History Vs Chemistry

Jane and James met outside the office of the Head Of Department of Economics after she had turned down his offer to perform 'certain acts' to boost her grades in "Econ 211”. She was quite upset and James offered what she needed, a listening ear and adequate connections to the Vice Chancellor to reprimand the HOD. It was love at about 6th sight since he had to complete the doing of the favour to get her interested. They stayed together through it all. Even when there was the cheating scandal or the times he gave her STD.

Fast forward to 2017, they are still together, he hasn't yet popped the question because he is waiting for his business to win the contract.  She offers 'discount wife' services like cooking, sex, moral and spiritual support. He is periodically unfaithful, emotionally overbearing, but he supports her and God fearing, and she believes she loves him. He is of course Christian, attending her Church and her parents know and tolerate him.

Last year, Jane started work at an investment firm as their new head of HR, being the super star that she is it only took a few months before she began working closely with their regional head Mr Luke, who happens to be a divorcee with 1 child.  They connect right off the bat. Besides the obvious fact that he looks like a million dollars (and probably has that much) he challenges her to be better. He does not make or infer anything inappropriate of course but they both know that they are strongly attracted to each other. They even complete each other sentences. He gets her, makes her laugh, is forgiving and nurturing, patient and very kind to everyone. He, of course has plenty problems, the ex wife, a clingy 5 year old daughter, and the fact that he is her boss and is agnostic.

Jane feels a strong attraction to Luke = Chemistry

Jane has had a long relationship (with plenty drama) with James who she believes she loves = History

Which is stronger?

I have always been curious to understand how a person will choose when faced with these 2 options, do you discard the history that is the more solid “devil you know” and swim in the deep with sparks flying left and right. This argument is very valid if you discount muddy factors like, what they have and if you share the same values. Will you then pick somebody based on the history you have had "we have been through so much" or the chemistry that exists between the two of you "we have such a connection".

 

If you think about it, because you have history with a person does not guarantee that any sort of attraction will exist especially if you have been with the person a while or maybe you stay out of pity. History on the other hand has to be very important if not, the famous “Okafors law” will not have been invented.

Chemistry however seems more flimsy when put in comparison with something as solid as history. But it cannot be ignored, it's because of chemistry that side dudes and side chicks exist aplenty.

When you then allow the other muddy factors back in like, the values of the person, what if you have a strong and deep connection with a person with whom you don't share the same values. You can't keep your hands off the person or that's the first person you think to confide in if something happens but you are probably of different faiths (if this is the basis of your values like it is for most people)  and the person ticks all the other boxes.

What if you have history with a person who you share all the values with but lack chemistry, or has stuff that affects the chemistry, on which do you place more stock. 

If you were in Jane’s shoes and had to pick one?

How will you choose?