Relationships

[tana]

How does one have more than *one* soul mate? Of course figuring out relationships takes teams of psychologists working day and night....

Human nature tends to be; many friends, a few close friends, ONE best friend and confidante. As I watch "Big love" and Cody and his girls on, *so called* reality TV. I see my thoughts confirmed. They don't have a bond. Yeah, I know, I take it for what it is.

I've had two marriages and a handful of three month relationships. I feel like I've gotten pretty good at quantifying what it takes for two people to mesh. Two people can co-exist if one is dominant and one is submissive. Put two alphas together tho and watch out.

No two people ever love exactly the same. One is always a little more into it than the other. "The person least committed, is the one with the most control."

When I was dating I had a scale of one to ten, not looks now, but personality, with a *ten* being that cute, sassy, clever, irreverent, genie in a bottle . But this character comes with a price. For some reason this personality always seems to be moody, manic, possibly bi-polar....no doubt who's in charge... heart breaker.

And a *one* being the sweet little take home to mom, Sunday school teacher, cater to you, no opinion.....fail safe.

I decided I wanted a *six* (no, not sex) as I would rather be a slight underdog in the power struggle than be catered to and be subjected to "Weekend at Bernie's" type movies for the rest of my life.

Obviously Men follow the same description's . Finding two people that mesh perfectly, equal status, equal perspectives, principles, religions, aspirations....It ain't easy.

To think that a man can locate many companions to mesh with and be soul mates, confidantes and best friends at once with everybody's ego's tamed and complacent....is beyond my comprehension. I could see an Alpha male finding maybe one primary wife and the rest subordinate as a possibility.....but other than that....forget it.

My awareness has come to understand that gender is a temporary assignment and to think that the female gender is destined to share their best friend while the male is to never have one at all, but to divide it up......isn't reasonable, logical, or enticing in the least.

P.S. I am happily married to my best friend (female)

Curt

[TAO]

How does one have more than *one* soul mate?

To be quite honest - I do not know. I don't even know if 'soul-mate' exists - I think it rather be an element of choice. I am guessing that if two people truly willed to be married, and to do all that was required, it would work no matter what. But oftimes, the will isn't involved enough. So I guess all of the opposite sex can be 'soul-mates' in certain instances .

Of course figuring out relationships takes teams of psychologists working day and night....

Or 5 words - Yes, Honey, I love you. Those words in any combination seem to make things work much of the time . But yes... sometimes, a psychologist is needed (I'm giving you a hard time).

Human nature tends to be; many friends, a few close friends, ONE best friend and confidante. As I watch "Big love" and Cody and his girls on, *so called* reality TV. I see my thoughts confirmed. They don't have a bond. Yeah, I know, I take it for what it is.

I've had two marriages and a handful of three month relationships. I feel like I've gotten pretty good at quantifying what it takes for two people to mesh. Two people can co-exist if one is dominant and one is submissive. Put two alphas together tho and watch out.

I see this too... but what I have noticed is that you can have two alphas together... they just must not be alphas in the same area... or that area must not matter very much. People tend to be alpha only in specific areas, so sometimes it's avoidable =).

Hehe... I'm what you would call semi-alpha - I adapt according to the situation's practicality - if it's better I'm alpha, I'm alpha, if it's better I'm submissive, I'm submissive. Best of both worlds.

No two people ever love exactly the same. One is always a little more into it than the other. "The person least committed, is the one with the most control."

When I was dating I had a scale of one to ten, not looks now, but personality, with a *ten* being that cute, sassy, clever, irreverent, genie in a bottle . But this character comes with a price. For some reason this personality always seems to be moody, manic, possibly bi-polar....no doubt who's in charge... heart breaker.

And a *one* being the sweet little take home to mom, Sunday school teacher, cater to you, no opinion.....fail safe.

I decided I wanted a *six* (no, not sex) as I would rather be a slight underdog in the power struggle than be catered to and be subjected to "Weekend at Bernie's" type movies for the rest of my life.

I'd pick the same... slightly passive usually gets things done better... and makes your spouse happier =).

Obviously Men follow the same description's . Finding two people that mesh perfectly, equal status, equal perspectives, principles, religions, aspirations....It ain't easy.

To think that a man can locate many companions to mesh with and be soul mates, confidantes and best friends at once with everybody's ego's tamed and complacent....is beyond my comprehension. I could see an Alpha male finding maybe one primary wife and the rest subordinate as a possibility.....but other than that....forget it.

You are right, it would be difficult - it would take alot of sacrifice... the best mairrages, they don't have this number system you talk of... both members just do everything for the other they can. That is the attitude which might allow multiple soul mates.

My awareness has come to understand that gender is a temporary assignment and to think that the female gender is destined to share their best friend while the male is to never have one at all, but to divide it up......isn't reasonable, logical, or enticing in the least.

P.S. I am happily married to my best friend (female)

Curt

Hehe, I happen to disagree... I think gender is permanent... but alas that is for another conversation. The key though to your confusion though, would be service... in service may all things be made clear... service would be the reason for it. And service, I think, will be far more reasonable than injustice, in the end.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Calm]

Real"soul-mates" are made by two people that have a lot in common in the first place then working together and on their to take their relationship to the next level, and then the next level after that and so on, never being settled with the status quo.

