Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I agree with both of you. The whole Sex and the City-type attitude toward sex and relationships is utilitarian and depressing. It's as if people think you can somehow separate what you do with your body from the rest of you - your mind, soul and emotions. There's very little emphasis placed on actually *loving* the other person.

I for one welcome the return of romance.

So do I, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad I'll be coming of age as part of a Civic generation who (hopefully) will help bring back more a romantic, personalist approach to sex.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I agree with both of you. The whole Sex and the City-type attitude toward sex and relationships is utilitarian and depressing. It's as if people think you can somehow separate what you do with your body from the rest of you - your mind, soul and emotions. There's very little emphasis placed on actually *loving* the other person.

I for one welcome the return of romance.

So do I, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad I'll be coming of age as part of a Civic generation who (hopefully) will help bring back more a romantic, personalist approach to sex.

You must be glad I'm not Scott Ritter.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I agree with both of you. The whole Sex and the City-type attitude toward sex and relationships is utilitarian and depressing. It's as if people think you can somehow separate what you do with your body from the rest of you - your mind, soul and emotions. There's very little emphasis placed on actually *loving* the other person.

I for one welcome the return of romance.

So do I, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad I'll be coming of age as part of a Civic generation who (hopefully) will help bring back more a romantic, personalist approach to sex.

You must be glad I'm not Scott Ritter.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I am not saying casual sex or sex with strangers is necessarily wrong, and maybe for some people it is enough. But for myself, no. I for one welcome the return of romance.

I agree with both of you...except that I would say that casual sex between strangers is very, very wrong. At best it's the lesser of two evils-- the worse evil being never to experience sex with anyone at all, ever (possibly because you are viewed as the ultimate nerd, because you haven't had enough sex!).

OTOH, "casual" sex between a man and woman who are good friends, however, isn't exactly casual in the strictest sense of the word. It can be very comforting, if not mind-blowingly ecstatic. For those who aren't lucky enough to find their soulmates, it may have to be enough.

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

The Sexual Revolution's most unappealing aspect was that it was so, well...unsexy. A serious romantic relationship...that's sexy. Even a little "on the side," while immoral, can be a turn-on. What isn't sexy is that whole Ally McBeal pseudo-feminist crap, or "if it feels good, do it."

Save sex. Repeal the Sexual Revolution now.

I completely agree. Anonymous sex or sex without affection is sad and sordid, not erotic. It's degrading, not uplifting.
The most erotic sex takes place between people who are deeply in love.
Then the sex act itself becomes a celebration of love and can even be deeply spiritual.
Between strangers, the sex act is anything but spiritual. It is all about the body and getting physical needs satisfied. Not much different from voiding.

I am not saying casual sex or sex with strangers is necessarily wrong, and maybe for some people it is enough. But for myself, no. I for one welcome the return of romance.

I agree with both of you...except that I would say that casual sex between strangers is very, very wrong. At best it's the lesser of two evils-- the worse evil being never to experience sex with anyone at all, ever (possibly because you are viewed as the ultimate nerd, because you haven't had enough sex!).

OTOH, "casual" sex between a man and woman who are good friends, however, isn't exactly casual in the strictest sense of the word. It can be very comforting, if not mind-blowingly ecstatic. For those who aren't lucky enough to find their soulmates, it may have to be enough.

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

I'm actually totally confused on the subject (while the casual sex isn't quite my thing some people - e.g. Marc Perkel - make a VERY convincing case for it!); I agree with Heliotrope tho (it might be good for some people but not for me) and not with the "Promise Keepers", etc (who would say that sex before marriage is wrong in all cases!)...

sex definitely has two parts (the animal craving, which can gnaw away at someone who hasn't any action for years can be attained by casual sex) whereas Heliotrope's spiritual part only gets built over time regardless (which definitely makes some sense though) - and I'd say that Kevin Parker was definitely screwed on the whole front (but OTOH, maybe that was necessary to allow him to get his current relationship in the present!)

