There is not such thing a a Soul Mate

[Chowder Head]

Interesting prospective. I believe that we should not instill the concept that someone NEEDS someone else to complete them or make them whole.

trustychucks.com/2014/05/my-husband-is-not-my-soul-mate/

[Chowder Head]

Take a drink and enjoy this one.

christianpost.com/news/soul-mates-what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-one-youre-destined-to-marry-102136/

[MamaJunebug]

[sarcasm] Oh, what does she know - she works outside the home and one of her daughters doesn't wear a skirt! [/sarcasm]

It's interesting that Christian News picked up on this - is there nothing else to write about, really, hmmmm??? But since it's been written about - twice - I'll admit that I only skimmed the first paragraphs, and I have this to say:

I'm related to two couples in which I would absolutely call the partners each others' "soul mates." We in the family even prepared a wedding slide show for one couple which repeated MADE FOR EACH OTHER eleventy-zillion times as photos of the two of them through the years scrolled across the screen. (I mean, when you see photos of the groom and bride at age 3 in the exact same snotty-arsed pose and their parents can tell you, "That's when the little booger told me [the exact same rebellious words]", you know you've got it going on.

All that said, I remember one woman in college who said, "I figure there are about 2 dozen people in the world for every one - 2 dozen individuals a given person could make it work out with." Who knows if it's 24, or 36, or 6? But it's certainly more than one.

If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, What-have-you's concentrated on preparing their children to support themselves in this cruel world, and to count any *l*o*v*e* that they find as a wonderful, lucky break and something to be supported and cherished, we'd all be *so* much better off.

Good finds, Chowder Head!

[Ave Maria]

I have mixed feelings about the whole "soul mates" concept, especially the idea that each person can have only one soul mate in a lifetime. For example, I know a man who was happily married, lost his wife to a sudden illness, and several years later married again, also happily. Would people who believe in a strict concept of "soul mates" believe that one of his marriages wasn't truly a good one, a loving one, etc?`

[Coco]

Thanks! Both are really good reads, esp. the first one imo... If a person is complete in themselves they might miss a little of the passion of desperate neediness... but hey, who wants the empty feeling of being half a person? :lol:

i hope that my kids learn to stand alone, so that if anyone ever leaves them they can say it was the other person's loss, and be able to move on fairly easily.

[RosyDaisy]

I agree. No such thing as soul mates. Even if you meet your partner by chance, a relationship still takes work. IMO, soul mates is just a fancy of saying your infatuated with or attracted to somebody. But, again, it takes more than that for a relationship to work.

[Coco]

If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, What-have-you's concentrated on preparing their children to support themselves in this cruel world, and to count any *l*o*v*e* that they find as a wonderful, lucky break and something to be supported and cherished, we'd all be *so* much better off.

[feministxtian]

I agree with the idea that there's no such thing as a "soulmate"...having been a two-time loser in the marriage sweepstakes (but happily married the third time), I finally met someone who was willing to put up with me as much as I was willing to put up with him. I love my husband beyond belief, but I don't need him to "complete" me...I'm pretty complete on my own. I love him beyond belief, came very close to losing him due to an illness, walk a tightwire now keeping him in decent health, and would be crushed if he did leave me...but I would live through it. With time, the loss would not hurt as much and I would have a complete life without him. That said, I much prefer having him here with me than in a hole in the ground somewhere...

[theologygeek]

Of course there is such a thing as a soul mate. The teacher who made that blog post doesn't know what the definition of a soul mate is. The twelve year old child she quoted knew the definition better than she did.

Chris Graham is not my soul mate. He is my husband, my best friend, my lover, my favorite person to talk to, my biggest cheerleader, and my family. But he does not complete me, fill me up, or make my world.

Sigh.

soul mate

noun

a person with whom one has a strong affinity, shared values and tastes, and often a romantic bond: I married my soul mate; you don't get much luckier than that.

[julie paradox]

ok, I've read one of her posts and I think she's an idiot.

The essay she quoted, a discussion about disability, said "some adults don't get soul mates because of how they are looked at".

Nothing about "making me whole" or "filling a deep need" or "being my whole world".

This child, I reckon, was using "soul mate" to mean "a companion for my soul". Which is EXACTLY what this stupid woman considers her husband.

Also, she says "in our house gender roles are the exact opposite of societal norms" as part of a short paragraph between two pictures of her daughters in long hair and pretty clothes playing at washing up. Mary: as an English teacher you really ought to know that Words Mean Things.

