Chemistry is an intangible. It is not something you can develop at will. Part of what makes for great chemistry however is trust and that is most certainly something that you CAN help to create between yourself and a provider.  Of course trust, much like chemistry, is a two way street.

I see this term used on the board A LOT by both hobbyist and provider as the secret to having a great session. What does "chemistry" mean to you and how do you develop it? IYO is there anyway that you can tell if you have "chemistry" at the beginning of a session? If you feel like there chemistry is not there is the admirable thing(for providers) to poilitely turn the gentleman away or go threw with a lackluster performance? What is the difference if any between chemistry and physical attraction?

When I talk about "chemistry," I am referring to the energy and interpersonal dynamic I have with another person.

That includes physical attractiveness, interpersonal skills, mystery, surprises, comfort, safety, mutual understanding, and respect.

I do think confidence is an important part of "good chemistry," whether you are male or female.

For me, playfulness is inherent to "good chemistry."

I don't think you should try too hard to create good chemistry.  Otherwise, it comes off as "unconfident," and that's bad for the relationship dynamic, too.

Is mixing stuff together. So if 2 people have chemistry it means heat, physical attraction, common interests, easy conversation... So several factors together to create something hard to define called chemistry. This is just my opinion, I didn't look on wikipedia or anything.

Treat her as you would any one else!
Be a gentleman!!
Oh and don't forget the envelope!!!
That's about all it takes for chemistry,IMHO!

Lemme summarize. Within 200ms a woman assesses your physical attractiveness, within 2 seconds she assesses your immunological compatibility. That is the core chemistry. Then other things kick in:

> if other women desire you and she knows that, she is more likely to desire you
> if she thinks you're wealthy, odds are she'll desire you more
> she will assess your tonal qualities
> she will assess your physical health
> etc.

Once she has assessed you as actually being attractive (i.e. chemistry) she will then start self-assessing.

Almost all of this is assessed unconsciously. If you know what to observe, even in the best providers you can read their limbic reactions and ascertain whether they actually find you attractive.

Articles on some of this below.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/976

hrcak.srce.hr/file/6942

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/5618

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4T-4P429FK-1&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1487788340&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7d1df41b2e171127a9601dd20a454acb&searchtype=a

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tu-chemnitz.de%2Fhsw%2Fpsychologie%2Fprofessuren%2Fallpsy2%2FArtikel%2FHoenekopp%2C%2520Rudolph%2C%2520Beier%2C%2520Liebert%2520und%2520Mueller.pdf&rct=j&q=women%27s%20assessment%20of%20attractiveness&ei=xRStTImwK4L2swPwheiHDA&usg=AFQjCNFFQe_bMKS-w-G79f3IhhbALJB2wg&cad=rja

having checked out two of the articles you linked (the one claiming women are more attracted to men desired by other females, and the one on female mate selection), i have to say i am shocked that any member of the scientific community could give these "findings" any credibility. in the first, there was only one very small sample group of 28 women, within roughly the same age group, and likely from the same geographical area...not a reliable group with which to draw any remotely scientific conclusions. further, "researchers" of this sort very often take liberty to make connections where none exists. in other words, why is the assumption made that these women were more attracted to men simply because he is pictured with a smiling female? perhaps subtle changes in the stance or expressions of those men (inevitable because someone else is physically present) are what made them more appealing, or perhaps even the attractiveness of the females pictured made a difference...or about a dozen other factors which we will never know.

in the article on female mate selection, as both a woman and an anthropologist i was frankly horrified by the author's narrow-mindedness and grievous misinterpretation of the biology of mate selection, the reproductive drive, sex, and women as a whole. it was also poorly written, but that is just me being nit picky. here is one mind-boggling tidbit: "Biology takes into account that women all highly value and look for qualities of a monogamous caregiver. This means women at some point all desire a single mate that agrees to a exclusive mutual relationship." reading that actually made me lose some of my iced tea to the keyboard! lol. i find it amazing how this person is so certain of what ALL women desire, at any point in their lives. neither human males nor females are wired for sexual monogamy. further, sexual monogamy has no bearing on the quality of caretaking. i can very easily visualize the author picketing outside the local abortion clinic, fake fetus on a stick in one hand, bible in the other...just gave me the willies!