I'm actually totally confused on the subject (while the casual sex isn't quite my thing some people - e.g. Marc Perkel - make a VERY convincing case for it!); I agree with Heliotrope tho (it might be good for some people but not for me) and not with the "Promise Keepers", etc (who would say that sex before marriage is wrong in all cases!)...

sex definitely has two parts (the animal craving, which can gnaw away at someone who hasn't any action for years can be attained by casual sex) whereas Heliotrope's spiritual part only gets built over time regardless (which definitely makes some sense though) - and I'd say that Kevin Parker was definitely screwed on the whole front (but OTOH, maybe that was necessary to allow him to get his current relationship in the present!)

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

That sounds like what I want to do. I don't want to wait too long to get married, (at least before 30) and then only to my soulmate, and I definitely want kids. Fortunately for me, it'll probably be easier to find someone like-minded than it would've been had I been an Xer or a Boomer. Most of my friends view getting married and having a family as something they want to do and are serious about.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

That sounds like what I want to do. I don't want to wait too long to get married, (at least before 30) and then only to my soulmate, and I definitely want kids. Fortunately for me, it'll probably be easier to find someone like-minded than it would've been had I been an Xer or a Boomer. Most of my friends view getting married and having a family as something they want to do and are serious about.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

That sounds like what I want to do. I don't want to wait too long to get married, (at least before 30) and then only to my soulmate, and I definitely want kids. Fortunately for me, it'll probably be easier to find someone like-minded than it would've been had I been an Xer or a Boomer. Most of my friends view getting married and having a family as something they want to do and are serious about.

Since you're talking about soulmates, let's cover that topic. It has become fashionable recently among people who consider themselves knowledgeable to downplay the "soulmate" concept. Certainly they have some truth on their side: relationships are created by hard work, and there are many different people with whom any one person can connect. Still, the pendulum seems to me to be swinging too strongly in the anti-soulmate direction nowadays; marriage ought to be more than just an economic relationship. If nothing else, looking for a soulmate may at least narrow the field down enough to avoid a "Joe Millionaire" type relationship.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

For me, when i was a kid i imagined being a virgin until meeting my soulmate in college around age 20 or so, getting married maybe three or four years later, and having three kids and a white Dutch Colonial by age 30. I still think that would have been a good plan, if only the world had cooperated. Why couldn't I have been born a Millie??? (or a Homelander?) :cry:

That sounds like what I want to do. I don't want to wait too long to get married, (at least before 30) and then only to my soulmate, and I definitely want kids. Fortunately for me, it'll probably be easier to find someone like-minded than it would've been had I been an Xer or a Boomer. Most of my friends view getting married and having a family as something they want to do and are serious about.

Since you're talking about soulmates, let's cover that topic. It has become fashionable recently among people who consider themselves knowledgeable to downplay the "soulmate" concept. Certainly they have some truth on their side: relationships are created by hard work, and there are many different people with whom any one person can connect. Still, the pendulum seems to me to be swinging too strongly in the anti-soulmate direction nowadays; marriage ought to be more than just an economic relationship. If nothing else, looking for a soulmate may at least narrow the field down enough to avoid a "Joe Millionaire" type relationship.

I'll jump into the fray about soulmates and why some people are down on them.

I see "soul mates" as a people who shares dreams, aspirations, physical relations, interests, love, and passion with each other. I personally can't imagine being married to a person who doesn't share common dreams, aspirations, values, and passion with me.

That said, I hate the notion that there is one soul mate for me lurking out there in the universe and all I have to do is wait for that soul mate to drop in my lap. That implies a few things that I totally take issue with.

