Tuesday, January 05, 2010


One of the chief (conceits? ironies? fears?) within the concept of true love soul mates and anything else you want to define people who are fated to be together forever blah blah blah is a notion that the person your with isn't necessarily the "one". This concept of the "one" is romanticized on film and in the page, in song and verse, in every type of media.

Why then do we feel more about in the dramatic re-interpretations of our feelings that exposuuse loss and what almost was than in those stories about serendipity?

Don't get me wrong. I do believe some people are lucky enough, even if it takes them three or four tries to find that perfect person for them.


This is not always reciprocated.

Meaning one persons perfect person is not always the others.

Or something.


I think the notion of being romantic sometimes get us caught up in the other characteristics of what we want. Like to notion of being the great romantic person starts to overshadow the realistic and earthbound realities of what a relationship between two people actually is or at least how it should be.

Sometimes its a simple as saying hello. But what if you want to know more? HOw do you show interest in getting to know someone who potentially could be the "one" without it getting all messy and...whatever.

There is no "one" really. IT just people at stages in similar mindsets.

Maybe that's what being the "one" is though.

It's hard to balance the romantic "nice guy" with what the perception of what a girl wants is. "The Bad boy" the "guy who need to be fixed" the "intense and brooding guy".

What if you just want to be yourself?

It's not a race, it's not a competition. You can get there.

There's lust, there's infatuation.

But what is "love"? (it almost sounds as if a robot asking his creator how to quantify human emotion...)

Million dollar question.

Close your eyes. What you thought it was? That's what it is.

No comments: