# Soulmates



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

I learned a lot about the views of many here from previous discussions as well as browsing the threads. Plainly, for example, I am an outlier in opposition to divorce and favoring a spouse making unilateral decisions about the marriage.

However, there is a related issue that I wanted to explore here: the idea of finding a soulmate.

One common thread to irreconcilable differences is the idea that the person you are with is just not the right person to be with. So why not hurry up and get started in the search for another? I suspect this is behind a great deal of infidelity as well.

And I will certainly acknowledge that there are those who have left one or more marriages and eventually found a marriage that works for them. My impression, though, is that there are an awful lot of people who are hopping from one marriage to another in search of something. Their soulmate perhaps?

The alternative view of marriage is that it is a relationship where we invest ourselves and solve problems and learn to get along. In short, instead of finding our soulmate, we forge one. To what extent do people think of marriage in terms of learning to live with someone else?

The fact that modern marriage is not arranged, that it begins with a romantic infatuation and perhaps even some cold calculation (can he support a family? is she still going to be pretty as she ages?) doesn't really alter that because life throws us so many curves.

Am I alone in this view of marriage?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

You have to define what a "soul mate" is first before a discussion can be had on the topic.

Are you suggesting that for each of us there is exactly one person on this earth who is our "soul mate"?


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> You have to define what a "soul mate" is first before a discussion can be had on the topic.
> 
> Are you suggesting that for each of us there is exactly one person on this earth who is our "soul mate"?


Let's go with a slightly looser definition than that. Let's call the "found soulmate hypothesis" the belief that there is some small number of people (but probably more than one) who are the right marriage match.

And, to be clear, I'm arguing against this idea. I'm arguing for the idea that even a random marital arrangement can work and perhaps would work better since it would not carry the expectation of having found your soulmate.

Let's call the mine the "made soulmate hypothesis". After you've spent years in a marriage with this person they become the one and only person on this earth for you.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> I learned a lot about the views of many here from previous discussions as well as browsing the threads. Plainly, for example, I am an outlier in opposition to divorce and favoring a spouse making unilateral decisions about the marriage.
> 
> However, there is a related issue that I wanted to explore here: the idea of finding a soulmate.
> 
> ...


The problem with this idea is the assumption that BOTH partners are on board to work on the marriage. So many times it happens, as we see here constantly, that only one person is truly vested in making things work or improve. It cannot be done by only one person in the equation, no matter what they try or how hard they may wish for it. 

And the idea of a soulmate, that only one person out there is the right one for us, is absurd.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> Let's go with a slightly looser definition than that. Let's call the "found soulmate hypothesis" the belief that there is some small number of people (but probably more than one) who are the right marriage match.
> 
> And, to be clear, I'm arguing against this idea. I'm arguing for the idea that even a random marital arrangement can work and perhaps would work better since it would not carry the expectation of having found your soulmate.
> 
> Let's call the mine the "made soulmate hypothesis". After you've spent years in a marriage with this person they become the one and only person on this earth for you.


Sort of agree with the looser definition. 

The trouble for me with this becoming the one and only is, there must be some good chemistry there first, in my mind. 

So, how does chemical attraction fit into your premise? Does it have to be there and strong first? 

I remember dating a nice young woman when I was a teen. She had this whistle when she spoke. It drove me nuts. I don't know why. She was a wonderful woman. That was a dealbreaker for me, as a teen dating. 

Do you mean to say that you just learn to wear earplugs when he/she speaks? Not sure you've given enough detail in what you think is ignorable, so you can, "make your soulmate".


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

ladymisato said:


> Let's go with a slightly looser definition than that. Let's call the "found soulmate hypothesis" the belief that there is some small number of people (but probably more than one) who are the right marriage match.
> 
> And, to be clear, I'm arguing against this idea. I'm arguing for the idea that even a random marital arrangement can work and perhaps would work better since it would not carry the expectation of having found your soulmate.
> 
> Let's call the mine the "made soulmate hypothesis". After you've spent years in a marriage with this person they become the one and only person on this earth for you.


soul mate noun 

: a close friend who completely understands you

: a person who has the same beliefs and opinions as another person


What I do not agree with is when people say that they believe that there is one person for them who is a "soul mate". Some even take it to the level that this is a soul who has been with them through many life times. Some just thing somehow one soul was assigned to them by some soul-assigner entity in the universe. I don't get this. What if they were born in Kansas and their soul mate was born into a poor farm family in India. They will never find each other. Or what is one is born this century and the other 10 centuries ago OPPS... 

I do believe that there are a few people we can get along with and love in a way fitting into the Webster definition.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

While I definitely don't agree with the notion of finding "The One," a big part of what makes my spouse and I work so well together is that we just really, really, like each other. 

So I'm glad we get to pick our partners. And I'm glad we are allowed to pick more than once.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Assuming I believed in soul mates, I find the assumption that a soul mate must, be a romantic partner to be humorous.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Assuming I believed in soul mates, I find the assumption that a soul mate must, be a romantic partner to be humorous.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Could you explain that a little further please? That went well over my head. That's not hard to do. It just surprised me how high it was when it passed.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

3Xnocharm said:


> The problem with this idea is the assumption that BOTH partners are on board to work on the marriage. So many times it happens, as we see here constantly, that only one person is truly vested in making things work or improve. It cannot be done by only one person in the equation, no matter what they try or how hard they may wish for it.
> 
> And the idea of a soulmate, that only one person out there is the right one for us, is absurd.


I understand what you are saying. I won't say I agree or disagree. Rather, I think you are painting a black and white picture that is really much grayer.

So it's possible that a person might find that perfect spouse, their "soulmate" and they are bonded for life.

It's also possible that to get into a marriage where your spouse so sabotages things that the marriage cannot work no matter what you do.

Between these extremes we have the spouse who may not be perfect but who is willing to work together with you.

And then there are those spouses who while not actively assisting in making the marriage work are at least not working against you.


----------



## sparkyjim (Sep 22, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> Could you explain that a little further please? That went well over my head. That's not hard to do. It just surprised me how high it was when it passed.


I think what they are trying to say is that a soul mate can also be a friend, not your romantic partner.

My take on this is that there are no "assigned" soul mates. There are probably a lot of people out there that we might really connect with more easily and on a deeper level than with other people. These people are certainly more compatible with us and the relationship seems better, but all relationships require at least some work, and no one is going to find a mate that will just fall lockstep in with them.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> So, how does chemical attraction fit into your premise? Does it have to be there and strong first?
> 
> I remember dating a nice young woman when I was a teen. She had this whistle when she spoke. It drove me nuts. I don't know why. She was a wonderful woman. That was a dealbreaker for me, as a teen dating.
> 
> Do you mean to say that you just learn to wear earplugs when he/she speaks? Not sure you've given enough detail in what you think is ignorable, so you can, "make your soulmate".


That's actually a pretty good example because it's a pretty common situation. I was reading a blog recently on marriage (should have saved the link) and what it said, essentially, is that we often marry people who are different from us (not just in gender but more generally, in a seemingly complementary way). Those things that we thought were cute at first then start to annoy us.

So there we are, stuck with a whistler (or whatever). What to do?

Or maybe, worse, she had perfect diction when you married her but then started whistling (or whatever). Same situation.

I'm not discounting chemistry at all but suggesting that chemistry can be made.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

sparkyjim said:


> I think what they are trying to say is that a soul mate can also be a friend, not your romantic partner.
> 
> My take on this is that there are no "assigned" soul mates. There are probably a lot of people out there that we might really connect with more easily and on a deeper level than with other people. These people are certainly more compatible with us and the relationship seems better, but all relationships require at least some work, and no one is going to find a mate that will just fall lockstep in with them.


Yeah, that right there was never part of my loose definition of a soul mate. I always realized it takes work. 

The thing is, I disagree where you say there are probably a lot of people. I think there are people, not just a person, but those are very few. I've always had too many faults to have a lot of possible, "soul mate type", possibilities. 

I think there are some I will never meet. I still think they are few.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> That's actually a pretty good example because it's a pretty common situation. I was reading a blog recently on marriage (should have saved the link) and what it said, essentially, is that we often marry people who are different from us (not just in gender but more generally, in a seemingly complementary way). Those things that we thought were cute at first then start to annoy us.
> 
> So there we are, stuck with a whistler (or whatever). What to do?
> 
> ...


I didn't rely on anything cute in my selection process for my second marriage. Truly, I didn't. What I missed, I was just oblivious to noticing due to ignorance(lack of education), or because of that, disputed brain chemistry stuff. 

Anyway, I can most certainly assure you, I have felt chemistry with some women who I just met and none with most I've first met. I do believe there is a thing that is chemistry. That's not to say the woman was marriage material for me, nor I for her. I just felt it in my...hahaha...loins(seriously, it's the only word I could think of and I am embarrassed to type it).


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Could you explain that a little further please? That went well over my head. That's not hard to do. It just surprised me how high it was when it passed.


Sparkyjim summed it up pretty well. The idea that there is but one soul that compliments yours is ridiculous to me, but I might buy that some souls compliment you better than others. My hb and I have just always clicked, and he is 19 years older. We still have our spats like everyone else but it's never occurred to me that I shouldn't be with him. We've always meshed well. But I imagine there are others I would mesh well with too, I just happened to meet him.

But your soul mate could also be an 89 year old Buddhist monk.....what does the body have to do with the souls complimenting each other? Or your soul mate could be in the other world now...I get that i'm wading into personal beliefs now but hopefully you get my meaning. A complimentary soul needn't be a potential romantic partner.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Sparkyjim summed it up pretty well. The idea that there is but one soul that compliments yours is ridiculous to me, but I might buy that some souls compliment you better than others. My hb and I have just always clicked, and he is 19 years older. We still have our spats like everyone else but it's never occurred to me that I shouldn't be with him. We've always meshed well. But I imagine there are others I would mesh well with too, I just happened to meet him.
> 
> But your soul mate could also be an 89 year old Buddhist monk.....what does the body have to do with the souls complimenting each other? Or your soul mate could be in the other world now...I get that i'm wading into personal beliefs now but hopefully you get my meaning. A complimentary soul needn't be a potential romantic partner.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I thought there was something deeper to what you were trying to convey. 

Yeah, I agree. If you are speaking strictly about souls, then such a thing as an actual best soul that you mesh with might be one without a physical presence in this plane of existence. 

I was, unfortunately, thinking of this plane with the combination of physical and spiritual existence. 

I don't believe there is just one, but many less than most believe are a close match to a soul mate. 

However, I don't want to be paired with a person I am not interested in sex with. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> I thought there was something deeper to what you were trying to convey.
> 
> Yeah, I agree. If you are speaking strictly about souls, then such a thing as an actual best soul that you mesh with might be one without a physical presence in this plane of existence.
> 
> ...