[debrand]

My husband is my best friend but he and I don't complete one another. Hopefully,if I die, he would be open to marrying again and wouldn't feel like I was the only person that could make him happy. Of course, if he didn't want to remarry that would be fine also but I don't want him to feel as if I was the one and only person for him

I think that there are several people who could make anyone individual happy. If you and your spouse are sexually compatible, are friends, have the same values , respect one another, share the same outlook on finances and children, have similar senses of humor and need for physical affection, there is a good possibility that your marriage will be happy.

There are soul mates but they are created by two people who spend a significant together. You don't just meet your soul mate, it takes a long, long time to become soul mates.Today, my husband is my soul mate. He wasn't my soul mate when we married because that type of deep connection takes years to build. My definition of soul mate agrees with Theology Geek's but probably isn't how most people are using the word

[amydamy]

Of course there is such a thing as a soul mate. The teacher who made that blog post doesn't know what the definition of a soul mate is. The twelve year old child she quoted knew the definition better than she did.

Sigh.

soul mate

noun

a person with whom one has a strong affinity, shared values and tastes, and often a romantic bond: I married my soul mate; you don't get much luckier than that.

I don't think most people, probably including the child, use the world soul mate that way. Almost everyone I know who uses the term means their soul mate as the one true person they we predestined to be with and the "other half" of their soul not someone that they have a bunch of stuff in common with.

From wiki

The definition of it ranges widely, and cannot be pinpointed. It is commonly accepted that one will feel 'complete' once they have found their soul mate, as it is partially in the perceived definition that two souls are meant to unite.

[mockingbird]

I agree with her that it's dangerous to teach (girls especially) that you need someone else to "complete" you, or in other words that your sense of self-worth is based on a romantic relationship.

IDK about the "soul mates" thing though - I think my view is colored from growing up Catholic. Like, we were taught that if you were meant to get married, God would have someone out there for you, which I guess would be a soulmate. But, a) some people are not even "called" to get married, so there was little about basing your whole life or identity on finding that person, and b) marriage is a vocation, i.e. a spiritual job, so just because you find "the one" doesn't mean it's all going to magically fall into place, it is something that will continuously take effort to succeed at.

So I think a lot of people I know, at least from my hometown and probably from college (Catholic), would believe in romantic soulmates, but it's not tied up in the whole "complete me" thing or the magical thinking "we're meant to be so it's just happily ever after from here on out!" attitudes. In that case, I don't have a problem with "soulmates" because it's disconnected from what I think are the problematic attitudes related to that term.

(I personally think of it as referring to when you have a great connection with someone, which doesn't have to be romantic. I don't think that type of connection only happens once, either.)

[Jinger Jar]

ok, I've read one of her posts and I think she's an idiot.

The essay she quoted, a discussion about disability, said "some adults don't get soul mates because of how they are looked at".

Nothing about "making me whole" or "filling a deep need" or "being my whole world".

This child, I reckon, was using "soul mate" to mean "a companion for my soul". Which is EXACTLY what this stupid woman considers her husband.

Also, she says "in our house gender roles are the exact opposite of societal norms" as part of a short paragraph between two pictures of her daughters in long hair and pretty clothes playing at washing up. Mary: as an English teacher you really ought to know that Words Mean Things.

To the bolded, I completely agree but other reasons. She's a teacher with a public blog in which she complains about how soul destroying reading her students' essays is. I mean, yeah, reading stacks of essays might not be teacher's idea of a fun Saturday afternoon, but have the professional discretion not to describe it as a "boring, excruciating" part of your job on your blog right next to a picture of yourself! She might as well shout, "Hi, Mary Graham here, and I hate being an English teacher!" It's really disrespectful of her students. As a parent, I would not want my kid in her English class, and if I were her administrator, I would wonder about her judgement.

I also am troubled that she quoted a 12-year-old and calls the child's writing "full of confusion." If that's what she thinks, she needs to have that conversation with the student and possibly the parent, not bring it up in a blog post. If I discovered that one of my step-daughters' English teachers was posting her words on their blog and commenting negatively on it, I'd want a meeting to find out why that teacher thought that was appropriate. I don't think she understands how this has the potential to be very hurtful to an adolescent.

[louisa05]

To the bolded, I completely agree but other reasons. She's a teacher with a public blog in which she complains about how soul destroying reading her students' essays is. I mean, yeah, reading stacks of essays might not be teacher's idea of a fun Saturday afternoon, but have the professional discretion not to describe it as a "boring, excruciating" part of your job on your blog right next to a picture of yourself! She might as well shout, "Hi, Mary Graham here, and I hate being an English teacher!" It's really disrespectful of her students. As a parent, I would not want my kid in her English class, and if I were her administrator, I would wonder about her judgement.

