Sharon

In response to a recent thread about knowing whether someone is "The One", and also my other recent thread about a friend of mine...

If you assume that "The One" is the person who suits you best, fulfills your needs like no other, and makes you feel things that other people can't, is it then possible for a single person to be "The One" to multiple other people? Obviously, not all of them can be "The One" to that person.

What got me wondering is that there are some people who are such high quality, high calibre people, that they are more likely to be what another person is looking for in a partner... however, that is no guarantee (in fact there is probably some kind of inverse relationship) that the other person will be what they are looking for. So it is possible, even likely, that these Ones will be left disappointed in their search for THEIR respective Ones, and that their admirers will be left crushed by the fact that they aren't the One for that special person.

I hope this is making some kind of sense, I am long on randomness, short on coherence, and slightly tipsy.

spindles

The Whitlams have a song in which there is a line
What does this mean? There are lots of people who you are compatible with but compatibility is a two way street. Just because someone is perfect for you, doesn't automatically make you perfect for them. I think the definition of "the one" actually implies a two way compatibility.

Just because someone is "perfect" doesn't mean they require another "perfect" person to be happy, unless by perfect you mean "perfect in the eyes of the searcher".

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Supple Cow

It makes sense that some people would be more universally desireable than others for having certain qualities, but it's awfully fatalistic to say that there are "Ones" who would be "disappointed in their search for THEIR respective Ones," and that others would be "left crushed by the fact that they aren't the One for that special person." You're ignoring the fact that people grow and change.

I read your other thread (I assume you are referring to Preserving A Platonic Friendship) and I suspect that you're extrapolating this rather simplistic rule from a very complicated situation. Give yourself more credit than that.

Speaking to this on a more general level, a person who finds himself rejected by someone he thinks is special (or The One, as you call it, though I don't believe in that concept) doesn't have to be "left crushed"... if anything, he can emulate what he admires in that other person and make it his own. As for the people you call "The Ones", well, I guess you could say it was an exercise in patience to wait until the right person(s) come along. More importantly, a lot of people might not even be searching. Sometimes being single is just right and there is no need to search for partners. Both states of existence (being single and being in a relationship) certainly have their time and place.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

taboo

it's awfully hard to tell the other person that sees you as the one, that you don't feel the same way though...

pavel_lishin

My question is, are there people who are not a match for anyone at all? Pretty depressing if you realize that you are that person.

__________________
Vote Quimby!

savvypup

.. and what if you think you had found 'The One', and both parties agree, but you feel there's just one small thing that's lacking and neither of you once again can pinpoint this.

I use to think that each person had a soul mate, a person you could spend the rest of your life together with. Now, I'm not so sure. I think you both need to grow together - as in the direction of your lives. If you can't and you both acknowledge this, surely there must be someone else out there veering in the same direction as you're now headed. Kind of make sense?

__________________

ciao bella!

Supple Cow

It may be hard and you may not be good at it (goodness knows that I'm not), but that doesn't make it complicated. It's still fairly simple to recognize that a situation is not the right thing for you when it's not working out.

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

Supple Cow

More fatalism. People change all the time, constantly, and if people go through phases where they are not attractive to anybody they meet, it's not permanent. IMO, you have to work really hard thinking things like "nobody likes me and that is depressing" to stay in that low part of the cycle all the time. Why do it?

__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)

match000

so.. you're looking for commutativity, but also asking if its one to one and onto eh?

does transitivity apply ? =P

analog

If you label someone as "the one", then you're simply saying you see a lot of qualities in the person that you like. Take for example:

1. drinks tea
2. reads books
3. loves movies
4. is a vegetarian
5. has an athletic body

One person will say they love that their partner drinks tea, reads books, and is the "perfect" body type, because they love to relax with some tea, take in a book, and like their SO to be athletic in build. Another person will ignore all the book-reading and tea-drinking and could care less about the athletic build, but be super happy they're a vegetarian who loves movies.

All the things you see in your "one" are just a part of them. There are things you don't pay attention to, or mentally "ignore" because they don't stand out for you. That person could very well be "the one" for many people, each person enjoying what personality traits they lock onto, and pushing aside the others that don't stand out.

taboo

well, it is and it isn't. you can love somebody, but not be at the right life stages together..so it's difficult to weigh all that out sometimes..cuz you don;t know what the future will bring or change, so you have to go with your gut instinct i guess..

Charlatan

I honestly stopped worrying about this when I found the one...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

JustJess

I don't think there is a One for each of us, but rather a range of Ones. For instance... Q and I work really well together, and I am happy with him. However, I believe completely that if he hadn't married me, he would have married someone by now. Would that person not have been the One for him just because they weren't me? Of course not. They would just have been different than me.

