And people say that those science-y folks can’t be poetic!I’d say the goal is a state of dynamic equilibrium, and yet you want slow crystallization in order to exclude impurities that can get trapped in your final product if you cool the mother liquor too quickly.
On the other hand, I’m a chemistry major married to a chemistry major. We’re a little “different.”
Your mileage may vary.
Lab partners? It’s not quite building a house, but that’s a pretty good test!
I have! I had to do this one time as the basis of a psychology final project. The happily married people I spoke with said if “chemistry” was what sustained them, they would have left their spouse long ago, when the “chemistry” went. All told me “chemistry” was the antithesis of deep and abiding love based on shared commitments and values.
I mean the rush of “falling in love” emotion/attraction. I agree that compatibility is important and needed.
But if you arn’t in love with them,no emotion,no attraction but they have good values,caring,faithful etc then isn’t this just same as friendship?
“In love” and “loving” are two different things to me. “In love” is the immature rush of emotion one feels at the beginning of a relationship; love is the deep, abiding caring that can last a lifetime. And, most happily married couples will say their spouse is their best friend. There is a lot of love in real friendship and a lot of friendship is real love.
Sounds like power of attorney.
For me,chemistry is different then infatuation.
If I had to define emotional chemistry, I’d say it is a mutually effortless or an unbidden attraction. You realize this is someone you do not have to try to like, a person you naturally feel you want to please, a person whose pleasure is your pleasure, a person whose faults you naturally want to overlook because their attractive qualities are so outstanding, and someone who feels the same about you. You just feel like you “click.” It is not necessarily an infatuation. Some couples find the chemistry they felt at the beginning was based on a very real mutual compatibility, a sense of mutual admiration that only grew as they got to know each other better, and a dependable set of shared values.
Sounds like power of attorney.
Seriously, one can be “in love” for their entire lives. Many are, are very happily married.
It’s not immature at all, it’s wonderful.
I think that this whole discussion can be rife for misunderstanding, but having seen couples like this myself, together for years but still with stars in their eyes, I agree that it’s not a given that the marriage relationship inevitably cools into a “friends with benefits” type relationship, though I’ve seen couples like that too.
I agree that it’s not inevitable that the “in love” feeling fades away. I can think of one couple that at first came across to me as an “old bickering married couple”, but as I got to know them better, I realized that if I were to read a transcript of some of their quotes about each other, you might mistake them for young teenagers, trying to cover up their true feelings about a crush by mercilessly teasing them. It was an interesting dynamic, and it probably wouldn’t work for everyone, but it seemed to work for them.
Xantippe:
Sure, but Friendship + Sexual Attraction = Friends With Benefits, to me. I think there is more to a lasting marriage than that.
Maybe, but I don’t think there needs to be.
One set of my grandparents is like that. It is, in the words of the young folk, " totes adorbs."
Yes, that would be love. Friends with benefits doesn’t seem to have anything to do with love.
I think the question being debated is whether the “in love” feeling it is necessary or even possible, not whether it is sufficient.
I think your math is correct.