I don’t think you can talk about relationship cliches without talking about soulmates, a mythology that, for all it has been adopted by people of all sexual orientations and genders, arose solely out of patriarchal cultures to serve the patriarchy. Also, it makes me want to stab someone in the eye.
I’ve had more than one man tell me that he had to end things/cheat because we just didn’t have that soulmate connection. But he wasn’t an emotionally withholding, duplicitous asshole or a romantic capitalist always looking for the next shiny thing. He was a spiritual seeker, a romantic. A warrior for love.
And there’s always another woman ready to accept their fickle and infantile attention because her ego is stroked by being deemed The One. As if giving your sense of self-worth away to some dude is the most romantic gift anyone can imagine.
Yes! I remember that one. Twin flames is like soulmates on (New Age) steroids. But I think it’s worth unpacking how, as nutbar and aberrant as those extreme, cultish, manifestations of the idea may be, they are able to develop and exist because of deep-seated, culturally-sanctioned ideas about romantic partnership that many of us believe and are, perhaps secretly, very invested in. I mean, what is every Disney Princess movie but the soulmate mythology in kid-appropriate, cartoon form? What is the casual reference to your partner as your “other half”, or even your “better half”, but a subtle (or not so subtle) nod to the notion that there’s some mystical, fated other soul out there that will “complete” you?
I once told the last guy I was with that was very invested in the idea of soulmates that I was complete unto myself. That he wasn't, in fact, the point of me. And he blustered and insisted that of course, that wasn't what he was implying. And then he went and found a woman that bought the idea that they were twin flames, which is based in the idea of partial souls who search for each other across time in order to be complete and I thought, Yeah, sure. You weren't implying that.
I was thinking of the “you complete me” cliche, too. What is more distressing than believing that we are not already complete unto ourselves…if someone else affirms (and allows you to see your “wholeness”) that’s one thing, but I’m pretty sure Jerry
Maguire/Tom Cruise meant it in the most codependent of ways.
I love the framing Sarah yes! I’m also thinking about how this plays out in terms of gender… have to think about it more but so interested in how this idea bleeds into codependency or worse.
I don’t think you can talk about relationship cliches without talking about soulmates, a mythology that, for all it has been adopted by people of all sexual orientations and genders, arose solely out of patriarchal cultures to serve the patriarchy. Also, it makes me want to stab someone in the eye.
I’ve had more than one man tell me that he had to end things/cheat because we just didn’t have that soulmate connection. But he wasn’t an emotionally withholding, duplicitous asshole or a romantic capitalist always looking for the next shiny thing. He was a spiritual seeker, a romantic. A warrior for love.
And there’s always another woman ready to accept their fickle and infantile attention because her ego is stroked by being deemed The One. As if giving your sense of self-worth away to some dude is the most romantic gift anyone can imagine.
It’s all just so gross.
I
Ah yes! Absolutely!
I actually wrote a bit about this, via Twin Flames:
https://amandamontei.substack.com/p/twin-flames-gone-wild?utm_source=publication-search
Yes! I remember that one. Twin flames is like soulmates on (New Age) steroids. But I think it’s worth unpacking how, as nutbar and aberrant as those extreme, cultish, manifestations of the idea may be, they are able to develop and exist because of deep-seated, culturally-sanctioned ideas about romantic partnership that many of us believe and are, perhaps secretly, very invested in. I mean, what is every Disney Princess movie but the soulmate mythology in kid-appropriate, cartoon form? What is the casual reference to your partner as your “other half”, or even your “better half”, but a subtle (or not so subtle) nod to the notion that there’s some mystical, fated other soul out there that will “complete” you?
Absolutely!!
The “other half” language fascinates me. Like we’re all incomplete—actually only half a person— without monogamous partnership.
I once told the last guy I was with that was very invested in the idea of soulmates that I was complete unto myself. That he wasn't, in fact, the point of me. And he blustered and insisted that of course, that wasn't what he was implying. And then he went and found a woman that bought the idea that they were twin flames, which is based in the idea of partial souls who search for each other across time in order to be complete and I thought, Yeah, sure. You weren't implying that.
Oh geez!
I was thinking of the “you complete me” cliche, too. What is more distressing than believing that we are not already complete unto ourselves…if someone else affirms (and allows you to see your “wholeness”) that’s one thing, but I’m pretty sure Jerry
Maguire/Tom Cruise meant it in the most codependent of ways.
I love the framing Sarah yes! I’m also thinking about how this plays out in terms of gender… have to think about it more but so interested in how this idea bleeds into codependency or worse.
really looking forward to this this thread upcoming thread of conversation ~ thanks for opening the door for us to explore
Yeah, the whole twin flame/soulmate thing is just codependency with a New Age/Romantic mythology outfit on.
💯
"Being here for the right reasons."
"I want someone who just gets me."
Oh good ones!
“Building a life together”
Wtf does this mean?
Hahaha yes and who will build it? 🧐
Love conquers all. "Meant" for each other or "meant" to be (or not to be, that is the question...).