Sure, thus my comment about the monk. He might be a complimentary soul and lovely to know but I probably won't want to have sex with him, and I'm not sure I need a complimentary soul to have sex with someone. I just need someone I'm physically attracted to. In an idea world you'd find both, but I'm not even sure you need this thing called a soulmate in a romantic partner to be happy. I suppose everyone is different, but depending on how one defines the term is can set standards awfully high and can be hard for a partner to live up to.

I too need some manner of spark to be happy with someone, but I'm not sure if it would need to rise to the level of soulmate. I'm not sure I have a soulmate right now, but I definitely have spark and someone I get on well with.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> Sure, thus my comment about the monk. He might be a complimentary soul and lovely to know but I probably won't want to have sex with him, and I'm not sure I need a complimentary soul to have sex with someone. I just need someone I'm physically attracted to. In an idea world you'd find both, but I'm not even sure you need this thing called a soulmate in a romantic partner to be happy. I suppose everyone is different, but depending on how one defines the term is can set standards awfully high and can be hard for a partner to live up to.
> 
> I too need some manner of spark to be happy with someone, but I'm not sure if it would need to rise to the level of soulmate. I'm not sure I have a soulmate right now, but I definitely have spark and someone I get on well with.


Happy, but what about content?

I never wanted a person to be my soul mate. I mean, if the woman has to work to be my, "soul mate", she isn't. There is no work involved. 

Besides, if there is truly such a thing as a soul mate, we likely will not find that one person. 

We choose the best we can from a short list of possibilities. Those folks have to want us. We can't force anyone to want us. We can't force ourselves to want them. So then, can we say that when emotional biology comes into the picture, it's out of our hands? 

I don't know why I felt attraction to a few women I've talked with. There were very few of them. I guess a biologist or endocrynologist or psychiatrist or psychologist could explain it? It doesn't matter. I can do nothing about it. I don't control that. I can only choose to be with that person based on other reasons which have nothing to do with what I feel, but are just as important. 

So, when I find that one person out of the few possiblities who are interested as much in me, are they as close as one can humanly get to a soul mate? I think. 

We all change over time and through circumstances. So, eventually, that person may lose their soul mate status. It takes a great deal to do that, when they are a good match. 

Fun to talk with you.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

> To what extent do people think of marriage in terms of learning to live with someone else?


This is true even with a so-called soul-mate, but is just much easier since you are supposedly aligned and attuned to a far greater degree than most matches.

You can often learn to live with someone, but oftentimes you will also learn that you _cannot_! There's nothing wrong with that, IMO. There is no need for every day to be a struggle or filled with unhappiness or frustration, when it would be better to be alone or find someone more compatible.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I agree with that, for the most part. I just don't agree it's better to be alone. As humans, we are meant to be social. We are not meant to be alone. 

Studies find that those who live alone, live shorter lives and are prone to more illness. We can't deny scientific facts.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I mean alone as in unpartnered, at least for a while, not asocial. Yes, humans are social, but to varying degrees. Alone may also mean a series of short relationships if you don't find a good match. I also know there are plenty of older men and women who don't have and don't want partners, either at all, or just want one now and then.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Happy, but what about content?
> 
> I never wanted a person to be my soul mate. I mean, if the woman has to work to be my, "soul mate", she isn't. There is no work involved.
> 
> ...



You too  

So how does one even decide if they have this thing called "soulmate"? I love my hb and as I said we've always meshed well, have always had a great sex life, and I couldn't imagine my life without him right now but in other ways we're very different as far as our viewpoints an interests. And there is definitely some work involved as in all marriages. Are soulmates just like each other or are they merely highly compatible?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> You too
> 
> So how does one even decide if they have this thing called "soulmate"? I love my hb and as I said we've always meshed well, have always had a great sex life, and I couldn't imagine my life without him right now but in other ways we're very different as far as our viewpoints an interests. And there is definitely some work involved as in all marriages. Are soulmates just like each other or are they merely highly compatible?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I can only speak for me. 

It means there is first an attraction that cannot be denied, but there is no rhyme or reason for it. 

It means that person thinks very similarly to me and concludes things which are very similar. 

It means we have many things in common throughout our lives. 

Not jobs, though. I don't mean we have the same jobs, but I do mean we respect the type of profession the other has. As in, some like tradesmen. Some like to work in the trades. 

It's hard to put it into words. Hope this helps explain. 

That one may not be a true soul mate. We can only find someone who is most compatible out of our circle of contacts. They then, acquire that monicker, soul mate. They are as close as we could find, at the time. 

They are the easiest to live with and be happy, content and filled with hope and joy. Not all the time, because nothing is perfect. Just for most of the time. 

And, it does take work, but the work is well worth it, and pleasantly rewarding.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

It seems that while most here deny the classic concept of soulmate as that one person who is perfect for us, everyone subscribes to the looser idea of searching for compatibility.

Is that a fair summary?

Allow me to rephrase my question then: To what extent can compatibility be created?

Imagine, for example, that you are thrown into an arranged marriage. Could you make it work? Could you be happy and contented with your spouse?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I think the overly romantic version of one person out there for everyone is ridiculous. I mean I thought my x wife was this person but objectively thinking about it now what are the chances of the one person I am suppose to find grew up a block away from me. It's a big world so that seems far fetched.

