Dec 29, 2008 10:13 PM GMT
I'm curious to know what the RJ community thinks about this quote, especially those that are partnered.
"The soulmate culture insist that one person can satisfy all of your emotional needs. But that's like putting all your money in one stock & hoping it's not Enron." - from an article in Psychology Today
-
Dec 29, 2008 10:13 PM GMT -
Dec 29, 2008 10:22 PM GMTDo you have a link to the article? -
Dec 29, 2008 10:22 PM GMTI have to assume what it means by "soulmate culture", but presuming that it´s something along the lines of finding "your guy" not being enough I don´t like it as it appears to collapse two issues:
(1) the need for a wide network of relationships, work, acquaintances, friends, best friend(s), partner and the different roles that the different relationships play. "one guy" is not enough.
(2) monogamy. "one guy" is enough.
Maybe in context it covers itself, but as a one liner it just annoys me. -
Dec 29, 2008 11:35 PM GMTSince this article isn't gay-exclusive, I wonder what are the consequences of "investing" in many different relationships for straight people? Does that mean that any children produced by this "diversified portfolio" are dividends? -
Dec 30, 2008 1:22 AM GMTI believe that's always been the case, and (to follow the analogy) some investments have higher returns than others.
A "soul mate" will fill some emotional needs, friends will fill others, and then there's the family. Because everyone's circumstances and needs are different, the balance of emotional support coming from each channel will vary. Even the channels will vary. Hmmmmm.... I'd like to read the article. -
Dec 30, 2008 2:26 AM GMTThat is a bit silly. No one actually insists that a single person meet all their emotional needs, though they may believe on a conscious level that they do. My mother, for example, is one of those people who believe the soulmate racket. But she depends on her children, her neighbor, her favorite priest, her cat, for different emotional needs. All people are like that, though I am sure the article goes into specifics and better defines the terms than this sentence does. -
Dec 30, 2008 2:47 AM GMTPsychology Today used to be a very good magazine, but that was in the 1970s. It is now full of "pop psychology" articles like this one. I personally believe that for each person there are many potential soul mates around the world. Only opportunity, or lack of same, prevent people from meeting others that they could have a relationship with. I have never believed that one person could satisfy all of another person's emotional needs. That would be virtually impossible. Even in the best of relationships there are moments of loneliness and feelings that your partner does not really understand you. Then you realize that your demanding too much of him and appreciate him for who he is. -
Dec 30, 2008 10:12 AM GMTum without reading the article I must make assumptions and from that quote it sounds like
a. they make the assumption that soul mate is suppose to fulfill everything
b. that these soul mates have no friends/family
c. that these soul mates never do anything outisde of the souled duo..
no one person can fulfill you even emotional need, you have friends, family for that too, my ex gave me love in a way my family and friends didn't, my friends gave me mindless free fun, my family gave me a deep comfort and knowledge that no matter what, I was loved..
From the group of people in my life, I got/get everything I need, no one person can ever hope of giving me everything and for them to attempt to think that would be daft..
meh, the article must be horribly flawed! -
Dec 30, 2008 10:18 AM GMTi feel that there is more than one person in the world that can be that soulmate. i dont think one person will ever satisfy ever emotional need... you can have 100+ partners and still not satisfy that need. so, you act like our society has taught us to act and to one person for better or worse. remember that the grass will always be greener on the other side so suck it up and learn to water your own properly! -
Dec 30, 2008 10:25 AM GMTI don't really believe in the soulmate thing. I think it's all a compromise. How much of that person are you willing to accept and how well is that person able to meet your needs. I myself am not a swinger but I don't think it's crazy to say you love your man/ woman yet you have sex with other people. Assuming it is a mutual understanding. To me physical needs and emotional needs are 2 different things. If you are lucky enough to find a person who can meet your needs in both areas then you are truly a blessed person. -
Dec 30, 2008 10:33 AM GMTI believe in soulmates, it does happen, people who meet that are "perfect" for eachother. Nothing is ever perfect, there has to be comprimises. Souls need to have sex. When you love someone, your souls are just fucking all the time, pounding away the hours like a mallet banging a gong.
Who knows what two souls mating looks like.
I don't know
DO YOU KNOW?
i bet it looks like a glove trying to turn itself inside out
silly soul, everyone knows, "no glove no love." -
Dec 30, 2008 10:51 AM GMTHappiness, satisfaction, validation. These are my emotional needs...and I believe they can be satisfied by one person. Wow, many of my peers (including myself) don't take physiological references seriously, lol. So, one should have many diversified boyfriends....that's just too distasteful in my own grossly biased opinion. However, as of right now, my emotional needs are being satisfied by one person (my best friend). Therefore, I currently don't feel the need for a "partner"...I don't think anyone truly knows what they "need" anyway....QED j/k, I could be absolutely mistaken. Yes, I must be delusional because it's virtually impossible for one person to meet all of one's emotional needs (sarcastic)...Maybe my friendship will change paradigms( that's 20 cents instead of 2 ;) )..probably not. Most people may think that I'm just young, naive, oblivious?, stupid? Oh well.
