'True Love' / 'Soul Mates'

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Impractical, hyper-idealized, Hollywood-perpetuated vehicle best left to airy Disney fans and stargazing commitment-phobes or genuine Actual Thing That Only Some Of Us Get To Experience?

And if the latter, are you really okay with that?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

And I'm not talking about ordinary, everyday Justin/Britney in-love either. More like churny, seasick, "I love you so much I want to smash your face in with a sledgehammer" love.

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

(Which is one of the more compelling quotes from Punchdrunk Love, lest you think I'm some sort of freak.)

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I hope I never love someone so much I want to slam their face in with a sledge-hammer.

I've felt like I've found my soul-mate on two separate occasions in life, I'm beginning to lose any belief in that altogether.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't believe in soul mates, do believe in true love.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:09 (twenty-two years ago)

the whole idea creeps me out a little. but that doesn't mean it's not true. i don't know.

― Maria (Maria), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

The idea that soulmatery has to have this obsessional, potentially violent/destructive side is really really dud and as much a romanticisation as any Hallmark effort.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, if I could be so gauche as to get mathematical about this for a second, once you reduce the encircling elements of love down to quasi-quantifiable factors (ie. circumstance, compatibility, shared interests, mutual attraction and whatever other tangible intangibles dictate this sort of thing), aren't you left with irrefutable evidence that one (and only one) person can be The One?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I've seen Serendipity too many times to be objective on this one.

― SittingPretty (sittingpretty), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry but I've found mine. I know you all wanna go and barf now but I never believed in this shit either, until it happened to me! I have been in love before and I don't think it's always gonna be hearts and flowers coz of it, but we're definitley connected in a spooky way.

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:17 (twenty-two years ago)

um, if you really wanna get mathematical: there are more than six billion people in the world. if this is true doesn't it mean that locating yr soulmate would be slightly more difficult than, say, dismantling a snowball one snowflake at a time?

― Justyn Dillingham (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

The idea that soulmatery has to have this obsessional, potentially violent/destructive side is really really dud and as much a romanticisation as any Hallmark effort.

Maybe I'm in the total minority here, but I don't interpret that quote as being about violence at all, more about the so-powerful-its-scary wellspring of energy and emotion that would inevitably come from feeling total and completely there with someone else.

When I deign to envision it, my version of 'true love' has absolutely *nothing* to do with violence or destruction in any way; the idea is more that it could be so alien in its intensity that the dawning of it might feel a little unwieldy at first...

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Who said it should be easy?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

If we're just talking about the title of this thread and not the ensuing discussion then, CLASSIC!

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuck that soul mates shit, true love is where its at bitches.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes silly me for interpreting "I love you so much I want to smash your face in with a sledgehammer" as having a violent aspect. :)

The 6 mil thing is only a problem if you interpret soulmate to mean a mystical bond rather than total compatability - in the latter case the balance of cultural factors would rule 5.999 mil out anyhow.

I think people can learn to be each others soulmates, though.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

More like churny, seasick, "I love you so much I want to smash your face in with a sledgehammer" love.

Morrissey put it better.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:36 (twenty-two years ago)

*Applauds*

Double decker buses and ten trucks, couldn't have described it beter meself...

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

2 blave

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)

I've gone into dyslexic mode again, I blame the cough medicine...

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

True love = dud. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks they've found it is deluding themselves.

As Justyn said, given that there's x billion people in the world - given that there's 60 million people in Britain indeed - then if there is one ideal partner out there for you, you are extremely unlikely ever to meet.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Or maybe you are just bitter and cynical?

― smee (smee), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I am NOT deluded thank you very much dear. There may not be ONE SINGLE ideal partner for you, but that doesn't mean you can't choose someone and love them for ever.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

That too, but I have STATISTICS on my side :-)

Archel: I'm sorry, but ...

If the whole idea is that you'll meet the right person and be bowled over in love etc, doesn't that rule out you having a conscious choice in the matter.

What the hell, it's all just chemicals in your brain anyway. We'll all be dead soon.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

The conscious choice is to have a relationship and make it work, not to love someone. And hey, I love my chemicals :)

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

"What the hell, it's all just chemicals in your brain anyway. We'll all be dead soon."

Every single thread should end this way.

