Isolde Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Another one of my philosophical posts, I guess? Now, I definitely don't believe that there's just one person for every one. But I don't know if there's a lot of people that each person could be happy with. From reading threads here I feel like compatibility is really a pretty elusive thing, and I'm not talking about overly idealistic people who aren't happy with anything. I do think part of this is geographical or spatio-temporal luck. Any illumination here?
pollywag Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Compatibility is elusive when trying to discern what it means to others, it's like any view opinion or perception it is all existential. When it comes to the individual though I think we all tend to have a pretty clear picture of what makes others compatible with us, and if you don't have a clear picture you will with time and with the experience gained over the course of your lifetime and the interpersonal relationships you develop along the way. Not necessarily just romantic ones. In terms of all the things you read on this forum, I would recommend being hyper aware of the fact that at times you are looking at the collective views of a fragment of the population that is either experiencing loneliness due to the inability to find a person to love or the bereavement of lost love in which case both scenarios will produce jaded and unbalanced views on reality. Sometimes these views are transitory other times the pain is so deep it has caused a severe distortion in the way these people see reality . We have all seen examples of that.
stepka Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Whenever I get philosophical I tend to think back to the "olden times" and when there were a lot fewer people on the planet and you had to choose a partner from a lot smaller pool of people. I can't speak for what a marriage was like on the inside, but it seems like it might have been more successful b/c people had lower expectations to begin with. who knows, though. Nowadays, we expect perfect understanding. Then you just wanted someone who could do the laundry and could spin really well. Or could shoe a horse and if he didn't work out you sent him off to war. But then again, you probably had more friends in your neighbors than we do now. Maybe we put too much pressure on a partner nowadays. LOL, I guess I'm waxing philosophical myself--must be the guinnesses I just consumed:laugh:
spookie Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Whenever I get philosophical I tend to think back to the "olden times" and when there were a lot fewer people on the planet and you had to choose a partner from a lot smaller pool of people. I can't speak for what a marriage was like on the inside, but it seems like it might have been more successful b/c people had lower expectations to begin with. who knows, though. Nowadays, we expect perfect understanding. Then you just wanted someone who could do the laundry and could spin really well. Or could shoe a horse and if he didn't work out you sent him off to war. But then again, you probably had more friends in your neighbors than we do now. Maybe we put too much pressure on a partner nowadays. LOL, I guess I'm waxing philosophical myself--must be the guinnesses I just consumed:laugh: You're talking about marriage, which is not synonymous with love. I think nowadays the picky people are looking for both. I think there's more than one person for everyone that we can love and be with. But I think it's really, really hard to find a right fit.
westernxer Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Relationships would be much more pleasant without the ability to rationalize.
Author Isolde Posted April 6, 2009 Author Posted April 6, 2009 While I agree relationships shouldn't be rationalized, it's not so much that I'm trying to delve into the roots of chemistry, as I'm wondering why some people make it sound like there's literally hundreds of people that one could be happy with, when I'm not sure that's really the case.
Storyrider Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Some people have criteria that are easy to meet, others have criteria that are hard to meet.
westernxer Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 For some people, there are literally hundreds (even thousands) of possible matches, and more power to them. I only know what works for me.
O'bama Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 You have only one soulmate, if that's what you're getting at. And Michelle is mine. You know what? - she didn't want to go out with me at first! Boy, wouldn't that have been quite the story of the one that got away!!
Trialbyfire Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 It depends on your personality type, what you expect out of life and how much crap you're willing to put up with. It's easy to find a project. It's difficult to find the right person.
Storyrider Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 As I've gotten older it's become much easier to articulate (at least to myself) what my criteria are. Also, these change over time and based on extenuating circumstances.
pollywag Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 As I've gotten older it's become much easier to articulate (at least to myself) what my criteria are. Also, these change over time and based on extenuating circumstances. Ha! So VERY true.
OpenBook Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 You have only one soulmate' date=' if that's what you're getting at. [b']And Michelle is mine.[/b] You know what? - she didn't want to go out with me at first! Boy, wouldn't that have been quite the story of the one that got away!! May I say that you both appear to be extremely well-matched with each other.
TM42 Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I think relationships are what you make of them. If you find someone you get along with, are attracted to, and have a really fun time with, that is the most important thing. I don't think there are a LOT of people for one person though. I think really good relationships come around once in a blue moon. I also think that back in the day people got married younger and didnt date as muc before, so they would put more effort into falling in love with their partner and making it work. I think nowadays people take the easy way out a lot.
carhill Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 IDK. 50 in about a month and I've only met one person in my life whom I can laugh with, get annoyed by, play with and generally completely get on all levels and no matter how mad we get at each other, we both know it'll be OK. I guess I just described my sister (I don't have any), except what I want to do to her would get me arrested Seriously, OP, I think, at levels of intimacy which normally provide a happy and healthy relationship, you can meet many people who are compatible in that way. I actually think that's a better path than what I've experienced. Sometimes, the right amount of distance is a good thing As I've gotten older it's become much easier to articulate (at least to myself) what my criteria are For me, the exact opposite. Criteria which seemed simple to compile and articulate a generation ago now appear as a labyrinthian maze of emotions and intuition and subjective observations. My world is a lot grayer now, but satisfyingly so.
