Girl Talk: Why EChem is Just Not Enough
Posted by: Ami Angelowicz
Filed in:
relationships
10:00AM, Wednesday July 22nd 2009
I heart words and communication. This includes emails, text messages, Gchat, Blackberry Messenger, iChat—the works. I am a sucker for a well-crafted email or a witty text message. My motto: The way to my heart is through my brain. That’s why I thought Joe could be Mr. Perfect for me. Joe and I met one night at a work gala. I had already put away an entire bottle of wine when I almost knocked him over on the dance floor.
“Do you like to dance, beautiful girl who almost stepped on my foot?” he asked.
“Only when I’m drunk. When I’m sober, I dance like Elaine from ‘Seinfeld.’” I replied.
It was a rainy October night and Joe offered to escort me to the subway when the event ended, impressed that I could: a.) still walk and b.) do it in 3-inch heels. “Email me,” I slurred, handing him my business card, “I loooove emails.”
The next day at work, the misery of my hangover was interrupted when Joe sent me a long, witty, intellectually stimulating email, complete with references to popular culture, long words spelled properly (so hot), anecdotes about his life, and plenty of questions about mine. Wait ... what did he look like again? The emails continued, getting more and more opus-like. He responded quickly – my number-one turn-on. Enough with that “hard to get” crap. Within a few days, he began sending me funny, random text messages along with the novella-esque emails.
I just passed the subway stop I walked you to the night we met. Good thing you didn’t incapacitate me by stepping on my foot. I want to see you dance like Elaine.
What’s your favorite kind of cupcake?
I just saw a man wearing a horse costume on Columbus. Ah ... New York.
He even played along when a week later I told him that I was putting a ban on our email communication because I wasn’t getting any work done. In response, he sent a handwritten letter to my office via courier asking me out for Saturday night. I was so overcome that I think I might have peed my pants. It was like this guy could read my mind. Finally, I would get to see him in person again!
That Saturday night I walked into the fancy seafood restaurant ready to pick up our witty repartee right where it left off. As soon as we sat down across from each other, I felt my stomach drop. Something was very, very wrong. He was attractive enough, but I wasn’t attracted to him. Why? We had nothing to say to each other. I mean ... nothing. How could this have happened?
What Joe and I had was something I like to call “E(mail)Chemistry” or “EChem” – really hot technological chemistry. When you’ve got great EChem with someone, it can often be indicative of real chemistry, but sometimes, sadly, it is not. Why? My theory: Emails, texts, Gchat, etc. all allow a person to develop what I’ve dubbed an “EPersona,” i.e., their technological way of being. The tricky thing is that an EPersona may or may not have anything to do with a person’s authentic self. The safe distance that technology creates allows people the opportunity to represent their best, most wonderful, sometimes even fantasy self. When you can be calculated, deliberate, and thoughtful about every word, you can feel brave enough, safe enough, in control enough to do, say, and be things that you could never do, say, or be face-to-face. But the catch is that is the only person you can fall in love with is a real, authentic person—in person—not a freaking avatar. And falling in love is about vulnerability, imperfection, and spontaneity.
What I learned from Joe and others like him (sadly, there have been too many) is that amazing EChem is just not enough. Getting to know someone’s EPersona is not sufficient. No email (no matter the length) or text message (no matter the wit) can replace that odd, quirky, unpredictable genius that is real/live chemistry between real/live people. That strange electric moment when someone kisses you for the first time and you feel an army of hummingbirds in the pit of your stomach.
A few weeks after the Joe incident, I got set up on a blind date with Adam. We exchanged emails before we ever met in person. He didn’t respond very quickly, there were no long words in his email. In fact, he misspelled many of the simple words, his grammar was iffy, he didn’t catch my reference to The Fountainhead , and he didn’t send me a text message to confirm our date. In fact, I was pretty sure we had nothing in common based on our dull EChem. But halfway through dinner when he grabbed my hand, I felt an undeniable jolt of energy bolt up my arm and I knew in my gut that it was right.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
shannac02
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 09:57 am: [report]
Wouldn’t it be amazing if there was some iphone app that told you if you would have Real Life chemistry with someone? That would be great. Someone needs to get on that!