anywho, personally i have never been attracted to a man, any man, based purely on his physical appearance. i am incapable of determining whether or not an unknown man is attractive based on a still picture. this is not to say that i must know a man in order to find him attractive...not hardly. but i must know or perceive something about him...must see the way he walks and carries himself, hear his voice, have some feeling for how he interacts in the world at large. he must have those qualities which i identify with masculinity...strength, a confident/bordering on cocky air, a high level of assertiveness or even aggressiveness, no soft physical features. if a man gives off those vibes, then i will always be physically attracted. but it takes a bit longer than 200ms to pick up on those characteristics.

i care nothing at all about a man's material wealth, and in fact am extremely turned off by those men who introduce themselves by listing their possessions, annual income or net worth. disgusting. and i couldn't have less of an interest in whether or not a man i wish to be with is desired by other women.

on chemistry, i believe Funcooker summed it up best. it's a combination of many factors, most undefinable, which allow two people to just CLICK. i've experienced it with (prior to that moment) total strangers, with men i never laid eyes on (a naughty, blindfolded anonymous encounter), and with men i actually detested. it's inexplicable. but there's no denying it's power.

have easy conversation which flows into a steamy session.  Certainly there is a physical attraction but chemistry comes from the mental attraction.  Once in a while there just is no "click" so the session may not go as well.  Most providers are very good actresses so the guy probably will not know she is not really "into him".

For me, the result of good chemistry is usually a follow-up date.  Once in a while the schedules or locations are just very difficult to match up.

i have seen many very beautiful women with which i had absolutely ZERO chemistry. they were very beautiful and i could understand how someone would think that they were absolutely the hottest PYT on the planet since Helen ran off to Troy. but there was just something that put the idea of having sex with them completely out of my head.  if i don't feel it, i'm walking. if she doesn't feel it, please send me home.

As amazing as it may seem, I don't really disagree with you. Anything that generalizes about any large and definable group is going to be inaccurate. As a very extreme example, if I were to say "All women possess a vagina" that would be false, because some small portion of women are born lacking one.

I agree with you on the subject of monogamy; but interpret the author in light of data he did not put forth. Much more data I have read, specifically in terms of sperm competition, confirms both or basic and ancestral tendencies to non-monogamy.

But let me give you an example of something everyone accepts as true, and data that refutes it: "Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer." Did you know that fewer than 10% of people who smoke ever get lung cancer? http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

Yet, with so tenuous a link, we generally accept that assertion as true because in general it increases risk. Think now, about the gobs of social, government and tax policy we base upon a link that only involves 8% of the affected population, yet is treated as though it is true for 100% of the affected population.

Why am I making this point? To demonstrate that what passes for "science" in social sciences and epidemiology is often WAY less than rigorous. The threshold for applying something generally is quite low. My background is not in social sciences -- it is in biology, chemistry and electrical engineering. Hard sciences. From my particular world view in hard sciences, many so-called social sciences hardly pass muster as science at all. If psychology were even half as effective as all of its "scientific" journals and rigorous APA-style citations would suggest; we'd have far fewer people using medications; and if psycho-pharmacology were anywhere near as scientific as it would like us to believe, far fewer people who take these medications would have serious side-effects whose causes (and why they affect some and not others) cannot be explained.

So, in general, with only some exceptions, I see social sciences as being a long way from being as mature and predictable as a hard science such as chemistry.

But now back to the generalizations. In specific cases, they are likely untrue. Using yourself as an example, you are turned off by guys who rely on their wealth as a means of attracting you. Hey -- I am turned off by women who are turned on by wealth. So we are two peas in a pod. But the brutal reality is that *in general* men who control the most resources have a better shot at the greatest number of the most (physically) attractive women.

Certainly, there are women who are attracted to guys who aren't very wealthy but are smart, physically capable and confident. But that is also an evolutionarily evolved preference. The fact that not all evolved preferences are present in all women doesn't mean they don't exist generally. After all, the popular TV show is about marrying a millionaire; not about marrying a truck driver who earns $50k. The actors in soap operas are typically portrayed as wealthy. Hey, as a whole human being, the truck driver may be a far more desirable person in many cases. But the millionaire will have a much easier time getting dates.