― Nick A. (Nick A.), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I quite like the idea, but then, stargazing commitment-phobes, these are my people.

― Anna (Anna), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Whatever anyone says, I maintain: true love does not exist. Anyone who thinks it does is fooling themselves.

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Caitlin, your quite-true reductionism of "it's all chemicals in your brain anyway" falls on the side of "soul mate = yes".

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Caitlin is determined to end this thread on a downer and I am determined to foil her plan.

:)
:)
:)
:)

Love is grebt, even if it's not true. I mean it's LOVE!! It's the best thing ever!

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Whooo -spot the bride to be. It's nice though Archel.

Crouch End is full of snogging teenagers. I was walking to the shops and BOOM 15-year-olds kissing sweetly in the snow. I found it quite depressing.

― Anna (Anna), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

The word 'true' in relation to love is as meaningful and useful as the word 'real' in relation to music.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah I don't like 'true love' as a descriptor either, mainly because everyone who's *in* love and posting to this thread is interpreting it to mean "a love that's true" or some other similarly wiffly sentiment that - while totally fantastic - is not really what I'm interested in discussing.

No one's making an affront on love in general - I'm just trying to get at a particular (imagined?) strain, a strain that's admittedly underfed by useless terms like 'true love' or 'soul mate'...

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the terms "soul mate" and "true love" have become victims of their own overuse though, I mean it's not unreasonable to say you connect with one person in a way which is just unique and special and not like the way you connect with others.

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 23:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel that's what they mean. god a few months ago I'd never have thought I'd be so enthusiastic on this thread of all threads but there you go

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 23:16 (twenty-two years ago)

If you believe it exists, then it's possible that it can exist for you. This is how I feel about faith as well. The tricky part is the first half of the proposition. You people are not helping.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 23:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I do believe in it, but it's the waiting for it that's dud. I was fully convinced I found my soul mate once, but I was wrong. I was truly in love though. I don't want to smash his face with a hammer, that's too ghastly. Push him in front of a subway train maybe?

― Sean (Sean), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 23:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Crouch End is full of snogging teenagers. I was walking to the shops and BOOM 15-year-olds kissing sweetly in the snow. I found it quite depressing.

C'mon, they're probablly just trying to keep warm.

Actually, I rarely see teenagers kissing in public here in South Florida. In fact, they tend to sit several feet away from each other. Now, that's depressing.

― Christine "Green Leafy Dragon" Indigo (cindigo), Thursday, 9 January 2003 00:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Caitlin, you are totally harshing my mellow.

― Mandee, Thursday, 9 January 2003 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Anything that sounds like it belongs in Sleepless in Seattle = DUUUUUUUUUUUD

― Joe (Joe), Thursday, 9 January 2003 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

You are all rockists.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:44 (twenty-two years ago)

(Who hate fun.)

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Nonsense. We only fear Hun.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Ned's gone mad.

I like this thread.

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:52 (twenty-two years ago)

What do you mean, *gone* mad? ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:54 (twenty-two years ago)

You somehow forgot to cackle menacingly there I think.

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't think I could do that if I tried. I could ponder thoughtfully if you like.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:56 (twenty-two years ago)

(NB: By 'rockists' I mean 'literalists'.)

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 02:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you in love with love mark?

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah I think I am. I suppose there are worse ways to bide the time.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:34 (twenty-two years ago)

there's a reason that lots of movies about 'true love' end when the protagonists initially get together, no?

(i hope that doesn't sound cynical, as i'm not intending it to)

― maura (maura), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I always think about that too, but it's usually out of spite, mainly because I rarely see romances where I actually care about the couple ending up together.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:37 (twenty-two years ago)

You mean the fate of Keanu Reeves and what'shername in Sweet November didn't touch you to the quick?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, check that. I rarely see romances, period.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 03:40 (twenty-two years ago)

It's true. I'm trying to think of a really good one, but eh...

― Kim (Kim), Thursday, 9 January 2003 04:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I suppose you could argue Meet the Feebles has a romantic subplot.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 04:04 (twenty-two years ago)

WHAT ABOUT PRETTY IN PINK

― maura (maura), Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

there's a reason that lots of movies about 'true love' end when the protagonists initially get together, no?