What I do believe is that people, men and women , are complex. Maybe on a list of 1000 different traits and personalities each person would check like 15 boxes. So you get along terrific with other people who check these same boxes.

Sometime those people are relatives, or friends and sometimes it's the jackpot when you find it as a romantic interest. Never found mine but I have friends married who no doubt, when you see them interact ,they have a special connection.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

ladymisato said:


> It seems that while most here deny the classic concept of soulmate as that one person who is perfect for us, everyone subscribes to the looser idea of searching for compatibility.
> 
> Is that a fair summary?
> 
> ...


I don't think you can. Yes you can make compromises and all relationships are built on that. But you can't fake compatibility in my mind,

So same with arranged marriages. Yes they have been successful but not for a reason of compatibility. Humans one individual trait that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom is our natural ability to adapt. So being forced into an arranged marriage, while perhaps not what we want, you can adapt to and make successful. I'm a colorado boy, love my snow and mountains, I could adapt to living in South Africa but doesn't mean I would be happy there


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> It seems that while most here deny the classic concept of soulmate as that one person who is perfect for us, everyone subscribes to the looser idea of searching for compatibility.
> 
> Is that a fair summary?
> 
> ...


Personally, I think that would be extremely unlikely. Possible, as in, practically anything is possible. I think it would be near miracle status.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Arranged marriages "work" more often than Western-style marriages, or so the statistics indicate. How those stats are obtained may be part of the question, because you can't use divorce rates as a proxy for lack of success when looking at arranged marriage.

However, with most arranged marriages, the participants buy into the cultural expectation that it can and will be made to work, and that it's not necessarily about love and romance. Without the romance expectation, it's more about creating a working partnership, and there IS an expectation that both will make this effort, so they do.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> I learned a lot about the views of many here from previous discussions as well as browsing the threads. Plainly, for example, I am an outlier in opposition to divorce and favoring a spouse making unilateral decisions about the marriage.


Yes, you are certainly an outlier on this point. I tried to make a unilateral marriage work for 13 years. He was verbally, emotionally and physically abusive and finally diagnosed on the severe end of the spectrum with narcissistic personality disorder. I could have stayed - and subjected my daughter to a marriage where abuse was considered OK for a woman, setting her up for accepting such a marriage later in her own life. I could have stayed and completely capitulated to all of his whims. He bankrupted us not once, but TWICE. Had I stayed a third time was pretty inevitable. His delusions of grandiosity were a huge contributor to that. He did make unilateral decisions against MY BETTER JUDGEMENT. He used emotional and verbal abuse to get his way and physical abuse or threats of it to get his way and ot punish me for things that most couples would only be frustrated about (leaving out a box where he tripped/stubbed his toe).

When I married him I did so in a rushed way - I thought it was 'sweeping me off my feet' at the time, when in reality is the typical MO of someone with his personality disorder because they can't maintain that facade forever.

It is my understanding that you think I should have stayed in such a marriage. Please, if I misunderstand, clear that up. I'm in full agreement that MOST couples who marry at a reasonable age/level of maturity and who do not have a mental illness, personality disorder or addiction issue could and should do their best to work on them. And even some of them who do have those issues (when mild or being acknowledged and worked on) could still save their marriage. But I think there are also many situations where that is the only chance for happiness.



ladymisato said:


> However, there is a related issue that I wanted to explore here: the idea of finding a soulmate.
> 
> One common thread to irreconcilable differences is the idea that the person you are with is just not the right person to be with. So why not hurry up and get started in the search for another? I suspect this is behind a great deal of infidelity as well.
> 
> ...


I do not believe in soul mates. I do believe one can be forged if there is initial compatibility and attraction.



ladymisato said:


> That's actually a pretty good example because it's a pretty common situation. I was reading a blog recently on marriage (should have saved the link) and what it said, essentially, is that we often marry people who are different from us (not just in gender but more generally, in a seemingly complementary way). Those things that we thought were cute at first then start to annoy us.
> 
> So there we are, stuck with a whistler (or whatever). What to do?
> 
> ...


I think we can certainly learn to choose our battles and change our way of thinking. If we loved someone or married to someone who snores, we find a solution. I know a couple with separate bedrooms but they work to maintain intimacy so that separate beds doesn't result in an emotional or physical distance.

Or the whistler - we can 'train' ourselves to find that endearing. To continually remind ourselves how much we love them and how much we'd miss hearing that whistle, lisp, annoying laugh, tongue clicking, etc. should they suddenly die. 

But I do NOT agree that chemistry can be made. I had a male friend for years - we were compatible in every way but sexually because there was NO chemistry. Once we tried to cross over to lovers because we were SO right for each other in every other way. We knew we'd be content and never argue about money or anything like that. But he did me a favor in not letting me settle for reliability and friendship. I did realize that at some point I would miss passionate kissing and lovemaking and no matter how cloyingly PLEASANT our existence would be, I would become restless and disheartened and sad. We couldn't make chemistry. And we've been friends for about 8 years, so it's not like there wasn't an opportunity for that to develop.

And recently, he actually found someone after 20 years of being single - we talked like friends do and they have all of that AND chemistry. He's on cloud 9. I'm glad we didn't settle.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

@ MBH

So, instead of religious beliefs about going to hell and believers holding the tempted's feet to the fire, it's culture?

Does it really matter what holds our feet to the fire and keeps us trying and rational?