• One is the case of widowers and widows who enjoyed a "soul mate" connection with their first spouse -- I maintain that such people can find a very different "soul mate" the second time around, which implies that there can be more than one "soul mate" per person.
• Second, maintaining a "soul mate" relationship takes work. Without that work, you can squander your relationship with a "soul mate" -- to put it bluntly, piss it away.
• Third, it implies that if you never meet your soul mate, or you meet him/her and the situation is wrong, or something fluky happens and your soul mate is killed on the freeway before you ever meet him/her, then you are doomed to either lifelong celebacy or making do with casual flings.
• Finally, the concept of one and only one soul mate can be used to justify adultery and breaking up viable marriages that have gone a bit stale and need some attention (I'm not talking about horrid marriages where one partner is abusive or refuses to work with the other partner -- however, in such cases, my preference is to end that relationship before tackling a second one. However, I realize that life is messy and lightning can sometime strike at the most inconvenient times!)

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox and return you to our regular discussion.

I'll jump into the fray about soulmates and why some people are down on them.

I see "soul mates" as a people who shares dreams, aspirations, physical relations, interests, love, and passion with each other. I personally can't imagine being married to a person who doesn't share common dreams, aspirations, values, and passion with me.

That said, I hate the notion that there is one soul mate for me lurking out there in the universe and all I have to do is wait for that soul mate to drop in my lap. That implies a few things that I totally take issue with.

• One is the case of widowers and widows who enjoyed a "soul mate" connection with their first spouse -- I maintain that such people can find a very different "soul mate" the second time around, which implies that there can be more than one "soul mate" per person.
• Second, maintaining a "soul mate" relationship takes work. Without that work, you can squander your relationship with a "soul mate" -- to put it bluntly, piss it away.
• Third, it implies that if you never meet your soul mate, or you meet him/her and the situation is wrong, or something fluky happens and your soul mate is killed on the freeway before you ever meet him/her, then you are doomed to either lifelong celebacy or making do with casual flings.
• Finally, the concept of one and only one soul mate can be used to justify adultery and breaking up viable marriages that have gone a bit stale and need some attention (I'm not talking about horrid marriages where one partner is abusive or refuses to work with the other partner -- however, in such cases, my preference is to end that relationship before tackling a second one. However, I realize that life is messy and lightning can sometime strike at the most inconvenient times!)

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox and return you to our regular discussion.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

...I hate the notion that there is one soul mate for me lurking out there in the universe and all I have to do is wait for that soul mate to drop in my lap. That implies a few things that I totally take issue with.
-snip four very good points-

- to which I would add that the concept of a 'soul-mate' ignores the fact that even the most perfect relationships have some degree of conflict. A person expecting a perfectly matched partner is going to get quite discouraged when the other party keeps leaving their socks in the living room (or some other petty thing -- it's surprising what gets on one's nerves). Expecting perfection can -- and has, I've seen in colleagues lives -- lead one to cast away the real thing.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

...I hate the notion that there is one soul mate for me lurking out there in the universe and all I have to do is wait for that soul mate to drop in my lap. That implies a few things that I totally take issue with.
-snip four very good points-

- to which I would add that the concept of a 'soul-mate' ignores the fact that even the most perfect relationships have some degree of conflict. A person expecting a perfectly matched partner is going to get quite discouraged when the other party keeps leaving their socks in the living room (or some other petty thing -- it's surprising what gets on one's nerves). Expecting perfection can -- and has, I've seen in colleagues lives -- lead one to cast away the real thing.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I'll jump into the fray about soulmates and why some people are down on them.

I see "soul mates" as a people who shares dreams, aspirations, physical relations, interests, love, and passion with each other. I personally can't imagine being married to a person who doesn't share common dreams, aspirations, values, and passion with me.

I totally agree with your definition of "soulmate", hon-- with the addition that I believe that soulmates are people that are somehow meant to be together. This does create some unfortunate possibilities I admit, along the lines of some of which you describe below.

[list][*]One is the case of widowers and widows who enjoyed a "soul mate" connection with their first spouse -- I maintain that such people can find a very different "soul mate" the second time around, which implies that there can be more than one "soul mate" per person.