That's why I don't get the idea of 'waiting til something better comes along'... there's always something new or different, but you have to embrace the good in your life that's happening now. If it doesn't fit, that's okay... there are a lot of Ones to try on for the right fit.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

midgard

I totally agree with JustJess. If one looks at it from a purely mathematical standpoint - with the total population of the earth, the probability of "The One" being in the same geographical location as yourself is pretty darn low. Even if you limit it down to just the population of your country, the odds are still extremely poor. I live in the US, which has a population of 293 million people (according to the US census breau for 2004). About 1/2 those people are female...which reduces it down to 146 million people. Also, we can limit it down since 25% of the population is below 18 and 12% is over 65 (with me being in my 40s). So we reduce the that number by 37% to get a number of approximately 92 million women that could potentially be my "soul mate". The odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1 That means I am 159 times more likely to get struck by lightning than to find my "soul mate".


So you can see, the odds really are against this concept. But, most people seem to find "The One" in their own back yard so to speak (school, work, town, circle of friends, etc).

It is more important to find someone who fits you well, that you can make each other happy, and that you can grow together with. To get hung up on the idea of a "soul mate" I think is to set yourself up for dissapointment and dissatisfaction.

gentlesoul43

I've been contemplating a theory for a while now, which is made up of scientific and historical facts we've accepted.

1. The male gender belong in a group of mammals where our DNA makes us non-monogamous by nature. This is a scientific fact when DNA research was done on monogamous and polygamous apes.
2. Monogamy is an evolution of the civilised society. Many cultures have practiced and encouraged multiple partners in the past. And the higher the status you are in society, the more partners you are allowed to have. Think emperor of China.
3. Historically, relationships are formed for procreation like in the animal kingdom. And in that kingdom, only the dominant male gets to procreate. In the modern world, relationships are also for companionship, hence we talk about compatibility in almost all areas, including common interests, family backgrounds etc

We are a product of evolution of a civilised society and gender equality, where all our rules are man-made and nothing is natural. In the natural world, only the dominant males will get to have sex and form relationships. Hence, Sharon's theory of "The One" to multiple partners is in fact very real.

In the modern society, "The One" is a myth. Almost no one is "The One" to anyone forever. Eventually, it comes down to self-discipline and commitment.

And please don't patronize me for my obviously-blatant gender bias in the theory. I do not subscribe in the old ways but I didn't live in those ages.

Poppinjay

The One simply does not exist. Angst and agita over incredibly strong emotions does exist. If those feelings meant that somebody was the one, I've already met 15 or so of them.

A crush is called a crush for a reason.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

taboo

so then i have a question for you:

since naturally, the males go around and procreate, who takes care of the "creatons" lol The women do that on their own?

Impetuous1

Maybe I missed it, but is this you're theory?

I never believed in The One. It's just something that is fed to silly little girls in Disney movies. Relationships of any kind take work. Nothing that is good is completely effortless. If it is, then usually someone is holding something back. But, that's just my experience.

We've developed monogamy by choice since it helps control the discord that can result from having multiple mates. The bitter jealousy and rivalries that can wreck societies are avoided in this way. I once read an article on the Old West that stated that part of the reason for the lawlessness is that there were no marriageable women at the time. Most of the women out in the Western US in the 1800's were prostitutes. Men did not feel the need to make a stable society when there was no one to protect but themselves. Women were later trucked in from the east coast and were married off. What was the result of this? Men now had their wives to protect from other "suitors" and children that would carry on their legacy. They developed property that they wanted to pass onto their children and established law to keep the peace. Monogamy is a civilizing force. It's not backwards to be better than a preprogrammed animal.

Also I believe that having monogamy as a standard in a society enables equality for women. Look at the societies where monogamy is not the norm. How many of them are part of what we consider civilized nations? Look at the Mormons in Colorado City, Utah. They had polygamous marriages and some of the women there weren't so happy. They were married off at 14 or younger sometimes and often many of them had been sexually abused. Why? Because often civilizations that favor a polygamous view of relationships are not considering the female view point. Women are treated as chattel.

I realize that my statements are oversimplified but hopefully you get the picture.

sadeianlinguist

I think this is the biggest clue. So far, I think it's the clue for me. There seems to be a distinct lack of worry about whether or not the person's right. When I think of the people I REALLY love, I love them without hesitation... Just both parties acting on what they feel... And when it's real, and someone expresses their feelings outside of the traditional "I love you; you're just so beautiful and wonderful," and REALLY delves into what they're feeling, it's amazing.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?