Personally, I've tried it both ways. In terms of quantity (i.e. odds of getting my genes into the gene pool) I was able to attract far more women by driving an ostentatiously expensive car, wearing fancy clothes, and talking about the stock market than I was able to attract driving an old Dodge, wearing Walmart clothes and talking about how much I enjoy playing with my chickens or my latest research in my lab.  However, I like the women from the latter group a lot more.

As a quick side note; I believe that the factors that attract you rather than wealth show you to be a lot sharper than the average or even above-average woman. Resource control in our ancestral environment corresponded to physical capacities, health, intelligence and in general a desirable genetic profile that would help to father and provide for (and protect) babies. In the modern era, however, resource control is in no way is linked to these favorable traits and is far too often linked to psychopathic traits you certainly wouldn't want in offspring.

This, I think, is a case where a "proxy trait" (e.g. resource control) whose seeking might have been adaptive and produced superior offspring 6,000 years ago is no longer a proxy for the original traits and thus those who continue to adhere to it are now behaving maladaptively.

    With the better providers, you will have a good time regardless as long as you treat them well. True chemistry works the same in the hobby world as in the civie world. Generally, you either have it or you don't. It shouldn't have much influence on your initial meeting but can greatly influence subsequent meetings. The nervousness felt by many on a first meeting, along with preconceived expectations, can sometimes interfere with what can be a strong compatibility.

    My initial meeting with my favorite provider to date was nothing spectacular though I did enjoy our time together. I did feel there was something different with her that I just couldn't put my finger on. Our second meeting did not take place until a year after the first though much flirting on the boards took place in between. About a half hour in I knew that something was different...we just really seemed to be in tune with each other's desires and multiple O's were shared by both.

    I saw her many times over the next year and a half. Each meeting was better than the last. She eventually had to retire. I still talk with her to this day but the 'benefits' part of our relationship is in the past.

But sadly(yeah, right) don't have the time tonight.

Gotta feed the boys, myself, and get my lame ass hand to bed to get bitched out AGAIN!

Expect a POV when I get home tomorrow...

Chemistry between two people is one of those intangible, nebulous things that cannot be explained by footnotes referencing how women choose mates based on resources, or power, or intelligence, or anything else.

Chemistry between two people can’t be boxed into a scientific analysis.

When *this*, whatever *this* is, happens, it is not about resources ( money), or education, or even intrinsic intelligence. Whatever *it* is, can happen between the most unlikely pairs of people and does not follow some pre-determined biologically dictated pattern of what ‘should’ happen based on gender, societal norms, expected behavior, or anything else.

[Sexual] chemistry happens. And, it defies any/every rule you can conjure up.

But in a serious relationship for it to work there needs to be chemistry, but the question is can chemistry be developed over time for a relationship to last or should it have began since the very beginning.

but we know it's there.

Don't be hung up on defining it.  Rather deal with its effects.

I know for a fact that I'm sometimes attracted to women that I don't really care to be attracted to, and sometimes I lack attraction to others I wish I were more attracted to.

Just another way that God keeps him/herself amused.

Man plans, God laughs.

When I am to meet up with someone who gives the butterflies in my stomach a reason to be active. Someone whom i really wish to be pleased by and to please without obligation. One can never plan on chemistry, only relish it when it occurs. Chemistry comes into ones life so infrequently that i implore you to embrace it fully while it exists. I did!

You'll know when it is.  Nothing further needs to be said...

You are correct that it cannot currently be fully explained. While I agree it is nice and fun to have a veil of romantic mysticism surrounding it; you are falling into the trap of essentially labeling something that cannot be adequately explained using current knowledge as "magic" and "cannot be explained."

This is a form of humanocentrism that argues that humans are somehow exempt from the same laws of nature that affect all other biological lifeforms on the planet.

The fact that a phenomenon has so many variables and responds to so many factors residing on various continuums rather than a bunch of simple "yes/no" questions does not mean it is not susceptible to being more fully understood.

One aspect of this that gives a lot of folks difficulty is that of "odds."

At the level of physics, if I shine a beam of light through a small hole, it will form a diffusion pattern in which the aggregate numbers of photons will decrease the further we get from the center.

