For the next step, Chemistry.com will send you up to 5 matches a day. These matches are suited to your personality, as identified by your Personality Profile quiz. In addition, they will notify you when someone is interested in meeting you.

After that there’s the 1.2.3. MEET Process which is where you get to know members online. You can ask short questions and start emailing at this point.

Chemistry.com has a section called Relationship Central. It’s here that you can find helpful articles on topics like, “Are you Ready to Find the One,” or “Romantic Chemistry, Explained.”

I’m curious if the free communication weekend really gives you a enough time to find someone. A few years back, I tried the Free eHarmony weekend and the process was so slow that I never even got to the email part of the meeting before the weekend was over. If you take part, please come back and let me know how it went.

If you are looking for some online dating guidance, Internet Dating Is Not Like Ordering A Pizza is a big help. Explains the internet dating process and how to best  make it work for you.

Good luck!

Image credit: Michelle Smith

Post from: Blisstree

Free Communication at Chemistry.com

Working with Chemistry.com, she developed a system of four basic personality types. These are Explorers, Builders, Directors, and Negotiators. There’s a test in the book that will help you determine your main and your secondary personality types.

I am a Negoiator/Explorer. I tend to over-think things especially when it comes to relationships, I use my imagination a lot, and I like to talk about the very subjects that I am over-thinking. My secondary personality aspect, the Explorer is sexual, impulsive, and creative. Yep, that fits, too.

I haven’t had my boyfriend take the quiz yet, but I’m pretty sure he’s a Negoiator, as well. He’s the same with the over-think-iness. And the talking about it. I love that about him. He examines his feelings, shares what he’s discovered, then re-examines the entire thing.  A man who wants to talk about a relationship. How cool is that?

My friend, Scarlett, looked at the book and she said she’s read it all before, but I noticed that she had a hard time putting it down. She’s like me in the wanting to think things through, examine them, figure out the motivation behind a particular action or turn of phrase.

If you are interested in reading about what makes you and your partner or your would-be partner tick, then I suggest you take a look at Helen Fisher’s book. She’s an easy read which is not always the case with relationship books.

Image credit: Barnes and Noble.com

Post from: Blisstree

Personality Type and Real Love

For example, in the article Romantic Chemistry, Explained, by Dan Bova, she tackles the question of why can a couple feel great sexual intimacy together, but still be unable to connect in other ways?  Dr Fisher explains:

“Sexual chemistry does not always equal love, and this is because we’ve evolved distinct brain systems for mating…One system controls the craving for sexual gratification. Another system rules over romantic love, that obsessive thinking and craving and focusing on one individual. They’re not always connected, which is why you can be madly in love with someone and only have so-so sex, while you can have intensely passionate sex with someone you never want to see again!.. You can start having sex with someone and then fall in love…Sometimes one thing can trigger the other.” 

Interesting theory, although the idea of casual sex leading to something more is dangerous, in my opinion. I was talking to a few of my girlfriends and this came up. I said that in the case of a woman, feelings can develop very easily, but for men sometimes sex is just sex. It’s not always the case, but from what I’ve seen, it happens more frequently for women than for men.  Out of the three of us – one was in agreement with me, one was not.

What do you think?  Am I wrong in thinking that women are more likely to develop feelings for a man they are casually, but intimately involved with?  Do you agree with Dr. Fisher’s theory about the systems? 

Post from: Blisstree

The Mystery of Sexual Chemistry

The article explains that some people look for someone like themself and some look for someone very different, but that for the most part, the successful relationship is the one in which the couples have complimentary personalities - not just exactly the same, not too different. Although, there is a danger in the complimentary couple finding themselves further entrenched in their particle personality quirks.  Neumann says, “… couples should be careful to treat their partner’s strengths not as a crutch, but as an opportunity to watch and learn new habits and skills to move outside their comfort zones on occasion.” 

Science plays a part in attraction, Neumann shares that “Helen Fisher, Ph.D., anthropologist and author of Why We Love,” breaks the types down into four “temperaments.” Each temperament has a “chemical in charge,” and a good and bad match.  For example, say you identified yourself as “The Negotiator,” it would go like this:

The Negotiator
Chemical in charge: Estrogen (associated with intuition and creativity)
Personality: Imaginative, sympathetic, socially skilled, idealistic
Best match: Good with all types!
Worst match: None

To figure out your temperament and the personality type you should be looking for, take a look at

Chemistry – Are Certain Types Destined To Date? 

Post from: Blisstree

Chemistry and the Part It Plays In Attraction

Personally, I think the suit is baseless. To be clear I have nothing against homosexuals. Part of the beauty of the web is that there’s a website to cater to any need. I just wonder why the plaintiffs in the eHarmony.com case didn’t just avoid the site and go to Chemistry.com, a competitor.

eHarmony.com was founded by some Christian dude, which is why it originally (and still) offers only “men seeking women” or “women seeking men” why force them to change their ways? I’m not exactly sure which case is this, but the US Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of America, which accused the organization of discrimination since it didn’t accept homosexuals.

The majority opinion declared that the BSA shouldn’t be forced to accept people not covered in its “acceptable” list of applicants, but should stand the test of society or something similar. In other words, the Supreme Court realized that the best way to get the BSA to change its apparently discriminatory ways was to leave it to the scrutiny of the society. If society in general wanted homosexuals in the BSA, then the organization would adapt. The same is true for eHarmony.com: if it finds its revenues threatened by its exclusion of homosexuals, then it will probably change its policies.

What do you think of the lawsuit? Feel free to comment below

Post from: Blisstree

Dating Site eHarmony.Com Sued for Discrimination Against Homosexuals

Here’s the commercial that Gayla mentioned in her, Rejected by eHarmony post.

It’s just funny cuz my younger brother mentioned it a while ago when we were chatting and I thought I’d find it on YouTube — and I did!

I guess it’s important that we pick the dating sites that would allow us to follow the idea, “Be Yourself“, right?

Note: This is not an expression that I am (or Dating Dames) for or against any of the dating sites mentioned in the post. They were simply used as an example for the point that I presented in the post. This is not an advertorial.

Post from: Blisstree

“Nope. Still gay.” – Chemistry.com Advert