Joey Daytona
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]
I don’t know, some people express themselves better in writing as they are shy or inhibited in person. The immediate feedback of face-to-face can be scary when you are in the minefield of new romance, you are seeking approval, right?
I’m reminded of the folks who (before email and the web) were shut-ins and plagued the old phone chat lines and the CB radio airwaves with their fabricated personas… there is self-protection and then there’s deception, by the time we figure out which is which - it can be too late.
JesseH
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]
100% agree. I have a friend who dabbles in online dating. She says you need to go on a real date within three e-mails or you are doomed. Too many false expectations.
Conversely, I love online word chemistry. You just can’t hope for too much from it.
Lynn
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 10:42 am: [report]
It really sucks that it didn’t work out. But I have to say, that idea of sending a letter by courier was fantastic.
BedRocka
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 11:04 am: [report]
begs the question, honestly what do women want? “oh soo awesome Echem, ooops did not feel any electricity” = good guy, ” No txt messages/bad spelling on emails ... didn’t get my joke, oooh excellent chemistry” = a-hole/jerk dude ... First impressions don’t mean JACK!! we put too much emphasis on the first impressions.
Lilypie
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]
I so know what you mean!
I was in love in writing with a guy I worked with, but alas, talking with him in person was painful. The incredibly funny, charming, confident guy in my email box barely talked in person and his sense of humor was apparently only allowed to exit his body through his fingers on the keyboard and not through his mouth. I could marry the guy in my emails, but I had trouble getting through dinner with the guy in the chair across from me.
Brooke
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 12:25 pm: [report]
I have learned the hard way that I shouldn’t waste my time with lengthy IM conversations and emails before meeting a guy. All it has done is get my hopes up for big, depressing failures. There should be no expectations of a first date (especially when you met on the internet).
I met the guy I’m currently dating on Facebook. We sent a few short messages back and forth and almost instantly decided to meet for a drink. I didn’t expect it to go very well seeing as how we had zero e-chem, but we ended up talking for hours and have been dating for 4 months!
delovely
wrote on July 22 2009 @ 02:41 pm: [report]
I will be adopting this “within three emails” policy!
camille905
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:31 am: [report]
I really have to agree with this! I just broke up with a guy that I’ve been seeing for the past few months for just this reason. He’s awesome online, not so much in person. I kept trying to reconcile the two. Didn’t work.
santacruzin
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:06 pm: [report]
This is freaky. Just today I met a guy named Joe (same name as your guy) for the first time after meeting online and sending awesome emails back and forth for a week. Sure enough, when I met him I felt zero chemistry. I really wanted to after his great emails, and he’s not UNattractive, but just not the guy for me. Good thing my friend encouraged me to meet him sooner than I was planning to!
_jsw_
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:12 pm: [report]
Great. My name is Joe. This doesn’t bode well for me.
Ami Angelowicz
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:18 pm: [report]
Frisky friends…Joe is an alias. Not to fret if you or your date’s name is Joe. The only thing to fear is lack of chemistry.
_jsw_
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:31 pm: [report]
@Ami: That’s good to know, but I was just kidding.
Well, that is my name, but I’m not too worried that it’s an automatic disqualifier.
santacruzin
wrote on July 23 2009 @ 09:34 pm: [report]
I was just kidding too.
I mean, it’s a funny coincidence, but nothing more than that.
Okay Tea
wrote on July 24 2009 @ 03:21 am: [report]
I have to have that intellectual chemistry with someone I am dating for sure…a well-crafted, well-spelled email gives me the same kind of shiver up my spine as the first touch. Seriously.
It’s interesting—I’m thinking about all the guys I have great EChem with, and we are all significantly more awkward together in person. I wonder if maybe the EChem makes us expect too much in person….maybe if I had less EChem with someone, I wouldn’t expect them to be as witty and charming and full of literary references in person. This may explain my awful luck with online dating, hmmm…..
majicksand
wrote on July 24 2009 @ 08:15 am: [report]
I had to learn in-person wit in order to survive my childhood. My mom has a very dry sense of humor, and she’s razor sharp. Admittedly, I have yet to come close to her ability to think on the fly. Apparently, I’m doing ok though. My son is amazed by my quick come-backs.