Many aspects of humans are like that. There is a complex interplay of behavioral genetics, the fact we have the power to override preferences via explicit processing, beliefs, social pressures, cultural norms and more. And when you see that all of these lie on multiple continuums with varying probabilities; the matter becomes quite complex.

But the fact that such a complex system about which we know so little cannot currently be explained doesn't mean it is magical.

The moment you remove humans from nature, and set us apart from nature and natures laws while declaring our behaviors to be utterly insusceptible to explanation of prediction; although it isn't obvious, you are making an argument in favor of creationism for only by being created apart from nature, in the image of deity, could we be insusceptible to such analysis.

You are arguing against an argument I never made. I never argued in favor of biological determinism; what I argued was that there is an interplay between environment, social forces and biology. That is far from determinism.

Either way, the fact that I can't predict every single aspect of something doesn't mean I can't make good general predictions based upon what is currently known.

For example, I predict that providers put forward the best photos of themselves that they can, especially when their rates exceed the norm for their area. And I predict that even though there are likely hundreds of thousands of women with the exact same degrees so revealing their college majors would not identify them, fewer than 10% will list their college majors on their websites.

Do you know WHY I can predict that?

Because I know that guys like me who are ... attracted ... more by intellect than appearance are the exception rather than the rule; and any woman who wants to make money in the midrange of the market needs to cater to what attracts MOST men -- not the exceptions.

And if men can be predicted in aggregate this way, then so can women.

Granted, an individual man or woman can't be predicted; but aggregate behavior can be. If it couldn't be, advertising would not exist.

Chemistry is one of those things that is hard to define.....but if you have it with somebody, you'll know it.

WOW!  Will you marry me???  What a fantastic review and response to the articles.  Seriously...will you marry me?   {JK}

i've already been claimed, but if the Hubby ever kicks me to the curb, i'll look you up. lol

So how does that aggregate behavior apply to women who are attracted to women?

As I mentioned, aspects of sexuality lie along many continuums; one of which is a combination of genetics, maternal hormonal influence and acculturation in sexual orientation. Sexual orientation as it manifests behaviorally is a result of the intersection of these continuums. The influence of culture on this can't be neglected because if some government goon puts a gun to your head and says "If I catch you naked with someone of the same sex you're gonna die" you might not act according to tendencies established by other continuums.

I think that, within same-sex attractions, it would be absolutely fascinating to study what those factors are as genetic offspring of the two partners is a highly unlikely result.

There have been some studies indicating that certain environmental factors impinging on the mother can alter the hormones delivered to offspring, thus influencing aspects of their sexual orientation. As this is a natural phenomenon; at some point in time it was likely a worthwhile response. Given studies of altruistic behavior in other species being linked to genetic proximity; it may well be that the phenomenon of same-sex attraction served many purposes in promoting the overall genetic wellbeing of a group that otherwise would not do as well overall. Some studies of bonobos run along these lines; though drawing conclusions might be premature as we are separated from them by millions of years.

Nevertheless, I would strongly suspect, and you as a woman who has attractions to other women may be able to lend your thoughts to this, that women likely prefer other women as sex partners based upon capacity for successful cooperation; as this would be a powerful positive that a woman could produce for closely related individuals even if she weren't making a direct genetic contribution.

In a sense, it is kind of like asking the question: why on earth would humans have a lifespan extending beyond menopause when they can no longer reproduce? I believe the answer is the same -- that the infamous "old maiden aunt" just like the matriarch, makes powerful contributions in terms of cooperative caregiving that betters the overall wellbeing of ther group.

But what are your thoughts?

Chemistry... It happens and when it does it's awesome. I believe a great session can be had with chemistry an a great session can be had without it. The girl can jut be a great lay LOL and fun to be with. That lady you might not go back to again or you might visit a few more times. Then there are the meetings where the two of you just have that spark and it's great! Some call it magic some call it chemistry! You two just click, you get each other.

No matter what I feel that I can get along with a doormat lol, it's my personality but some clients that have walked through my door or I through theirs have had that spark. It's always fun, but with some it's really exciting. When these moments happen I am very appreciative. I'm here to have fun and yes to earn a living. I just lie the human connection.

