to go because really sometimes the truth just hurts. Using this line can also protect us and keep some of us from having to take a chance and actually make a go of a relationship. I’m not excusing the use of this line, but I do understand why someone would say it. Yet, is having chemistry the test of a relationship? Do we have to have butterflies or everything in common? We’ve all met people that we instantly gee-haw with. That’s a word one of my bosses used to say. We’ve also met people who we didn’t click with at first, but over time something changed and we did. So, if we are getting in and out of relationships based on a certain spark, butterfly or feeling then we could be in trouble. Feelings are fickle. They can change easily and let’s face it after the initial rush of a relationship wears off there has to be something more to fill the gap. If there isn’t some spontaneous combustion up front do we just ditch someone? What about the possibility of something heating up slowly until it boils?
The other thing is why do we accept no chemistry as an ok end to a relationship? Maybe by accepting that line we are really just protecting ourselves from something we don’t want to hear. Again, the truth can hurt. So, when that line was said to me why did I accept it? I’m not sure. Maybe I was shocked or maybe I was wanting to protect myself or maybe I was protecting the one who said it.
Personally for me chemistry is better left as a science taught in high school. It shouldn’t become the cop out line or the idea that defines or what replaces the truth in relationships.
1 : a science that deals with the composition, structure, and properties of substances and with the transformations that they undergo
2 : a strong mutual attraction, attachment, or sympathy
In high school Ted Bickel was my chemistry teacher. He was a nice man. A little odd, but nice. Looking back I never remember him teaching a lesson on how to have “chemistry” in relationships. I’ve had the line we have no chemistry used on me before. When the guy said it I accepted it, but I never believed that was what was really going on in his mind. Even now after having time pass I still don’t. There are many ways to define chemistry in relationships. It could be anything from physical attraction to having personalities that mesh. Yet, using we have no chemistry as a get out of a relationship line, I believe, is a cop out. What does that mean really? I think it is more of a way to gloss over something deeper. Instead of saying I’m scared or I don’t think we have enough in common or even I don’t like your hair color which might be the real truth we say, no chemistry. The no chemistry line seems like a less painful way to go because really sometimes the truth just hurts. Using this line can also protect us and keep some of us from having to take a chance and actually make a go of a relationship. I’m not excusing the use of this line, but I do understand why someone would say it. Yet, is having chemistry the test of a relationship? Do we have to have butterflies or everything in common? We’ve all met people that we instantly gee-haw with. That’s a word one of my bosses used to say. We’ve also met people who we didn’t click with at first, but over time something changed and we did. So, if we are getting in and out of relationships based on a certain spark, butterfly or feeling then we could be in trouble. Feelings are fickle. They can change easily and let’s face it after the initial rush of a relationship wears off there has to be something more to fill the gap. If there isn’t some spontaneous combustion up front do we just ditch someone? What about the possibility of something heating up slowly until it boils?
The other thing is why do we accept no chemistry as an ok end to a relationship? Maybe by accepting that line we are really just protecting ourselves from something we don’t want to hear. Again, the truth can hurt. So, when that line was said to me why did I accept it? I’m not sure. Maybe I was shocked or maybe I was wanting to protect myself or maybe I was protecting the one who said it.
Personally for me chemistry is better left as a science taught in high school. It shouldn’t become the cop out line or the idea that defines or what replaces the truth in relationships.
posted by Heylala | 4:08 PM
<< Home