And on the worse ways to find one's soul mate is to turn relationships into some kind of numbers games or business.

[tana]

My wife and I are watching house hunters at this moment. The game is to observe the couple and decide who "wears the pants" and who "wears the skirt". We both settled on the wife wearing the pants in this instance.

[TAO]

My wife and I are watching house hunters at this moment. The game is to observe the couple and decide who "wears the pants" and who "wears the skirt". We both settled on the wife wearing the pants in this instance.

Hehe... the way most relationships are these days .

Actually, I don't mind a bit .

[tana]

Real"soul-mates" are made by two people that have a lot in common in the first place then working together and on their to take their relationship to the next level, and then the next level after that and so on, never being settled with the status quo.

And on the worse ways to find one's soul mate is to turn relationships into some kind of numbers games or business.

I don't see anything wrong with quantifying ones perspective. Some say it is the only way we can confirm that there is an actual objective world outside of our subjective experience. In simple terms, we collaborate with each other to establish our separate terms of reference. Mathematics and quantified steps being the key. Somewhere in here Peter Russell explains it better than I. (I just can't find it)

In terms of my scale I have Jesus as a "five'. Not aggressive, not submissive. free from the chains and delusion of self and ego.

[Calm]

I don't see anything wrong with quantifying ones perspective.

Too often quantification turns into objectification.

[nicolasconnault]

"Big love" is a drama, not reality TV. It's frightening that people are beginning to confuse the two...

[nicolasconnault]

My wife and I are watching house hunters at this moment. The game is to observe the couple and decide who "wears the pants" and who "wears the skirt". We both settled on the wife wearing the pants in this instance.

Not every successful couple is made up of a dominant and a submissive spouse. Some couples are actually not that worried about "control", and are happy to make adjustments when current arrangements appear to be less effective or threaten the couple's or one spouse's well-being and freedom. This is how my marriage works (first marriage for both of us, one child, 10 years of marriage). I'm probably more outgoing than my wife and a little less shy, but I don't think one of us "wears the pants". In some areas I let her make most of the decisions because that's 1. what she wants or 2. what seems appropriate (for example, when it comes to her side of the family). In other areas I take charge most of the time (my side of the family, how I serve in my calling etc.).

In most areas, however, (such as shopping, finances, education) we take initiative when we're by ourselves, and make joint decisions when we're together. We've learned to trust each other enough, we have a joint bank account in which all our income goes, and although we inform each other of all expenses we make, we usually take initiative without consulting each other (for all common expenses).

Overall we find that time is a more precious and tricky commodity than money, and we tend to be very mindful of each other's feelings when deciding how to spend our time, particularly our free time.

Anyway, I'm just writing this to show that your view of marriage isn't all-inclusive, there are some exceptions around

[tana]

"Big love" is a drama, not reality TV. It's frightening that people are beginning to confuse the two...

Yeah, I shouldn't have used that as an example. Every time I watch an episode of Big Love I swear I will never watch another. I have never seen a series with such BAD writing, acting, direction in all my days. Charlie's Angels maybe....

Kody and his "sister wives" though is what I was referring to when I speak of seeing no apparent bond between *anybody*

[tana]

Not every successful couple is made up of a dominant and a submissive spouse. Some couples are actually not that worried about "control", and are happy to make adjustments when current arrangements appear to be less effective or threaten the couple's or one spouse's well-being and freedom. This is how my marriage works (first marriage for both of us, one child, 10 years of marriage). I'm probably more outgoing than my wife and a little less shy, but I don't think one of us "wears the pants". In some areas I let her make most of the decisions because that's 1. what she wants or 2. what seems appropriate (for example, when it comes to her side of the family). In other areas I take charge most of the time (my side of the family, how I serve in my calling etc.).

In most areas, however, (such as shopping, finances, education) we take initiative when we're by ourselves, and make joint decisions when we're together. We've learned to trust each other enough, we have a joint bank account in which all our income goes, and although we inform each other of all expenses we make, we usually take initiative without consulting each other (for all common expenses).

Overall we find that time is a more precious and tricky commodity than money, and we tend to be very mindful of each other's feelings when deciding how to spend our time, particularly our free time.

Anyway, I'm just writing this to show that your view of marriage isn't all-inclusive, there are some exceptions around

Glad to see it! Really, I think it is very unusual to find couples truly happy harmonious and equal in their love for each other. Good on you guy's

[frankenstein]

do you sole mate or soul mate...

either way I believe in neither of the two.

I agree that two who love and respect each other can have a longterm, loving, peaceful, happy relationship

[zelder]

Some russian phychologists built on the meyers-briggs temperment sorter and have done a lot of thinking about intertype relations and how the 16 different temperments react to each other. What they have on their website is pretty terse but i think they are on to something.

http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm

I think it might be possible to achieve harmony and happiness in plural marriage but it would take a lot of work. It would not be for everyone but some people might prefer it. Some of these arguments and explanations of polyamory might be related and applicable to plural marriage. Its interesting stuff.

Deleted: Link is in poor taste.