I meant to say I love the human connection aspect of the hobby. When typing on my iPhone I sometimes get a few errors. Sorry!

hi John,

i'm glad that we agree on the inaccuracies of generalizations. and you are correct in that in today's world factors and events with the most tenuous of links are often treated as statements of indisputable fact. the idealist in me would like to believe that the common intelligence of our society would be able to see beyond these blinders, but i do realize that is far from being the case.

a quick aside on smoking and lung cancer...a more effective, and more accurate statement to the public could simply be "cigarette smoking is the biggest cause of preventable death in the U.S." while some 90% of people afflicted with lung cancer developed the cancer due to smoking, as you say less than 10% of those who smoke will ever be afflicted with lung cancer. however, between stroke, coronary heart disease, cancer of the mouth or throat, emphysema, etc. a smokers risk of death or chronic illness is frighteningly high.

as for the statement that men with the appearance of wealth will attract a greater quantity of women (at least initially...long enough to plant the seeds if you will), i would agree. but we are veering far outside the topic of chemistry there, which is often not based on the factors of initial attraction. i may find myself very attracted to someone with whom i have absolutely no chemistry...and have great chemistry with someone to whom i am not otherwise attracted. this is not to say that it's all a bunch of mystical hocus pocus...like you i believe that, to some degree at least, we can isolate and analyze various factors which will inevitably lead to chemistry between two people. but of course, they're both really fascinating topics (attraction and chemistry).

and on the subject of attraction and how it works for me personally, i am very much aware of my inner cavegirl, and i embrace her. i know and understand exactly why i am attracted to the type of men that i am. i'm just a bit saddened that i wasn't born in a time or place where capable, intelligent, dominant alpha men are respected as leaders, instead of written off by pop culture as misogynistic jerks. if i were stranded on some uncharted deserted island with a man, i sure as heck wouldn't want that man to be Bill Gates...we would be dead in a week, lol.

chemistry between two people happens when you first see or speak with the other, your mouth begins to water a little bit ( no drooling lol ), your heart starts to beat a little faster, your face or chest flushes some, your feeling so overwhelmed that you say something silly or may not be your normal self, you take a small glimpse into their soul and something touches yours, they automatically make a little imprint in your heart, and for the first few brief moments everything is so irratically perfect and confused feeling inside you lose all sight of what may and most likely will get in the way of this "chemistry" in life that will eventually alter it. It's one of life's mysteries, and quite beautiful.

-- Modified on 10/7/2010 1:15:36 PM

Evolutionarily evolved preferences
Best odds of getting your genes in the gene pool
Resouce control
Desirable genetic profiles
The man with the most toys wins

Etc and so on……

All of that is about theories as to how women choose desirable mates; which has nothing to do with whether there  may, or may not be any “chemistry”.  “Mates” are chosen for reasons absent chemistry all the time. He’s rich and she’s the prefect trophy wife. Maybe it’s the “right time” to settle down and start a family. Maybe all of the practical elements for stability and security are present. Whatever that may be.

But that doesn’t mean there is chemistry. Hell, that doesn’t even mean they actually like or respect each other to any great degree beyond what each can do for the other in a pragmatic sense.

I have been attracted to people with whom everything ‘should have been right’----and, by very definition of what I find “attractive”, they were.  But, much to my dissapointment, there was just no “chemistry”. I have also experieced “chemistry” with someone that possesed virtually no characterisitcs I find attractive (in fact, quite a few I find rather obnoxious).

And, your example of escorts recognizing that they need to present themselves in a way that will  ‘attract’ their desired demographic (or maybe more realistic demographic) does not apply. That’s simply good marketing. And when guys like yourself choose a lady based more on intellect than appearance, that means her marketing is working. Not to suggest that those characterisitics she chooses to put forward are not genuinely there. But, that does not mean that if you happened to run across this women anonymously in a coffee shop that both of you would experience this phenomenon of “chemistry”.

I said nothing about “magic”. I said chemistry was nebulous and intangible; as in we can’t predict it. We can’t explain it when it happens. Good luck even coming close in a general way. Humans have been trying to explain this ever since we figured out how to chip letters into stone.