O'bama Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 For me, the exact opposite. Criteria which seemed simple to compile and articulate a generation ago now appear as a labyrinthian maze of emotions and intuition and subjective observations. My world is a lot grayer now, but satisfyingly so. I just hope you're not going nuts.
pollywag Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 For me, the exact opposite. Criteria which seemed simple to compile and articulate a generation ago now appear as a labyrinthian maze of emotions and intuition and subjective observations. My world is a lot grayer now, but satisfyingly so. that's because you are not in a position to have to choose. You are married right?
Author Isolde Posted April 6, 2009 Author Posted April 6, 2009 Seriously, OP, I think, at levels of intimacy which normally provide a happy and healthy relationship, you can meet many people who are compatible in that way. I actually think that's a better path than what I've experienced. Sometimes, the right amount of distance is a good thing Distance meaning what? And that's interesting that your world has become greyer. You're right that uncertainty can be exciting, even exhilarating, in certain circumstances. While the idea that there are "many compatible people" is nice, I see a lot of people on this board who have little evidence of that being true.
Storyrider Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 IDK. 50 in about a month and I've only met one person in my life whom I can laugh with, get annoyed by, play with and generally completely get on all levels and no matter how mad we get at each other, we both know it'll be OK. I guess I just described my sister (I don't have any), except what I want to do to her would get me arrested Seriously, OP, I think, at levels of intimacy which normally provide a happy and healthy relationship, you can meet many people who are compatible in that way. I actually think that's a better path than what I've experienced. Sometimes, the right amount of distance is a good thing For me, the exact opposite. Criteria which seemed simple to compile and articulate a generation ago now appear as a labyrinthian maze of emotions and intuition and subjective observations. My world is a lot grayer now, but satisfyingly so. Hm. Interesting. I don't think I'd encountered enough men who fit my criteria to even know what those criteria are. Recently, I've come to the realization that I'd be ok alone. If you knew you'd be ok alone, then who would you pick to pursue as an interest? Interesting question.
Storyrider Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I just hope you're not going nuts. It did sound a bit "through the looking glass" didn't it?
carhill Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 that's because you are not in a position to have to choose. You are married right? On paper, yes. Practically speaking, no. Like I said, grey
SincereOnlineGuy Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Another one of my philosophical posts, I guess? Now, I definitely don't believe that there's just one person for every one. But I don't know if there's a lot of people that each person could be happy with. From reading threads here I feel like compatibility is really a pretty elusive thing, and I'm not talking about overly idealistic people who aren't happy with anything. I do think part of this is geographical or spatio-temporal luck. Any illumination here? Yes, there are millions of people who could be compatible with each person. Were there not, your "soulmate" would be at a convenience store in Tibet and not sitting behind you in high school math class. I grant you that the elements of daily life which brings various potential partners together conspire to bring only certain people together with an individual no matter that there are dozens or hundreds of others in his periphery who are merely compatible, but who are unaware of it, or of him/her. As a society we have probably rendered ourselves to not be as social as we should be. Protecting things like privacy, not to mention our physical selves, seems to be the priority instead. Were it feasible to get out and circulate without reservations among all potentially compatible individuals, real life would be like the Yahoo personals. People would dare to advertise their availability to a vast number of others, and others would in turn respond in great numbers to each. Perhaps they would realize that even if THIS person isn't the ideal mate, he/she might know somebody who is ideal.
Author Isolde Posted April 6, 2009 Author Posted April 6, 2009 I think it's possible to be ok with being alone and see it as a possibility but still be open to finding a good R. You can't, or at least you shouldn't, resign yourself to being alone.
Author Isolde Posted April 6, 2009 Author Posted April 6, 2009 Yes, there are millions of people who could be compatible with each person. Were there not, your "soulmate" would be at a convenience store in Tibet Pass the yak butter tea, please! Seriously, millions? I think not. Mayyyyyyybe hundreds.
EllieBean Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 I think the amount of compatible people depends on your criteria. If you want a nice ass, superficial conversation, and someone to watch tv and procreate with, there are many people who would be suitable. If, however, you want someone who is attractive but also shares your interests, understands you as a person, is intelligent and well educated and intellectual - well, you are going to have a much harder job finding such a person. Many people who are looking for something special which never shows up will eventually give up hope and simply settle for "someone to watch tv and procreate with". Some compromise on personality and just date someone cute (often younger people) while others compromise on attractiveness in order to find the type of personality they desire (often older people). I compromised on looks, because my first priority was to find an intelligent ambitious guy who would treat me nicely.
Recommended Posts