The trouble I have with that is, chemistry is best when it's naturally occurring. That forced chemistry seems like it would allow for very discreet liaisons accepted and approved by the participants in the arranged marriage. 

In my mind, that's not marriage. It's a legal partnership. It's not attractive.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> Arranged marriages "work" more often than Western-style marriages, or so the statistics indicate. How those stats are obtained may be part of the question, because you can't use divorce rates as a proxy for lack of success when looking at arranged marriage.


Let's agree that measuring marriage success is very difficult but not get caught up by that fact.



> However, with most arranged marriages, the participants buy into the cultural expectation that it can and will be made to work, and that it's not necessarily about love and romance. Without the romance expectation, it's more about creating a working partnership, and there IS an expectation that both will make this effort, so they do.


Mind you, I'm only pointing to arranged marriages as a thought experiment but I think it's a useful one. In a sense, we all find ourselves in marriages arranged by our younger selves. (What was I thinking?!)

Is cultural expectation really the only reason that such marriages work? Is it really the case that they are less romantic than western marriages (after, say, the first five years)? I'm not convinced of either.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't think you can. Yes you can make compromises and all relationships are built on that.
> But you can't fake compatibility in my mind,


I'm thinking much more broadly than compromise (and faking).



> ...So being forced into an arranged marriage, while perhaps not what we want, you can adapt to and make successful...


I think 'adaptation' is the key word. Change.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

2ntnuf said:


> Does it really matter what holds our feet to the fire and keeps us trying and rational?


That is one question I have in mind.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> @ MBH
> 
> So, instead of religious beliefs about going to hell and believers holding the tempted's feet to the fire, it's culture?
> 
> ...


Religious beliefs and/or culture - relgious beliefs are part of a culture. You're right, it doesn't matter which keeps us trying, and IMO, neither are rational - more like rationalizations! LOL

I like the love/chemistry model myself, but of course I was raised in a Western culture that emphasizes this, and I really have no innate understanding of how arranged marriage cultures work or view relationships. Adultery is often far more highly frowned upon in arranged marriage cultures than ours, or the older Western model where it's okay for men to have affairs is accepted, but women must be faithful and chaste.

I've also heard that familiarity sometimes (often?) does lead to love in arranged marriages. People have an urge to love, so "love the one you're with" may apply.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

ladymisato said:


> Mind you, I'm only pointing to arranged marriages as a thought experiment but I think it's a useful one. In a sense, we all find ourselves in marriages arranged by our younger selves. (What was I thinking?!)
> 
> Is cultural expectation really the only reason that such marriages work? Is it really the case that they are less romantic than western marriages (after, say, the first five years)? I'm not convinced of either.


LOL Yes, what WAS I thinking? I surely wasn't thinking clearly, or lacked crucial information the first time.

As for your second point, see my post just above.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

So is that what you are advocating for? Arranged marriages? If so I completely disagree and would never want to pick the husbands for my daughters


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

EnjoliWoman said:


> It is my understanding that you think I should have stayed in such a marriage. Please, if I misunderstand, clear that up. I'm in full agreement that MOST couples who marry at a reasonable age/level of maturity and who do not have a mental illness, personality disorder or addiction issue could and should do their best to work on them. And even some of them who do have those issues (when mild or being acknowledged and worked on) could still save their marriage. But I think there are also many situations where that is the only chance for happiness.


I want to avoid commenting on specific marriages but yes, in general, my belief is that people don't try hard enough to fix things, too quickly give up. What I'm exploring in this thread is whether that is in part because of a belief in the soulmate or compatibility.

What I have noticed is that people are especially quick where certain issues are in play, those with a certain tinge of morality. Consider, for example, would a terminal disease like cancer be grounds for divorce? Surely you would be happier married to someone who doesn't have cancer.



> But I do NOT agree that chemistry can be made.... I'm glad we didn't settle.


So moving away from the arranged marriage thought experiment, assuming that you choose a spouse with whom you have had chemistry in the early stage, is it something that becomes lost forever and must be sought anew or is it always there to be rekindled?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Religious beliefs and/or culture - relgious beliefs are part of a culture. You're right, it doesn't matter which keeps us trying, and IMO, neither are rational - more like rationalizations! LOL
> 
> I like the love/chemistry model myself, but of course I was raised in a Western culture that emphasizes this, and I really have no innate understanding of how arranged marriage cultures work or view relationships. Adultery is often far more highly frowned upon in arranged marriage cultures than ours, or the older Western model where it's okay for men to have affairs is accepted, but women must be faithful and chaste.
> 
> I've also heard that familiarity sometimes (often?) does lead to love in arranged marriages. People have an urge to love, so "love the one you're with" may apply.


That kind of love seems like it would be more sisterly/brotherly.

I've never seen that in my grandparents or their age groups. They were old-time. Grandfathers were born in 1885 and 1901, from dad and mum's side respectively. 

Although mum's parents had separate bedrooms, affairs were off limits, to my knowledge. Not that there could not have been secrets. The women did all gather in the kitchen every Sunday after church to talk and would shoo away us kids when we came around. That's a long long reach, though. It's highly unlikely, but still possible.


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> So is that what you are advocating for? Arranged marriages? If so I completely disagree and would never want to pick the husbands for my daughters


That was just a thought experiment. Don't be so literal.