This is probably Reason #1 why I'm glad I didn't end up dating a widow. I prefer (need?) to believe that we are reunited with our loved ones/families in heaven (or whatever one calls it) when we die. But if our spouses were married in a soulmate-type relationship before, what then? Do we get dumped for Soulmate #1 when we get to the Hereafter? Do I have to "share" her with another man-spirit for all Eternity? That sounds more like That Very Warm Place Downstairs than Heaven to me.

[*]Second, maintaining a "soul mate" relationship takes work. Without that work, you can squander your relationship with a "soul mate" -- to put it bluntly, piss it away.

I emphatically agree.

[*]Third, it implies that if you never meet your soul mate, or you meet him/her and the situation is wrong, or something fluky happens and your soul mate is killed on the freeway before you ever meet him/her, then you are doomed to either lifelong celebacy or making do with casual flings.

Um....yup. There are lots of people who appear to be in this precise situation. I suppose it might give them some amount of solace to believe that even if they miss out on finding their soulmate when they are alive, they might meet up with them in Heaven, or even in their next life/incarnation (should God send them both back to Earth for further Training 8) )

[*]Finally, the concept of one and only one soul mate can be used to justify adultery and breaking up viable marriages that have gone a bit stale and need some attention (I'm not talking about horrid marriages where one partner is abusive or refuses to work with the other partner -- however, in such cases, my preference is to end that relationship before tackling a second one. However, I realize that life is messy and lightning can sometime strike at the most inconvenient times!)

Now THIS I don't get at all! How can the concept of a one-and-only soulmate in any way be used to justify adultery??? To be certain, my own central outrage concerning the late Sexual Revolution was that by encouraging people to be promiscuous, its Swingin' Silent purveyors (may they burn eternally in Hell) essentially duped Boomers and Xers into betraying their soulmates before they even had a chance to meet them. And for what?

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox and return you to our regular discussion.

No need to apologize sweetheart. It was a great topic to discuss!

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

I'll jump into the fray about soulmates and why some people are down on them.

I see "soul mates" as a people who shares dreams, aspirations, physical relations, interests, love, and passion with each other. I personally can't imagine being married to a person who doesn't share common dreams, aspirations, values, and passion with me.

I totally agree with your definition of "soulmate", hon-- with the addition that I believe that soulmates are people that are somehow meant to be together. This does create some unfortunate possibilities I admit, along the lines of some of which you describe below.

[list][*]One is the case of widowers and widows who enjoyed a "soul mate" connection with their first spouse -- I maintain that such people can find a very different "soul mate" the second time around, which implies that there can be more than one "soul mate" per person.

This is probably Reason #1 why I'm glad I didn't end up dating a widow. I prefer (need?) to believe that we are reunited with our loved ones/families in heaven (or whatever one calls it) when we die. But if our spouses were married in a soulmate-type relationship before, what then? Do we get dumped for Soulmate #1 when we get to the Hereafter? Do I have to "share" her with another man-spirit for all Eternity? That sounds more like That Very Warm Place Downstairs than Heaven to me.

[*]Second, maintaining a "soul mate" relationship takes work. Without that work, you can squander your relationship with a "soul mate" -- to put it bluntly, piss it away.

I emphatically agree.

[*]Third, it implies that if you never meet your soul mate, or you meet him/her and the situation is wrong, or something fluky happens and your soul mate is killed on the freeway before you ever meet him/her, then you are doomed to either lifelong celebacy or making do with casual flings.

Um....yup. There are lots of people who appear to be in this precise situation. I suppose it might give them some amount of solace to believe that even if they miss out on finding their soulmate when they are alive, they might meet up with them in Heaven, or even in their next life/incarnation (should God send them both back to Earth for further Training 8) )

[*]Finally, the concept of one and only one soul mate can be used to justify adultery and breaking up viable marriages that have gone a bit stale and need some attention (I'm not talking about horrid marriages where one partner is abusive or refuses to work with the other partner -- however, in such cases, my preference is to end that relationship before tackling a second one. However, I realize that life is messy and lightning can sometime strike at the most inconvenient times!)