HELLO PEOPLE ABSOLUTES ARE SILLY. I'm seeing "All" this and "All" that in reference to people and relationships. ABSOLUTES will get one into trouble ;).
[quote] "All people are like that" Yes, with the exception to those that aren't....
[quote] "Even in the best of relationships there are moments of loneliness and feelings that your partner does not really understand you. Then you realize that your demanding too much of him and appreciate him for who he is."
Here is a point to remember: WHEN YOU MAKE GENERALIZATIONS...YOU'RE GOING TO BE WRONG A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME...statistically speaking (I'm a stats major
)...which implies very little...
[quote] "no one person can fulfill you even emotional need" Refer to the above statement.
Define what you mean by YOUR emotional needs...then you can justify your argument. You most likely already know and probably don't need to justify your argument to me. I apologize if I offended anyone...and damn my post is way too damn long.
-
Dec 30, 2008 12:13 PM GMTThe playmate culture insists that you should have many mates to satisfy your various emotional needs. It is like scattering your seed everywhere and watching it all grow and not having any dependence on them - from I just made it all up!
I'd rather prefer that people follow whatever culture they think is right and then get labelled that way, rather than picking a label for themselves, looking at what other people are labelling themselves, then deciding that they are following that label. My actions towards other men may be considered "gay", but I certainly don't follow any "gay" culture. I am merely described as such and I can turn straight for the right girl. I just haven't found the right girl yet! LoL
Here is another one liner - "The slut culture insist that...(fill in the rest)"
-
Dec 30, 2008 1:52 PM GMTSurrealLife saidPsychology Today used to be a very good magazine, but that was in the 1970s. It is now full of "pop psychology" articles like this one.
Ditto. Lately, they've been rewriting Eckhart Tolle. -
Dec 30, 2008 1:59 PM GMTThe quote is stupid nuf said! -
Dec 30, 2008 5:15 PM GMT -
Dec 30, 2008 5:17 PM GMT
OK there's the link right above this post! This article is from May/June 2006.
-
Dec 30, 2008 5:20 PM GMTIt is dead wrong to believe that you should derive your happiness from someone else. It can not be another person's responsibility to make you happy so the soulmate stuff is a unhealthy fantasy. Great pepole give with expecting to get. -
Dec 30, 2008 5:30 PM GMT
horseshit -
Dec 30, 2008 7:24 PM GMT
"Great pepole give with expecting to get."
-
Dec 30, 2008 7:36 PM GMTObsceneWish said
SurrealLife saidPsychology Today used to be a very good magazine, but that was in the 1970s. It is now full of "pop psychology" articles like this one.
Ditto. Lately, they've been rewriting Eckhart Tolle.
Agreed. It is distressing because there is a lot of good and relevant, eye-opening psychology research that should be disseminated to the general public. But they turned this magazine into a paper Dr. Phil - continuing to simplify and dumb down the field of psychology into edutainment.
As for the soulmate issue I think another piece of this is the myth that there is 'somebody for everybody', a lock for every key. It's an unfortunate fact that a significant number of people will never find a sustaining relationship with another person of whatever ilk. -
Dec 30, 2008 7:39 PM GMTAlpha13 saidIt is dead wrong to believe that you should derive your happiness from someone else. It can not be another person's responsibility to make you happy so the soulmate stuff is a unhealthy fantasy.
That's my belief!!!! -
Dec 30, 2008 11:06 PM GMTGreat responses fellas...especially yours ursa!
If one single person was able to satisfy ALL of one's emotional needs, then why is it that an individual has many friends? As beings, we are meant to be stimulated by a whole host of people from different backgrounds. Binding ourselves to one person is like planting one see at a time and hoping that it will blossom into something beautiful. Planting multiple seeds at one time gives you a better outcome in the end.
My question is why did this article single out the emotional aspect? What about the intellectual or sexual aspect? -
Dec 31, 2008 2:16 AM GMT
"It can not be another person's responsibility to make you happy so the soulmate stuff is a unhealthy fantasy."
Hmmm and hmmm and y'know, hmmmmmmmm.
This is completely backwards. Anyone can take it on themselves to make another happy. See the diff? No?
OK...has anyone here ever deliberately done anything to make another happy?
Say! Anyone here get... let's see, A CHRISTMAS PRESENT PERHAPS???
Such a thing could be viewed as attempt by someone else to make you happy...so you should refuse all offers of dinner dates and gifts etc. You shouldn't give anyone a gift because it's not your responsibility to make them happy, right? Right.
heh heh and heh. -
Dec 31, 2008 2:27 AM GMT
One person can satisfy all of your needs, that person is you.
