Do you believe there is someone for every person?

[RandyS]

B.J. wrote:

---

Just to put another datapoint on all of this (and possible give J. some hope!), I do believe that there is the perfect person out there for some people, and I believe in love at first sight. That's because it's what happened to me. Met my wife 19 years ago next month, been married for 15 1/2, and still very much in love. We've never had a fight, hardly ever disagreed, and have frequently accused each other of sharing a brain. What's amazing to me is not that we really do fit perfectly together, but it's that we met by complete random chance. Had either of us been 5 minutes off, we would have never met.

Then you are one of the lucky exceptions.

As to the question, No, I don't think there is somebody out there for everybody. It took me until I was 40 years old to have my first girlfriend, and even that was after being friends with her for more than thirty years at that point (three years ago).

Of course, until then, I always believed that my lack of a girlfriend was due to my having cerebral palsy. In fact, when I was a younger man, I was told MANY times that I was undateable or unworthy of a relationship because I'm disabled. Even now, I hear women come up to my girlfriend and ask her, "how can you be with him? Doesn't his wheelchair bother you?". One woman even asked her "don't you have any self respect? You can do better than that". Suffice it to say, her responses were unrepeatable in polite company.

But, no, I don't think there is somebody for everybody. Romance, like life, is a roll of the dice. Some get lucky (as I finally did), and some don't.

[Spot's Meow]

I fluctuate on this issue, and in fact in life in general I struggle between believing in destiny and making your own fate. On the one hand, I've always felt that "everything happens for a reason," which implies that there is some sort of overall "plan" out there that we are following, and that unhappy situations are just parts of the plan that you don't yet understand. This would also imply that whoever you end up falling in love with (or whether you are alone for the rest of your life) is a part of that plan, and therefore there must be a person out there who you are destined to be with. Or there is nobody for you, because your destiny is to be alone.

On the other hand, I feel that life is what you make of it, and that there is no greater plan for any of us. We just react to individual situations and hope that our choices allow us to be happier and better people. When I'm in this mindset, I feel that it's possible for almost any two people to love each other, it just takes hard work and commitment. Sure, there are some basic requirements to be met, but as long as both people are willing to compromise on certain disagreements, they can learn to have a happy and successful relationship with each other. And this is true of anything in life - if you put in the work, things will happen for you.

So, I go between these two opinions every so often. I tend more toward the second one because I'm very practical and not a big romantic. But then sometimes there are certain things that happen in life, or certain timings, that make you think that it must be more than coincidence. But then I remember that that isn't logical.

So in conclusion, I have no clue.

[Kestra]

I actually believe the second one as well. I think that's largely shaped by my upbringing and the fact that my parents had an arranged marriage. I operate on emotions and falling in love would have to be a requirement for me, but I'd rely on a different sort of love and commitment to sustain a relationship.

[Ood Sigma]

Kestra wrote:

---

I see marriage as not really a promise to be passionately in love the rest of your life, but rather to be committed to the other person. A dedicated companion and partner for the rest of your life. It doesn't mean that you will never be attracted to or feel for anyone else. It doesn't mean that you will always feel exactly the same way you did at the beginning. People change over time. It does mean that you will put the relationship first, though.

I agree with you on this, completely. I have put our relationship first and it's because of this that I have been able to manage through situations where many/most people would have given up.

However, I do feel like there could be a point where we are just too different that the relationship wouldn't work any more. I hope it never gets to that point, but I have come to realize over time that it is a possibility that I must prepare for, while at the same time doing everything in my power to make it work.

[Kestra]

I figure I can always go to my plan B: cats.

[doubleohfive]

The question isn't "Is there someone out there that's right for me?"

It should be (and usually is) "Is there someone out there who I am right for?"

I certainly believe there's more than one person out there for each of us, but too often I think people get wrapped up in what they themselves are looking for in a potential mate, sometimes to the point of disregarding another all-too important factor: Whether or not they themselves are what someone else might be looking for or interested in.

That might sound harsh, and in some ways, it should be. In other ways, of course, it shouldn't. You shouldn't change yourself 100% to please someone else, but at the same time you need to be cognizant of yourself, your quirks, your issues, your pros and cons, and honestly ask yourself if these are things that make you attractive to your potential date. If not, then you should focus on people who will be attracted to them.

[Darth Duck]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Same here, mostly. I mean, I hate the idea of it but I'm afraid it is what is going to happen.

"We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell." ~ Oscar Wilde

[Collingwood Nick]

J. Allen wrote:

---

As it gets closer to Valentine's Day, also known as Singles Awareness Day, I've been waxing philosophical (read: grumbling to myself) about the idea that there is someone for every person, that somewhere in this world is at least one person who would love to know you, and be with you, that you would make their lives whole.

Anyway, what do you think?

I can be very blunt sometimes, and I hope you don't take it personally when I say that is absolute nonsense. Romantic twaddle, peddled by the TV and movie industry that should not be believed.

Just like, for example, breaking into colleges and performing hijinks. In the movies they get away with it and have all sort of funny adventures - in reality, not so. I recall reading a newspaper article about a group of pranksters that broke into a school and erected an indoor swimming pool in the hallway, and were subsequently arrested and jailed. Exactly like in the movies - NOT. And (speaking from experience), entering a girls dorm to engage in wacky antics will (usually) not get you into an exciting sexual adventure as much as it will get you escorted off campus.

Going back to romance and the 'love of your life', Johnny Galeki (sp?) said in an interview recently that he considered Penny and Leonard to be the 'love of each other's lives', which just goes to show how deeply ingrained this fantasy of the 'one special person' is. If Big Bang was real, they would never have hooked up, it would have been months of awkward greetings in the hallway and if he was lucky he would have ended up in her 'special friend' zone where he gets to listen to her talk about her mean boyfriends. Because that is the real world.

Statistically there may be many potential partners out there with greater or lesser degrees of compatibility with you. The size of the pool of potential partners would depend on personality and looks and money and all of those other things that people pretend don't matter, but really do.

It's not my inteintion to be negative, although I can see why you'd think that I am. It's important to be realistic about these things.

[CorporalClegg]

Collingwood Nick wrote:

---

Going back to romance and the 'love of your life', Johnny Galeki (sp?) said in an interview recently that he considered Penny and Leonard to be the 'love of each other's lives', which just goes to show how deeply ingrained this fantasy of the 'one special person' is. If Big Bang was real, they would never have hooked up, it would have been months of awkward greetings in the hallway and if he was lucky he would have ended up in her 'special friend' zone where he gets to listen to her talk about her mean boyfriends. Because that is the real world.

Statistically there may be many potential partners out there with greater or lesser degrees of compatibility with you. The size of the pool of potential partners would depend on personality and looks and money and all of those other things that people pretend don't matter, but really do.

I hope you don't take it personally when I say that's absolute nonsense.

[Collingwood Nick]

I won't. Everyone's entitled to be wrong. But I'd love to know exactly how your perception of the world differs from mine.

[Sector 7]

Yes, I did not believe there is a "perfect soulmate" for everyone... until he came into my life. We would finish each others sentences, felt like we'd known each other forever... all those "mushy" things people say.

A distracted driver took him from me several years ago. I do still grieve for him, to this day. I consider myself a widower, even though we were together before marriage equality began. I really don't believe there is another human being I could be that close to again.

DON'T TEXT AND DRIVE. EVER. EVER. It only takes a moment to kill someone's soulmate and reason for living.

[Emher]

^So sorry for your loss.


Well, now this is going to look kinda silly, but I thought you guys deserved an update. Went to the hospital to my meeting and after a bit of waiting it turned out that there had been a scheduling mixup, so while I got my issue with my machine sorted, I did not get to see Ms mesmerizing nurse. So no opportunity to ask. I do however know that I have a followup meeting regarding my machine in a month with her. Maybe I'll ask her then?

[Deckerd]

Kestra wrote:

---

People change over time. It does mean that you will put the relationship first, though.

I think being with someone for decades requires an unusual amount of dedication above anything else.

I think marriage (once all the lovey dovey first flush is over) is about compromise. You compromise everything from the start and the measure of your commitment is the ease with which those compromises are wrought. As to the decades, well one is pretty much like another after a while. I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of marriages hold for a long time out of habit and friendship rather than anything else, which is no criticism. If it works, it works.

[RJDiogenes]

While a lot of true things have been said here, I think it's important to put individuals above concepts. Relationships, soul mates, destiny-- these things are abstract notions that are applied to living people, sometimes appropriately, sometimes inappropriately, and usually after the fact. There are many people who deserve to be loved and who will love you, and who are compatible with you to a greater or lesser degree-- if you simply appreciate them for who they are then your relationship will find its natural state. And that state may fall outside social norms or expectations. It's possible to love someone-- it's possible to love many someones-- and yet not be suited to live with them. The story of your life is not written in advance. It's best to just live it openly and meet people without prejudice; let them take their place in your world in a natural way, and yours in theirs.

[Miss Chicken]

I am not sure there is someone for me.

I am someone who likes a lot of space in a relationship, and quite a few years ago I realise that I am happier when I am not in a romantic relationship.