As often I beg to differ with you
I agree you have to get to know each other to find out what works and what doesn't. Quite normal. But the chemistry should be there. Chemistry is not something you can learn to create. It is there or it is not.
I've learnt throughout life that kissing is a good way to tell if there is chemistry. And as such I wasn't surprised to learn that kissing (mixing saliva) is the first test to find out whether you two are a match to create healthy off-spring. So there's even a reason, and apparently scientifically proved, that kissing is a chemistry test, in both senses of the word.

Now let's say that chemistry isn't there when you touch, kiss etc. I seriously doubt that spending more time on getting to know each other is going to miraculously create that chemistry. It is there or it isn't.

And again, even if it is there, you still will need to explore the other's body, what they like and what not, what their body feels like. That's the fun part. But when there's chemistry, you are eager to do so, and enjoying it fully, because there IS chemistry. The chemistry drives you to want to find out. It gives you joy to please the other, and that way it helps you bond as a couple.

THe other way round, finding out how they work, what they like, without chemistry doesn't do the same thing. You won't really be eager because without the chemistry the drive to please them, to want to be close with them etc., simply isn't there. Nor will doing this create chemistry. If nothing else, it will only make you resistant towards the other. I know it works that way for me.

It's there or it isn't.
.
.

What's interesting is that 50 years ago couples weren't so quick to jump in bed. There was hesitancy, especially on the woman's side.

The narrative is informative but lacks an acknowledgement of basic physical chemistry which differentiates one person greatly from another. For example one woman can by her presence alone stimulate a man to multiple orgasms whereas another simply cannot. The differences among and between women are indeed quite strong and once a man has experienced a woman who is sexually more enticing he is more likely to repeat than with another who while satisfactory is simply not as intense. This is a magical quality not related to emotion, intellect, wealth or social standing...and is why a man will do almost anything to have the experiences repeated just as lack of physical passion cannot be ameliorated as chemistry trumps all techniques as offered by Masters and Johnson in their clinic in St Louis.... The unstated fallacy is that all women are the same and can all offer the same degree of physical passion and this is simply not true as one woman can out respond any other if one has been fortunate to have been with her. Without a diverse sample a man cannot know or experience the full range of sexual degrees of arousal and without can only accept what limited experiences afford..