Hi X,

There is certainly a romantic appeal to a person who was orphaned at a young age working hard and finding happiness later in life. But that’s not the only literature around. Jane Austen would caution against using passion as the basis for a relationship as well as Shakespeare in his satirical work Romeo and Juliet (two teens committing suicide after a few days of meeting? Utter foolishness). Dostoyevsky used passionate morals to commit ‘evil’. Emily Bronte had a different view of orphan in Wuthering Heights. The concept of Jean ValJean being forgiven for his criminal past, on his deathbed, by Cosette is eyebrow raising, the Hunchback had a grimmer ending. In the Italian version of Cinderella, Zezolla was fending off the advances of the King until he had cornered, forcing her to marry him. In the Grimm version, Aschenputtel planted a tree on her mother’s grave. Come time of the ball, she had asked the tree to grant her the dresses and accessories to attend. Her stepsisters had cut off part of their feet to fit into the shoe, the prince carried them off until the birds told him to check the bloody shoe. At the wedding, the bridesmaid stepsisters had their eyes pecked out by the birds. Didn’t finish Harry Potter, was more enamored with the Chronicles of Narnia.

Fairytale do have a happily ever after, yet that also beg one question. What happens after happily ever after? The reader can only see a certain timeframe of the story to inferred that the characters was happy at a certain point in time, but it might not end that same way at their death. There is also no glimpse of the mundane life after the end. There might be an epilogue, but that doesn’t give much fact of the last ending for the main protagonist(s). Were they truly happy after the ending or is it something the reader must imagined to feel happy after finishing the journey of the characters? The narrator writes “The End” at the ending and it is, as the story has ended. Yet if the characters were living, the end merely implies the ending to one part of their life, the rest is left to the imagination. After all, someone must live to write that tale.

Concerning any psychological disorders, the APA always has a difficult job of choosing what disorders should or should not be added to the DSM IV, the psychological guidelines. No matter the constant research, there is always outliers to human behavior so there might be theories, but not laws. Even now, psychologists and psychiatrists are still debating the spectrum of narcissism. Does someone embody Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or are they merely on the spectrum, e. g. egoistic and weary of looking/being vulnerable? Difficult to diagnosed.

GL, I am really not sure that love, or rather, its beginning is a conscious act. If it was, there would be many more happy marriages based on pure compatibility derived from tests and checklists. Matt and I discussed it in depth as well as Michelle and I.

Apologies, should have elaborated on that.

No one person can write that they love anyone upon first meeting, not even mothers/fathers to their new born. Like, possibly, but not love. It is possible to build upon that ‘like’ to achieve love, which many couples do. But after a few years of marriage, when the chemical wears off, people start to look at things objectively. And then they start to examined whether they are happy with their partner and more often than not, they find themselves dissatisfied. Given the context, they might start to change the things around them and their partner will probably support the change. But what if after all the changes, the partner start to feel dissatisfied in turn? So they change things again and again (e. g. career, geographic location), but not matter what, one partner is always dissatisfied. But that dissatisfaction lies not in their partner, but in their life. Yet no matter the change they make, they couldn’t achieve a basic level of comfort for both and the only way to do so would be a long distance relationship. But not a lot people can do long distance and make their relationship work, they’re just not cut out for that. So they separate because compromising didn’t work. The separation was not done because they didn’t love each other, but it was because they love each other that they separated. Each person respected the other’s person need for a life that makes them happy, even if that life wasn’t one together.

Mr. Katz puts it perfectly. There’s little chance of getting 10 and 10 in both chemistry and compatibility. You might love someone, but that doesn’t mean they won’t annoy you at any time of the day. But no matter how piss off you are with them, you still choose them because there’s a level of comfortability you feel with them. And they decided that they feel comfortable with you too. Thing is, it’s not that you need them, but that you want them. So once you’ve made the decision to commit after deciding if you want to be with them, how do you choose to love that person?

Do you believe that I should have continued to see those men if I had felt at least neutral towards them and not the aversion / repulsion that I did? They say that if you don’t feel chemistry, it means that the person is biologically, on the physical and animal level not good for you gene-wise, not good for procreation, like a distant cousin may be.

The concept of seeking a partner that can provide for you depends entirely on you. If you’re looking to start a family in the future and would be the one to stay at home, then it would be wise to look for someone who can bring in the money, though it’s not always necessary. If you like being pampered by your partner with gifts and treats, then look for someone who knows his finance and works in that boundary. Marrying for convenience and economic status was a societal rule in the eras before due to high mortality rate and little working opportunities for women. So the women had to be careful in who they married since they will mostly be depending on that men to provide for them and their children. There are exceptions, but still, it was uncommon. Now that women can work, there is few need to find a partner that can provide for you. Even single moms can find methods to work with the system. So if you want someone who can pamper you, then put that on your list of criteria for partners.

In terms of chemistry, physical chemistry is important if you are anything, but asexual. Though aesthetics can also be important too. Wanting and being able to kiss someone makes it easier to want to date, and chemistry can be developed if you are open to that. But chemistry is important to you so seriously judge if you are comfortable with that person. You have good intuition, but what kind of information is your intuition drawing from? Is it drawing from your romantic idealism, your bias or your criteria? But judging someone as a series of data can skew your perspective since it doesn’t allow you to see that person as human, but a checklist of sort. Though if you don’t like something about that person, then you don’t like it so best to move on.

Take these advices with a grain of salt. Marrying for love is a new concept so it can be inferred that the relationship industry is new too. So while scientists are still trying to determined what is ‘chemistry’ between two people, relationship coaches are mostly going off of their knowledge of what makes a relationship. But that knowledge might not work for everyone. What works for one might not work for another so you’ll have to understand the context of your relationship and the people involved. Even then, if one person is half-hearted about it, then it might not work since they probably won’t choose to wholeheartedly commit to the relationship. And people are rarely taught how to be responsible for their actions in a relationship. People are rarely taught how to be vulnerable with others.

But you shouldn’t compromise in terms of commitment. It’s either they will choose to be with you or they don’t. Take the maybes as ‘no, they won’t commit’ because that maybe is a method of ensuring that they can leave as soon as they feel trapped or vulnerable or unsure. Take their actions are either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because actions does speak louder than words given that speaking is easy, but doing is difficult. Of course, you can also choose to wait, but you should also understand that you can also walk away. What you choose to compromise on is entirely up to you, but you also don’t have to compromise on everything. You have your needs, and your potential partner have theirs. Between what you can compromise on and what you can’t, you work on the middle ground of that ‘can’ with them.

You are complete/whole as is, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be lonely. Human are social creatures, science has proven that. To wish for the warmth of another is a human thing, so it’s fine to let yourself be human.