----------



## EnjoliWoman (Jul 2, 2012)

ladymisato said:


> I want to avoid commenting on specific marriages but yes, in general, my belief is that people don't try hard enough to fix things, too quickly give up. What I'm exploring in this thread is whether that is in part because of a belief in the soulmate or compatibility.
> 
> What I have noticed is that people are especially quick where certain issues are in play, those with a certain tinge of morality. Consider, for example, would a terminal disease like cancer be grounds for divorce? Surely you would be happier married to someone who doesn't have cancer.
> 
> So moving away from the arranged marriage thought experiment, assuming that you choose a spouse with whom you have had chemistry in the early stage, is it something that becomes lost forever and must be sought anew or is it always there to be rekindled?


Well that depends. Very generally speaking, yes there are ways couples and rekindle their marriages.

However, there are quite a few caveats:
- the other person is willing to rekindle as well
- the other person is equally dedicated to the relationship (or at least enough to stay)
- the other person has not actively destroyed the chemistry by:
a) abuse
b) mental illness that they will not recognize and treat because they don't see it as a problem
c) the other person is not in denial about how previous actions have damaged the relationship - i.e. they cheated and don't realize how hurtful it was and want to rug sweep and not deal with and just go back to the way things were without addressing underlying issues
d) or any level of delusion that what they are doing to rekindle is "enough" if the other partner doesn't feel it is


And one thing I meant to address: 



ladymisato said:


> My impression, though, is that there are an awful lot of people who are hopping from one marriage to another in search of something. Their soulmate perhaps?


I disagree with your use of the term "hopping". This implies they have quickly gone into another marriage. Most people do not quickly move into another marriage. Go to the Life After Divorce section. You will find a great deal are gun shy. Most are taking their time and learning from their first marriage. They are looking for someone who is much more compatible than the first. Very often that difference in compatibility was the result of the 'unilateral' decisions you advocate. They unilaterally decided to have an affair and leave; they unilaterally decided to have an affair and their spouse should just get over it already. They unilaterally decided hitting their spouse and emotionally bulldozing over the other person should result in dedication instead of fear. They unilaterally decided that the grass was greener.

Very seldom do you see both people sit down and come to a quiet agreement that they are simply incompatible for some mundane reason so let's split.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

Re: marriage "hopping." This is certainly what I thought about divorce in our modern culture before I grew up and had my own divorce. Some things can really only be understood after you've experienced them. Like colors, or pain, or the sound of music. I think if you haven't lived inside this situation yourself, your arguments will sound hollow, thin and false to those that have.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Attraction and compatibility can make two become soul mates but there is not a soul mate out there for people. Just potentials.

And let's be honest, some people are soul mate material and some people soul eating material.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> And let's be honest, some people are soul mate material and some people soul eating material.


No idea what that has to do with the discussion. Isn't that why there can be no true soul mates?


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

EnjoliWoman said:


> I disagree with your use of the term "hopping". This implies they have quickly gone into another marriage. Most people do not quickly move into another marriage. Go to the Life After Divorce section. You will find a great deal are gun shy. Most are taking their time and learning from their first marriage. They are looking for someone who is much more compatible than the first. Very often that difference in compatibility was the result of the 'unilateral' decisions you advocate. They unilaterally decided to have an affair and leave; they unilaterally decided to have an affair and their spouse should just get over it already. They unilaterally decided hitting their spouse and emotionally bulldozing over the other person should result in dedication instead of fear. They unilaterally decided that the grass was greener.
> 
> Very seldom do you see both people sit down and come to a quiet agreement that they are simply incompatible for some mundane reason so let's split.





Faeleaf said:


> Re: marriage "hopping." This is certainly what I thought about divorce in our modern culture before I grew up and had my own divorce. Some things can really only be understood after you've experienced them. Like colors, or pain, or the sound of music. I think if you haven't lived inside this situation yourself, your arguments will sound hollow, thin and false to those that have.


Let's calibrate first. I'm thinking, primarily, of the quintessential hollywood marriage and those that seem modeled on them.

Hollywood stars are engaged, for all appearances, in a never-ending quest for romantic chemistry. The moment the chemistry is gone they are on to the next romance.

Would it be fair to call that 'marriage hopping'?


----------



## ladymisato (Aug 5, 2014)

EnjoliWoman said:


> Well that depends. Very generally speaking, yes there are ways couples and rekindle their marriages.
> 
> However, there are quite a few caveats:
> - the other person is willing to rekindle as well
> ...


Let's throw out the extremes first. It makes no sense to remain in a home where you are subject to physical or, arguably, even emotional abuse (or where children are subject to the same). That doesn't directly mean divorce, it might mean only a separation, but let's set that situation aside.

You didn't directly respond to my cancer analogy but what I think otherwise generalizes your description is where you are in a marriage where the spouse _could_ change but _chooses_ not to.

Now is it your belief that in these situation initiating divorce is _necessary_ or that it is _justified_? If, for example, you were in a marriage with a spouse who had cancer, you can't fix that. But you might not feel justified to divorce. But if this person cheats on you then, well, you're justified in getting a divorce.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

ladymisato said:


> Hollywood stars are engaged, for all appearances, in a never-ending quest for romantic chemistry. The moment the chemistry is gone they are on to the next romance.
> 
> Would it be fair to call that 'marriage hopping'?


I don't claim to know what goes on inside Hollywood marriages. I am well aware of the stereotype, but not how often that stereotype fits the reality. If I was pressed, I would guess that it doesn't fit very well for the majority of Hollywood marriages, regardless of how it looks from the outside, and fits even less for the majority of American marriages. Certainly it can't come close to resembling the marriage of anyone I know personally.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> No idea what that has to do with the discussion. Isn't that why there can be no true soul mates?