Maura, you need to see the end of Buster Keaton's College--it takes the piss out of that convention.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:26 (twenty-two years ago)

ok!

― maura (maura), Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Tell me what you think! :)

― Amateurist (amateurist), Thursday, 9 January 2003 05:51 (twenty-two years ago)

WHAT ABOUT PRETTY IN PINK

Yes, but which ending? ;-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 9 January 2003 06:14 (twenty-two years ago)

True love seems to be when you fall for someone and get the "aaaah, so THIS is what it's all about" feeling. When every corny romanticisation seems believeable, when the happiness you envy in others suddenly seems attainable. When you feel no-one could feel any happier, and you can't even imaginenyourself feeling any happier. When love becomes your number 1 priority, and remains that way forever.

I do think it's ridiculous to say there's only one true person out there, though. If that were the case then something must be giving us a pretty fucking big helping hand in finding them, and this sems even more ridiculous. I mean, the odds of smee finding her perfect person are 6 billion to 1! If there are 2 people in ILE who have found their soul mate, the odds must be 36 trillion to 1! Etc.

― Mark C (Mark C), Thursday, 9 January 2003 10:46 (twenty-two years ago)

WHAT ABOUT PRETTY IN PINK

Anyone having to be with Andrew McCarthy is a tragedy, and the fact that one would choose to do so voluntarily is both shocking and sad.

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 9 January 2003 13:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Caitlin, you are totally harshing my mellow.

It took me two or three readings to see this as anything other that "you are totally marshing my mallow". I think I must be hungry.

MarkC: boring statistics point: the odds of two *specific* ILEers both finding their one true love might be 36 billion billion to one, but the odds of *any* two are a bit lower; i think it's something like (6bn / x) * (6bn / (x-1)) to one; where x is the number of people using ILE, natch. And that's assuming everyone is bisexual, of course.

I was feeling rather depressed when I posted yesterday; but even when I'm not I'm a bit suspicious of people who say "We're so in love and we're going to stay this way for ever and ever and ever!" You might; you might not; either way your feelings for each other will have a completely different nature in 50 years' time. Sorry Archel.

On soul mates: I do think you can find someone (more than one, natch) who agrees with you, thinks the same way, likes similar things blah blah blah. You don't have to be in love with them, though; at least not erotic love. This is where English falls down as the ideal language for discussing this because we only have 1 word to describe all the different kinds of love.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh blimey, of course I can't say for sure that we'll still be together in 50 years. But for me it's the intention to be so that matters. I am really more practical and unromantic than my contribution to this thread suggests, but I'm beginning to enjoy planning for the future for the first time in my life.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I believe in a deep sort of love with another person, but I don't think everyone only has one perfect soul mate match in the universe. How depressing would that be? And I don't like it that when a relationship ends, everyone tells the broken hearted person, "It's ok. He/she must have not been your soulmate."

I am, however, still a very romantic/passionate person in many ways. If anything, I think my outlook is a little more optomistic b/c it suggests you can find a deep, fulfilling love no matter where you are.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Sarah is otm.

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark C: nobody's saying that there is only one true person out there.

Caitlin = OTM in every way.

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Molly Ringwald gets around.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:24 (twenty-two years ago)

you might, you might not

I don't think this is any reason to treat the way you feel NOW any differently, there's no point looking at your own life with a strict and detached "logical" view all the time, it's just a recipe for misery and if you do it you're being hard on yourself.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark p: just because no-one's saying it in here doesn't mean it's not said ad nauseam in countless "what is love?" conversations. My 2nd paragraph was a throwaway thought, anyway. My maths was bad too.

Caitlin is of course right in that things change, but archel's outlook is realistic, applicable and much healthier. Things change; we know this. But if we can be sure that the path we're heading off on is the right one for us at that time, then I can't see what else we can do.

― Mark C (Mark C), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm beginning to enjoy planning for the future for the first time in my life

I can say for sure that I've never been in a situation where my relationship with another person has made me feel that way. More the reverse, in fact.

I *am* partly enjoying planning my future at the moment, but that's for entirely different reasons, which You Know All About.

(well, Archel does at least. And some of the rest of you.)

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes looking at yourself from a detached viewpoint is a good way to get *out* of misery too.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess so, not in this case though.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Ronan and Sarah are both OTM. Though so is Caitlin in her last point. Hm.

