Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
people that are usually waiting for that perfect person generally think of themselves as part of a whole... that perfect person being the other part of their whole.
when people see themselves as a whole before getting into a relationship, that's the only time the perfect mate comes along.
Just make sure others don't see you as a hole, instead of a whole. Or worse yet, the dreaded touch-hole!
people that are usually waiting for that perfect person generally think of themselves as part of a whole... that perfect person being the other part of their whole.
Yeah, I'm aware of this theory.
Quote:
when people see themselves as a whole before getting into a relationship, that's the only time the perfect mate comes along.
There are a couple of problems here:
1) not too many of these species
2) The rare ones who may somehow exist can never be seduced for this very same reason - they have no need for anything at all, other people included
I don't know whether this idea will fly...but I think that we are an inherently social species (in the grand scheme of things, comparing social to non-social living beings) and therefore, feeling that you're "whole" without anyone else in the picture can be quite hard for many of us, at least at various times in our lives.
Now granted, that other person, or people, may not necessarily mean a mate. But given our basic sexual drive I would think that it often means a mate. (Obviously not always.)
For example, if we were cats, we would never worry about being part of a "whole". Male and female cats certainly don't mate for life. In fact, they mate for about 90 seconds. (If the female is lucky.) People joke about how their cats "own" the household, or they say that "their" (the cats') "people" are "just accessories" in the cat's life, or that cats only decide to give affection when they want affection. And many people choose cats over dogs because cats do in fact exist quite happily with nobody around, or most cats. You can leave a cat for five days with a continuous feeder and a bunch of water and it will pretty much be just fine.
(Before the "my cat is practically human" people get all over me, your cats are very well domesticated and verrrrrrrrrrrrry far from their natural "wild" form.)
Anyway. Dogs are different. If you don't look deeply into your dog's eyes every seven seconds, it will curl into a little ball of depression and whine. If you go away for ten minutes without taking it with you, it will p*ss on your sofa and tear up all your clothes with its teeth in retaliation. Why? Because dogs are an inherently social species. They really do feel incomplete without a "pack," whether canine or human, around them. That doesn't mean they're emotionally insecure or that nobody can ever love them until they can learn to be alone for two years with just food, without p*ssing on the sofa.
People, too, are inherently social. Even people on here who say "I'm so antisocial!" are, well, on here. "Talking" to people...one way or another. If you were truly antisocial, you would truly be an anomaly. And you sure as shoot wouldn't be on an internet forum. The human form of antisocial is still radically more social than many species. If that makes sense.
A very long-winded way of saying: I don't believe in the adage that until you're skip-hippy-happy all by yourself for six months staring at a wall every night and talking to stuffed animals, then you're just not going to attract a mate because "you don't really love yourself". I just don't believe that, from a biological standpoint. Plenty of "needy" people find love. I think the whole "You'll find someone when you're not looking" thing is a platitude.
I don't think only non-adjusted or non-self-loving people feel they're missing something by not having a mate. I think they're just on the social end of an already social species and that they have a sexual and romantic drive and that these two things blend.
All that said...I laughed MY *SS off at the cartoons, Sierra.
For example, if we were cats, we would never worry about being part of a "whole". Male and female cats certainly don't mate for life. In fact, they mate for about 90 seconds. (If the female is lucky.) People joke about how their cats "own" the household, or they say that "their" (the cats') "people" are "just accessories" in the cat's life, or that cats only decide to give affection when they want affection. And many people choose cats over dogs because cats do in fact exist quite happily with nobody around, or most cats. You can leave a cat for five days with a continuous feeder and a bunch of water and it will pretty much be just fine.
...
Anyway. Dogs are different. If you don't look deeply into your dog's eyes every seven seconds, it will curl into a little ball of depression and whine. If you go away for ten minutes without taking it with you, it will p*ss on your sofa and tear up all your clothes with its teeth in retaliation. Why? Because dogs are an inherently social species. They really do feel incomplete without a "pack," whether canine or human, around them. That doesn't mean they're emotionally insecure or that nobody can ever love them until they can learn to be alone for two years with just food, without p*ssing on the sofa.
Cats and I are simpatico. Even wild strays come up to me. Dogs - eh. They like me, and I'm OK with them, but I couldn't live with one the way many others do.
But here's the $10,000 question:
If you were a creature who could mate for life with either a dog or a cat, which would you choose - given the respective qualities you mentioned?
PS: A whining ball of depression to me indicates emotional insecurity. I should know - I'm often in that position.
If you were a creature who could mate for life with either a dog or a cat, which would you choose - given the respective qualities you mentioned?
What...really, or are you kidding around?
Well, if you're really asking...neither. I'd suffocate and probably bite off my own arm to escape from the lathering, slavering dog. And the cat...well, who the hell needs to be with someone who can literally take or leave him or her? Why bother then?
In reality I'd much rather mate with a chimp. (Now don't get excited, guys.) Chimps--AFAIK--or maybe these are gorillas I'm thinking of, live parallel but not necessarily "together" lives with the opposite sex. In other words, the males will keep the females in view, and will saunter on over and pick lice off them as a romantic gesture when they're interested in a little sumpin'-sumpin', but otherwise, the men hang out and do their man thing with the scratching and all that, and the women hang out and, who knows, probably compare banana size and giggle.
The opposite sexes are "together" when it counts, and they are affectionate and even have their favorites/this-one-is-off-limits-to-other-guys-or-gals, and they protect each other and work together pretty cohesively to keep a little society going with everything they will collectively need (food, shelter, affection, parenting, protection), but they give each other a nice healthy amount of space. Yep. It's a chimp's life for me! Woo-hoo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