Now THIS I don't get at all! How can the concept of a one-and-only soulmate in any way be used to justify adultery??? To be certain, my own central outrage concerning the late Sexual Revolution was that by encouraging people to be promiscuous, its Swingin' Silent purveyors (may they burn eternally in Hell) essentially duped Boomers and Xers into betraying their soulmates before they even had a chance to meet them. And for what?

Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox and return you to our regular discussion.

No need to apologize sweetheart. It was a great topic to discuss!

The idea of a soulmate is a bit atomistic. It's the you and me against the world together. It's not really all that consistent with the idea of spouse.

Your spouse is part of your family. Not only do you and your spouse, with your children, constitute a nuclear family unit in and of itself, but through marriage, you join your spouse's extended family while she/he joins yours.

As a spouse I am part of a much larger structure than I would be if I were involved in a non-marital "relationship". A soulmate is someone with whom you have a relationship. It need not ever involve marriage (an entirely different thing). And if it did, it might then change to something else.

People might be souring a bit on the concept of soulmate because they have found pursuing it not to be as satisfying (less filling) as they thought it would be.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A soulmate is someone with whom you have a relationship. It need not ever involve marriage (an entirely different thing). And if it did, it might then change to something else.

People might be souring a bit on the concept of soulmate because they have found pursuing it not to be as satisfying (less filling) as they thought it would be.

I found my soulmate years after I married. This may sound strange, but this man, since he knows me so well, has helped strengthen my marriage by forcing me to be honest with myself. I can't fool him. And he is very good at kicking my rhetorical butt when I need it kicked.

The reverse is also true. ;-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A soulmate is someone with whom you have a relationship. It need not ever involve marriage (an entirely different thing). And if it did, it might then change to something else.

People might be souring a bit on the concept of soulmate because they have found pursuing it not to be as satisfying (less filling) as they thought it would be.

I found my soulmate years after I married. This may sound strange, but this man, since he knows me so well, has helped strengthen my marriage by forcing me to be honest with myself. I can't fool him. And he is very good at kicking my rhetorical butt when I need it kicked.

The reverse is also true. ;-)

Does this mean Kiff, that you are not married to your soul mate? And is this also your way of saying that you and the one who is your soul mate have a non-romantic relationship, because that is what's best for you?

Maybe soul mates needs to be an expanded term? Maybe there is one true love for everyone, but that others who you are not romantic with, are soul mates of a sort?

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A soulmate is someone with whom you have a relationship. It need not ever involve marriage (an entirely different thing). And if it did, it might then change to something else.

People might be souring a bit on the concept of soulmate because they have found pursuing it not to be as satisfying (less filling) as they thought it would be.

I found my soulmate years after I married. This may sound strange, but this man, since he knows me so well, has helped strengthen my marriage by forcing me to be honest with myself. I can't fool him. And he is very good at kicking my rhetorical butt when I need it kicked.

The reverse is also true. ;-)

Does this mean Kiff, that you are not married to your soul mate? And is this also your way of saying that you and the one who is your soul mate have a non-romantic relationship, because that is what's best for you?

Maybe soul mates needs to be an expanded term? Maybe there is one true love for everyone, but that others who you are not romantic with, are soul mates of a sort?

I get the feeling that Kiff is referring to a non-romantic relationship. I suppose a soulmate can be a nonromantic partner, say a very close friend.

But even if the relationship is a romantic one, there are times where that can actually be beneficial to a marriage. Okay, maybe not most of the time, and please don't get the idea that I am condoning extramarital affairs, but I have discovered that there are times where personal growth gained from what you learn from a soulmate or interactions with a soulmate is intensified by romantic feelings. The resulting personal growth can potentially benefit a marriage (of course, there are times where personal growth can also tear a marriage apart, such as what happened in the 70s to millions of marriages.)

Come to think of it, I sound very 1970s by saying this.