I don't believe in a single soul mate if that means that there's one perfect person for us out there somewhere.

My comment was relevant to the description of the closest thing we have to a soul mate. Two compatible people can become perfect for each other but the second part to that is that there are some fundamental character traits that will sabotage people no matter how compatible they are. I'm agree with the following snippet from the opening comment but it requires the right traits from both people.



ladymisato said:


> The alternative view of marriage is that it is a relationship where we invest ourselves and solve problems and learn to get along. In short, instead of finding our soulmate, we forge one.


----------



## TBT (Dec 20, 2011)

Being an older man I always find these discussions interesting. I think there has to be a very good fit at the beginning of any relationship.Its only with time and the changes in myself,brought on by life's ups and downs,that I can really evaluate whether or not certain relationships have been ideal. When I was young I thought of women on a more shallow level. Not in a negative way,but in my lack of understanding of the whole package that is a woman. What I may have viewed as a 'soulmate' when I was younger isn't very similar to my view of what a 'soulmate' is now.


----------



## Kvothe_The_Raven (Apr 6, 2014)

This is an interesting discussion and a subject that irks me especially in my current martial situation. 

I think the term "soulmate" can have a very heathly interpretation in terms of mutual compatibility and emotional intimacy. I've certainly had this in a couple of platonic friendships and I used to have this "soulmate" quality in my marriage.

But my marriage has suffered problems recently and the soulmate concept has become a destructive one. In fact the idea has been taken to its extreme and my spouse believes she must connect with her "twin flame" - a definitive idea of "The One"; that a soul was split and can be seperate through many lifetimes and be in different planes but that their union will be ultimate demonstration of love to the world.

A romantic vision and an idea that would appeal to many but for me this has become my spouse's obsession. One that causes her to daydream constantly and verge on solipsism. She feels that she is preparing for a reunion and is essentially having an affair with this fantasy. All her energy is focused onto this and anything that would cause her to deal with the reality outside of her dreams result in pain; any challenge to her beliefs is viewed as a threat and dealt with through emotional barriers. Only those that encourage and edify her beliefs (through social media) are allowed in.

She was always a dreamer and always had strong convinctions - something I was attracted to - but because of the hardships we've had in our marriage lately and she's lost the connection with me, she's latched onto this idea of the One soulmate and I don't think it's helped. In my opinion, the idea has offered her comfort and means of escape, but it's destructive for us. When you spouse tells you they feel unfaithful to their soulmate "out there" by staying married then there's a problem.

The soulmate idea hasn't caused the problems in our marriage - Mundane life and it's tribulations took care of that. But the romantised idea of the one soulmate has prevented much of the healing process. 

Personally, I do not believe in souls but I do understand the need for connection with other people, especially who we choose to be our mate. To boil down a lot of complexity, I'd say that attraction is important to begin with and is very individual ("chemistry") and then it's adaptability and teamwork, building emotional intimacy. 

It's understandable that my spouse knows how she wants to feel through the dreams (connected) and that she doesn't feel that with me. I get that. However, dreaming of someone else and waiting for that someone to come along (and perhaps rescue you?) is never going to rebuild trust and connection between us.

Even if I was spiritual, I think I would find the concept of the "One" soul to perfectly match our own somewhat absurd and, actually, quite insulting.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

She needs counseling. There is a little thing called reality. We can only do the best we can within our limited abilities to find someone who can be close to a soul mate status. No, I don't believe we can really find a soul mate in it's purest definition, but we surely can find someone who is the best match for us in our limited area. The rest we work on to make better and more satisfying. We accept that it's not really possible to find that one person, since we ARE all individuals with differences that can never be the same. 

Finding someone exactly like us would be insanely boring. Knowing all that the spouse would do before they do it would leave no room for happy surprises, laughter and joy. It is not a good thing to desire so much that we work toward that goal obsessively. We must accept our individuality. We must accept our lives as they are and work toward bettering them with real and obtainable goals.

I do believe that there may be a possibility that some soul exists out there that is the one person best for us, but it's likely we will never find them in this life. We do our best with what we have. That's all we can do. We make our lives as joyful as we can. We love the best we can. 

Your wife needs some help.


----------



## Faeleaf (Jul 22, 2014)

Second on the counselling. She sounds very depressed, and is seeking escape through fantasy. I'm really sorry you are going through this.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Thundarr said:


> I don't believe in a single soul mate if that means that there's one perfect person for us out there somewhere.
> 
> *My comment was relevant to the description of the closest thing we have to a soul mate. Two compatible people can become perfect for each other but the second part to that is that there are some fundamental character traits that will sabotage people no matter how compatible they are. *
> 
> .


:iagree:

I really don't believe in the term " soulmate " as per the "_ Romeo y Juileta _" context.

However, some personality types are definitely more compatible than others , so that a matching couple actually complement each other, almost naturally.

Others aren't that lucky, but with commitment and hard work, they too, overcome the obstacles , and benefit from a fulfilling relationship.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

> Others aren't that lucky, but with commitment and hard work, they too, overcome the obstacles.


And that's where I start to disagree. Yes, all relationships are work. If it's hard, I don't see the point. Seems like it should be easy or mostly easy work. If it's that hard, it becomes a hindrance to the respect and joy in the relationship.