I also am troubled that she quoted a 12-year-old and calls the child's writing "full of confusion." If that's what she thinks, she needs to have that conversation with the student and possibly the parent, not bring it up in a blog post. If I discovered that one of my step-daughters' English teachers was posting her words on their blog and commenting negatively on it, I'd want a meeting to find out why that teacher thought that was appropriate. I don't think she understands how this has the potential to be very hurtful to an adolescent.

I was an English teacher. Grading essays is horrible most of the time. I have never met an English teacher who thinks it is fun or considers it the thing they love about the job. I always explained it to people this way: I became an English teacher because I LOVE great writing, but being an English teacher meant I had to spend all my reading time on the prose of tenth graders. Being aware (and even admitting) that tenth grade writing is never the equivalent of Shakespeare does not mean you hate teaching or your students.

She should not have directly quoted the student. But saying she doesn't love grading essays is not really a great sin.

(Of course in addition to being underpaid and constantly maligned, American teachers are also supposed to be living saints who love love love every moment of their jobs including recess duty in a hail storm, forgive me for sometimes forgetting that).

[Jinger Jar]

I was an English teacher. Grading essays is horrible most of the time. I have never met an English teacher who thinks it is fun or considers it the thing they love about the job. I always explained it to people this way: I became an English teacher because I LOVE great writing, but being an English teacher meant I had to spend all my reading time on the prose of tenth graders. Being aware (and even admitting) that tenth grade writing is never the equivalent of Shakespeare does not mean you hate teaching or your students.

She should not have directly quoted the student. But saying she doesn't love grading essays is not really a great sin.

(Of course in addition to being underpaid and constantly maligned, American teachers are also supposed to be living saints who love love love every moment of their jobs including recess duty in a hail storm, forgive me for sometimes forgetting that).

I am an English teacher and have been for 26 years. I know well the perception that classroom teachers are little more than slightly dim, highly overpaid babysitters with a work day that ends at 3:00 p.m. and a three-month paid vacation every year. I became an English teacher because I want to help marginalized young people become better readers and writers in English. I think it's unprofessional to describe reading student work as boring, excruciating and life-sucking anywhere, much less in a lifestyle blog. If she were my colleague I wouldn't want to collaborate with her with that attitude towards her job. If I were an administrator I would not want a teacher who went public with that attitude on my staff. And as I said, I would not want my kids in her class.

She admits that reading student work makes her question her decision to become a teacher. I'm not saying that reading essays is always thrilling, but it a big part of an English teacher's professional life. If she can't fulfill that duty without questioning her decision to enter the profession, perhaps she needs to find out if her skill set would be better suited to another field.

[Hane]

I think her blog is a big slab of "I'm Miserable and You Should Be, Too!" Case in point: the post about discovering her husband's drug addiction right around the time she became pregnant.

I believe that soul mates do exist--but that not everyone is lucky enough to find one. It's possible to have a good marriage and beloved friends and still not wind up with a soul mate.

[DGayle]

My husband and I aren't soul mates. We are two complete individuals who chose each other to be partners in all things. No big daddy in the sky matched us up. WE did that.

[Ave Maria]

I agree with her that it's dangerous to teach (girls especially) that you need someone else to "complete" you, or in other words that your sense of self-worth is based on a romantic relationship.

IDK about the "soul mates" thing though - I think my view is colored from growing up Catholic. Like, we were taught that if you were meant to get married, God would have someone out there for you, which I guess would be a soulmate. But, a) some people are not even "called" to get married, so there was little about basing your whole life or identity on finding that person, and b) marriage is a vocation, i.e. a spiritual job, so just because you find "the one" doesn't mean it's all going to magically fall into place, it is something that will continuously take effort to succeed at.

So I think a lot of people I know, at least from my hometown and probably from college (Catholic), would believe in romantic soulmates, but it's not tied up in the whole "complete me" thing or the magical thinking "we're meant to be so it's just happily ever after from here on out!" attitudes. In that case, I don't have a problem with "soulmates" because it's disconnected from what I think are the problematic attitudes related to that term.

(I personally think of it as referring to when you have a great connection with someone, which doesn't have to be romantic. I don't think that type of connection only happens once, either.)

What you describe here makes sense in my head, too, especially the part about callings and vocations.

I think for a lot of Protestant Christians (especially the sort that gets snarked here), the idea of a vocation that isn't marriage just doesn't compute.