Maybe it's an unpopular view these days, but remember what Eleanor Roosevelt said: "Do what you feel in your heart to be right...for you will be criticized anyway."

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

A soulmate is someone with whom you have a relationship. It need not ever involve marriage (an entirely different thing). And if it did, it might then change to something else.

People might be souring a bit on the concept of soulmate because they have found pursuing it not to be as satisfying (less filling) as they thought it would be.

I found my soulmate years after I married. This may sound strange, but this man, since he knows me so well, has helped strengthen my marriage by forcing me to be honest with myself. I can't fool him. And he is very good at kicking my rhetorical butt when I need it kicked.

The reverse is also true. ;-)

Does this mean Kiff, that you are not married to your soul mate? And is this also your way of saying that you and the one who is your soul mate have a non-romantic relationship, because that is what's best for you?

Maybe soul mates needs to be an expanded term? Maybe there is one true love for everyone, but that others who you are not romantic with, are soul mates of a sort?

ohhhhhh....okay. i misread Kiff's post before....what i originally thought she meant was that she didn't really discover that her husband was her soulmate until sometime after they were married. I can easily imagine that happening as well....as I can the tragic circumstance of two people not finding out that they are soulmates until after they are irretrievably lost to each other -- at least in this life.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Your spouse is part of your family. Not only do you and your spouse, with your children, constitute a nuclear family unit in and of itself, but through marriage, you join your spouse's extended family while she/he joins yours.

Very very important point, that. One that is too often overlooked when people prepare for marriage.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Your spouse is part of your family. Not only do you and your spouse, with your children, constitute a nuclear family unit in and of itself, but through marriage, you join your spouse's extended family while she/he joins yours.

Very very important point, that. One that is too often overlooked when people prepare for marriage.

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Does this mean Kiff, that you are not married to your soul mate? And is this also your way of saying that you and the one who is your soul mate have a non-romantic relationship, because that is what's best for you?

My husband is a great guy. Very steady, very patient with me, very flexible, a good father to the kids. We have a lot of fun together, and we are committed to this marriage. I am extremely lucky to have him in my life.

My soul mate is a Boomer ('49 cohort), a former co-worker of mine that I still see from time to time (he's on my bar trivia team). He knows me better than anyone else. He's the one who convinced me to go into therapy when I was depressed. He supported me through my career change. Because the relationship was not romantic, he was able to cut through all the male/female BS and connect with me on a deeper level. I have never been physically attracted to him, yet I love him because he's seen me at my very worst and didn't walk away. And I'm seen him in bad times, too. He's said time and again that the two of us must have been separated at birth. "In another time, another place, it would have been you and me."

Maybe soul mates needs to be an expanded term? Maybe there is one true love for everyone, but that others who you are not romantic with, are soul mates of a sort?

I'm not sure about the "one true love." There may be several men walking around out in the world right now who I would have been just as happy with. Compatibility is important, but a marriage is hard work, and the couple needs that commitment in order to survive.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

My husband is a great guy. Very steady, very patient with me, very flexible, a good father to the kids. We have a lot of fun together, and we are committed to this marriage. I am extremely lucky to have him in my life.

My soul mate is a Boomer ('49 cohort), a former co-worker of mine that I still see from time to time (he's on my bar trivia team). He knows me better than anyone else. He's the one who convinced me to go into therapy when I was depressed. He supported me through my career change. Because the relationship was not romantic, he was able to cut through all the male/female BS and connect with me on a deeper level. I have never been physically attracted to him, yet I love him because he's seen me at my very worst and didn't walk away. And I'm seen him in bad times, too. He's said time and again that the two of us must have been separated at birth. "In another time, another place, it would have been you and me."

That is so sad, Kiff....to be married to someone you merely like a lot, instead of the one you truly love. :cry:

Then again.....perhaps there's a reason that "non-romantic soulmates" aren't romantic. Could it be because the people involved were close family members in previous lives, and are in effect still "related"? (forgive me if i am beginning to sound like Eric Meece, but....)