That's what I mean when I say we need the person who is the closest to a soul mate we can find. I think the less work needed, the better chance the relationship has of succeeding. 

I think, over time and with work, the person does become as close to a soul mate as is likely. The closer the better with as much easy work as possible. No one wants to have to explain every little thing they do.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

2ntnuf said:


> And that's where I start to disagree. Yes, all relationships are work. If it's hard, I don't see the point. Seems like it should be easy or mostly easy work. If it's that hard, it becomes a hindrance to the respect and joy in the relationship.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say we need the person who is the closest to a soul mate we can find. I think the less work needed, the better chance the relationship has of succeeding.
> 
> I think, over time and with work, the person does become as close to a soul mate as is likely. The closer the better with as much easy work as possible. No one wants to have to explain every little thing they do.


And I agree fully with you!

Maybe I used the wrong term , but what I meant is that it takes some effort at compromise with them, whereas , in couples that are a natural fit or a good mix of personality types ,it takes very little effort.
Compromises come effortlessly.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

ladymisato said:


> That was just a thought experiment. Don't be so literal.


Wasn't being anything

? = question. I was asking To understand your meaning


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

For many yrs I used the term *Soulmate* in talking about my husband.....cause I always felt I found mine....(He still uses it in regards to me- and I do love that he feels so strongly).....

Yet one night yrs ago now.... I caught this Christian Marriage Counselor on TV ....talking about this concept/belief..... and how it has the potential to HURT many marriages...

Because when going through a really rough patch, one may start to QUESTION if who they are with = their "*Soul mate*"....or they missed him or her.... they entertain that their soul mate is still out there waiting to be found... tempted to chase some Romantic rainbow - dancing in their heads .....










Instead of sticking it out & working together for a reconciliation / that* hard work* needed to find peace & Harmony within the marriage, they are tempted to look outside of it....and like your opening post speaks.. this OFTEN DOES HAPPEN...

So in this way, the "soul mate" belief can lead one down a wrong path ...

The Beef of that program was...a Marriage is what we put into it, where 2 people give & share lovingly & care about one another...this can be found with MANY people around the globe, also if we loose a spouse, we can find it with another ....compatibility is helpful here though (How important for a more flowing harmony!)....but there is no bonafide soul mate for each. 

I really enjoyed that program & seen much *WISDOM* in it...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Kvothe_The_Raven said:


> *I think the term "soulmate" can have a very heathly interpretation in terms of mutual compatibility and emotional intimacy. I've certainly had this in a couple of platonic friendships and I used to have this "soulmate" quality in my marriage.*


I've read a # of articles on this... so far this is the most balanced I've come across to what a healthy definition of the term -allowing it to be used....written by John Gray, the author of Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus ....it speaks of a connection that has been tested by TIME, challenged by shared trials/ overcoming...









...Soulmates: Myth or Reality? ...









Some parts of the article.. I am skipping ...the article is LONG.. but wanted to highlight some things.... 



> ...*Most People Dream about Having a Soulmate...
> But Few Turn the Dream into a Reality*
> 
> The idea of a soulmate has both conscious or unconscious elements. Even if we do not intellectually believe in soulmates, we are still affected.
> ...


----------



## HappyGilmore (Jul 20, 2014)

I do not believe in the popular notion of a soulmate: that is to say, that one and only person who you are "meant" to be with. It's nonsense, and can actually be destructive, as in the situation Raven is in (so very sorry this is happening to you. It is completely unfair).

However, I can see how a married couple can grow together, and be together so long that they become in tune with each other. It seems that the were "meant to be." So many stories of how in old age, one spouse passes away, and the other quickly follows. Perhaps this is distinct from "soul mates," but it seems like it's the closest thing to it.

In my own experience with my husband, we started out with an almost love at first sight situation, which disturbed and excited us at the same time. Both of us had emerged from bad relationships a long time before, both of us had erected our walls of defense to keep others out: not only to protect ourselves, but also our respective children. Yet, instantaneously, I would say even on the first date, those walls fell. I don't know what it was, but it felt like madness. That night, he sent me an email saying "I've never been bold like this with anyone, but I found you to be totally intoxicating tonight." (to which I responded "I've never been called intoxicating before. IntoxiCATED, yes, but not intoxicating." :rofl: ). Things took off very quickly from there. Within three months, we were discussing how irresponsible we would be if we didn't have children, because they were the only things keeping us from running away together. 

Distinct from that was the chemistry. Again, we were both very guarded about this. Both of us like to say that we are logical, rational people, and I think for the most part we are. We'd both been on other dates before meeting each other, and found ourselves physically attracted to our dates, but kept it under control, because we knew how powerful sex is. It can cloud one's judgement when it comes to committing to a long-term relationship. You have to be very careful. But there we were, within a month of meeting, on his couch, me riding him like the salacious tart that I am. I still look back on that and think (with a chuckle, of course) about those heady days. 

And I realize, that we are still in them, over 10 years later. Yes, we have our ups and our downs. We have overcome unimaginable challenges together: everything from packing out a Dall Sheep ram, to blending a family, to dealing with his ex wife (BPD with a mean streak a mile long and no cares about money, or debt, or who she hurts), and dealing with my alcoholic parents. These challenges have bonded us closer together. And still madly in love. 

Are we soul mates, then? I repeat that I do not believe in that concept, so no. But we are a mated pair that cannot be separated.


----------