I Go To 11
wrote on July 25 2009 @ 11:37 am: [report]
@majicksand: I hear ya, my dad’s the same way. The best way to describe his sense of humor is that it’s what David Spade and Ben Stein’s offspring wound sound like, if they ever mated.
majicksand
wrote on July 25 2009 @ 11:54 am: [report]
@I Go To 11: lol, that’s funny. My best friend’s dad is the same. He dressed up as Spock for Halloween one year, and I swear he was channeling Leonard Nemoy. The deadpan jokes are bad enough normally. In a Spock costume? It’s downright creepy!
moomoo
wrote on July 25 2009 @ 01:52 pm: [report]
THANK YOU - validation.
Every date I’ve had from online source has gone this way.
Definitely adopting the 3-email rule. It was delusional to stretch out the mystery, waiting to meet the guys.
chemistry is undefinable -and usually happens when you don’t want it to. I think the fun email banter doesn’t consider that unpredictability of who you’ll be attracted to.
You can’t force chemistry, but having a mental connection makes you want to do that and it’s unrealistic and leads to disappointment.
wonderfultonight
wrote on July 26 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]
I agree with Joey Daytona - sometimes people do express themselves better in writing than in person. And a first date when you’re trying to impress that super e-chem guy/gal can be difficult, especially if it’s a dinner date. A less formal meeting is easier and sometimes first impressions in person flop because people put so much pressure on themselves to make that first meeting go perfectly.
I have only done this once and it was a minor disaster, but he sent me flowers at work and a note that said he realized it didn’t go well, but would I give him another chance? I decided I would if he was willing to go to all that trouble. He knew I liked sports so he got tickets to a ballgame and we had a great time. So much less pressure, and he admitted he had had a bad case of jitters when it came to meeting me for the first time. I had had some, also, so we had a good laugh about that and other “blind dates” we’ve had. Maybe we should treat these as “blind dates” because we really don’t know what the outcome will be, anyway.
I didn’t expect to find my one-and-only and he isn’t, but I did find a good friend who shares a lot of my interests and we still get together occasionally for a movie or a ballgame or just the local pub restaurant where we gab for hours. So I’m glad I gave him a second chance, even though the romantic chemistry isn’t there.
Most of my friends have had esperiences like the ones described here - but few had the name Joe.
In fact, there were several Dicks and think how bad that can sound, especially when a woman describes her date as “just another Dick.” No offense to any of you guys with that name, and _jsw_ be happy your name is Joe.
sarahprotzman
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 02:59 pm: [report]
This is SO true, and one of the less-obvious things about online dating. One face-to-face meeting will tell you more about your future than 100 carefully edited e-mails.
When I was on Match.com, I had fun, intriguing e-mail conversations with men who turned out to be boring. I also had a few so-so e-mail exchanges with men who were actually very witty and confident in person!
As much as I wish it weren’t the case, it doesn’t take much to sound great on paper! Thankfully, many people who sound great on paper actually ARE great, and that’s why people stick with online dating.
Good for them!
kcryderm
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 07:03 pm: [report]
There’s something to be said about the partiality of e-chemistry, though I take issue with the idea of an ‘authentic’ self. What you are getting are different sides of the person, none more ‘real’ than any other. People can be just as ‘misleading’ in person, and often email can offer a safe barrier for people to open up to each other in ways they might not have ever face-to-face. But I agree that since most of your time is spent in a relationship face to face, it might be better to err on the in-person chemistry, though sometimes people are so bowled over by a person’s looks, they overlook lots of red flags that they later begin to see: as clearly as they might have seen in email exchanges. The key with both email and face-to-face is to look for responses that are directed specifically to you, not ‘generic female’ or ‘generic male,’ upon whom I will immediately project all of my hopes and fears.