let me change up the pace in this usually lighthearted space. i will attempt to actually challenge your mind to actually *think* for a change. what could the topic possibly be, pray tell
( Read more... )
i think the notion that i'm a half person waiting around for my other half to come along and complete me is really fucking insulting. i'm a whole person, i do just fine on my own. also, it's depressing as hell. to think that we're all just waiting for her or him to come along and complete us and make us whole is nauseating. do you feel unwhole? do you feel as if someone could come along and make you complete? i don't. i don't want to look at someone i'm with and say, "are you my soulmate? my other half? because what if tom, dick or harry is?" but to each his own
( ... )
yes yes. that's why i think even the word -soulmate- just should not be used. it implies a singular existence, whereas i believe there's *not* just the one match for us.
tolerance. understanding. compromise without complete capitulation. those are the keys.
...but there's a key twist here that hasn't been addressed: one cannot know what you do not allow them to see. it therefore takes a willingness on two sides to make that connection- a constant circle of revelation and consumption of parts of each. back and forth, back and forth.
more layers possible: trust in and truth of what's revealed. the concept that different people need different levels of intimacy. that definitions vary from one to the next.
at the end of the day it really boils down to one question: are you happy?
maybe that's a bit simplistic of me to conclude, but isn't that the most important thing?
That is most likely where the words to one of my favorite songs came from, "The Origin of Love." You'd might want to check out the movie "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" for an interesting take on love and soulmates. Anyways, the last stanza of the song is really what I think love is, in a "soulmate" sense
( ... )
no no no, don't get me wrong- i do not by any means see needing someone else as a sign of weakness. i also was not trying to discount true love as some common occurrence. i am neither cynical nor callous about it- quite the opposite, really. love is a wonderful and gratifying and life-enriching thing.
i agree with you completely- first, we all should first love ourselves- we cannot define ourselves by how others feel about or treat us. that should go without saying. next, while it *is* possible to experience the clicking, the hunch, the butterflies of "knowing", but love is something that grows, not something that is instantly created. it comes when you've been through the weakest and strongest of points, seeing sides invisible at first glance (or even second or tenth or 128th).
my *main* point was that i don't think this true love... this concept of a 'soulmate'.... is possible to achieve with more than just one person in the entire world. i just don't believe the romanticized thought of one and only one match
( ... )
My first boyfriend, I loved with all my heart and of course, like all kids think, I thought I was gonna marry him. We dated for a year and half until went on some sort of cult religious trip and broke up with me because he didn't think I was his soulmate. We are still friends to this day, and I do believe if he hadn't broken up with me, we would have been together for a very long time. I do think us breaking up was over all a good thing though
( ... )
The mating of souls.bemiteDecember 24 2004, 10:12:48 UTC
Soulmate to me is what you want it to be. I don't believe there is any one soulmate either. For me it would be one with whom I could be entirely myself and they would be accepting of it, faults and all. Whether it was the way I get pissed at chauffeurs, take the ca va aller attitude too far, spend money (or not), moodiness, boldness, and cattiness all rolled into one. Totally and warily accepting of it all. One who looks at you and just knows whether to back off, laugh, or drag you back to reality. Friend, brother, sister, lover....whatever and whoever it is I honestly believe there is not just one soulmate. It's just someone that you click with and just know that no matter how long your relationship, or how it works your life was better because of them
( ... )
Re: The mating of souls.altrojJanuary 14 2005, 17:51:29 UTC
great point on completeness. i agree with you. not only people but just things you love hold places in your heart. when/if those things leave your life, there are true voids there. but i *will* say that a significant other should (in my opinion) hold a larger part of you. after all, you want to share all of your life with them, right? they should know more of you than anyone not named you.
Re: The mating of souls.bemiteFebruary 2 2005, 10:15:43 UTC
Point taken, especially since you are more than likely right but haven't you ever come across someone that you've automatically connected with as a soul mate yet was never given the time to know them?
Great journal! You got me thinking and I like that. ;-) I don't believe in any "one" person for each person either. I am very happy with my boyfriend now though. I hope to be with him forever. But I've had loves in the past and maybe in the future (Ken is 23 years older than me, so he always jokes that when he kicks the bucket, I'll have lovers galore when I'm an older woman! Ha!). I think one can have many soul mates. My best friend is one of my soul mates. :-) There are so many people in this world and everyone deserves to be loved and have many friends/lovers in their lifetime. That is what makes life rich!
welcome! ...but really, don't get your hopes up too high. i do what i can though, so hopefully people *do* think when they read this space.
that is what makes life rich
do you think there will ever be a time when more people actually believe that instead of the obsession with material things? sadly, some people never do realize it. to each their own though- happiness is defined differently for different people.
We are materialistic by nature. Humans love to gather, collect, and purchase. It makes us feel superior. "Survival of the fittest" via SUVs, TVs, and DVDs. ;-)
although i don't know if it's humans as much as it's americans/westerners. ;)
ha. listen to me, i sound all self-righteous and non-materialistic. i assure you i am neither (although by no means would i say i'm materialistic, but i *do* enjoy buying things like most people).
...but i *do* value people in my life and relationships with them more than things. that much i CAN say.
Comments 21
Reply
tolerance. understanding. compromise without complete capitulation. those are the keys.
...but there's a key twist here that hasn't been addressed: one cannot know what you do not allow them to see. it therefore takes a willingness on two sides to make that connection- a constant circle of revelation and consumption of parts of each. back and forth, back and forth.
more layers possible: trust in and truth of what's revealed. the concept that different people need different levels of intimacy. that definitions vary from one to the next.
at the end of the day it really boils down to one question: are you happy?
maybe that's a bit simplistic of me to conclude, but isn't that the most important thing?
Reply
Reply
i agree with you completely- first, we all should first love ourselves- we cannot define ourselves by how others feel about or treat us. that should go without saying. next, while it *is* possible to experience the clicking, the hunch, the butterflies of "knowing", but love is something that grows, not something that is instantly created. it comes when you've been through the weakest and strongest of points, seeing sides invisible at first glance (or even second or tenth or 128th).
my *main* point was that i don't think this true love... this concept of a 'soulmate'.... is possible to achieve with more than just one person in the entire world. i just don't believe the romanticized thought of one and only one match ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
elaborate.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't believe in any "one" person for each person either. I am very happy with my boyfriend now though. I hope to be with him forever. But I've had loves in the past and maybe in the future (Ken is 23 years older than me, so he always jokes that when he kicks the bucket, I'll have lovers galore when I'm an older woman! Ha!).
I think one can have many soul mates. My best friend is one of my soul mates. :-) There are so many people in this world and everyone deserves to be loved and have many friends/lovers in their lifetime. That is what makes life rich!
Reply
that is what makes life rich
do you think there will ever be a time when more people actually believe that instead of the obsession with material things? sadly, some people never do realize it. to each their own though- happiness is defined differently for different people.
Reply
Reply
ummm...
guilty. guilty (x3). guilty (xlots).
although i don't know if it's humans as much as it's americans/westerners. ;)
ha. listen to me, i sound all self-righteous and non-materialistic. i assure you i am neither (although by no means would i say i'm materialistic, but i *do* enjoy buying things like most people).
...but i *do* value people in my life and relationships with them more than things. that much i CAN say.
Reply
Leave a comment