It's tempting to conclude that anyone who happens to be in love thinks it's grebt and anyone who isn't, doesn't. But that isn't really fair, as I for one have always 'believed' in love even when I was lonely and angry and heart-broken.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I love how the prospect of 'soul mate' is interpreted by others as some sort of affront to the regular, perfectly wonderful, still-quite-enviable *in lurve*.

I mean, given the sheer numbers of people out there, of course there's absolute gobloads of potential partners with whom any single person could settle down and live with in perfect bliss. The conceit of the concept of 'soul mate' (as ugly and as useless a phrase as it is) is that, out of all of those people, surely there's one that takes the cake?

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I've never thought of "soul mate" as implying that There Can Only Be One. Maybe that's just me being out-of-step with everyone else though. I've already said what I think it means; and it doesn't seem to tally with what everyone else has been discussing.

Maybe I need to get a better dictionary. And read it.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I guess we're into semantics then, like people who refer to multiple best friends...

― mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 9 January 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I think love is totally spontaneous and depends upon a set of circumstances that allow one to only fall in love during a very small window of time; if all of these things fall into place, shazaam--love. And, you really have to want to fall in love in the first place, that's the most important circumstance. But, there is love between people that continues to grow over time because the two people who are in love are constantly making an effort to re-fall in love with the other person. Or, at least, that's what I see in my parents.

― Mandee, Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i have three soulmates: i haven't had sex w.any of them, nor do i think it is required

two of them have (on the whole) very different tastes to me: what i like abt the friendship is the sense of easy completeness thanks to opposites combining

the third is admittedly a lot more like me tastewise

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:09 (twenty-two years ago)

they seem to like each other, but are not close (actually one and three have never met)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i have one soul mate she is gone gone gone. i have about 5 kindred spirits.

― di smith (lucylurex), Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm entirely incapable of interacting with other people without fucking up, so I wouldn't know anything about this.

― Graham (graham), Thursday, 9 January 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

For what my history is worth, I was very lucky to find a great love which lasted for a long time - we were together for 23 years, and it was only the last So I believe in love, and I believe that another one can come along and last another 20+ years, maybe the rest of my life, whatever.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 9 January 2003 20:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I was fully convinced I found my soul mate once, but I was wrong. I was truly in love though. I don't want to smash his face with a hammer, that's too ghastly. Push him in front of a subway train maybe?

I had a similar experience, although I don't wish him to die underneath a train. Find the job of his dreams on the other side of the U.S., perhaps.

― j.lu (j.lu), Friday, 10 January 2003 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

six months pass...

: (

― Ronan (Ronan), Saturday, 9 August 2003 20:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe that there is only one soulmate for each one of us.
They are who complete us. Many don't ever find their soulmate,but the ones that do,do have something very special indeed.

― Gale, Sunday, 10 August 2003 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

NIGGAZ GONE FUCK AROUND AND GET THEY BALLOON POPPED

― Ronan (Ronan), Sunday, 10 August 2003 01:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Hi Ronan :)
I guess by your reply that you haven't found yours huh?

― Gale, Sunday, 10 August 2003 01:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I'M DA KINDA BUOY THAT TAKES DA BUMP WITH DA GRIND, I'M DA KINDA BUOY THAT TAKES **** ***** **** ******

― Ronan (Ronan), Sunday, 10 August 2003 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Ronan has turned into Bullseye.

― Larcole (Nicole), Sunday, 10 August 2003 02:22 (twenty-one years ago)

What I hate about the popular concept of "soul mates" is the notion that when you find this one special other person, the relationship is completely effortless. All relationships, even the best, require a certain amount of maintenance and consideration for the other person; it's only when people are putting in unequal efforts or working at cross-purposes that things are bad.

― j.lu (j.lu), Sunday, 10 August 2003 03:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, what I've found: dating someone who has a personality that matches yours really well makes for some very ugly fights=> you understand too well how to get them angry.

― lyra (lyra), Sunday, 10 August 2003 03:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I'll say it again:
Like a cloud around a mountain
forever

― Orbit (Orbit), Sunday, 10 August 2003 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

'True Love' / 'Soul Mates' - C/D