Thanks for your response and investing a little time to clarify your ideas.
Can you explain what "soul level" is? That is not a self-obvious term, so it's not clear what you mean.
As in physical brain difference. And thus dictating your very "soul".
Well, for my input: I would personally avoid the word "soul." If you are talking about "brain," then use the word "brain." Most people define "soul" differently (in the spiritual sense), and there is no quantifiable definition of the word "soul."
Say "physical brain differences." It clarifies what you mean.
"Satisfying results for whom? You?"
For everyone, my intent is to have no bias so i can see clearly what truly is the most satisfying rather than chasing illusions like majority of us mortals.
I try to not have bias either, from a very early age. Unfortunately, we are all biased; and basing a theory solely on our own experience without accepting varied feedback from others leaves us more biased than not.
"This isn't making sense either. What is the soul level flaw you're referring to? You dismissed a same-sex relationship for yourself, okay, so I get that much."
Same gender relationship appeal is entirely in imagination, theres nothing that makes it different for any better, except, theres difference which makes it worse for everyone. And this is a truth of our specie. And to be clear, i do find the idea fascinating, only im dissatisfied with reality not living up to the imagination.
Why do you think the reality does not live up to the imagination? There are many many people involved in long-term same-sex relationships, who found other-sex relationships MISERABLE, and the same-sex relationship in practice (not theory) is actually very fulfilling. Are you suggesting that your limited experience (compared to the copious number of same-sex relationships out there) somehow trumps their positive experiences?
To me, that is the definition of "bias." You are not required to enjoy a same-sex union or benefit from it, you must do what is best for yourself; but you can't simply write off people who have a different experience than you have had.
Say, when males reach 8 weeks in their mothers womb, nature makes us mentally handicapped and thats the male female brain level difference im talking of. Its designed so each compensates the other, thus our nature isnt allowed to function properly if we mate with same gender.
There is differentiation that occurs in utero around 6-8 weeks (based on hormone production being triggered), yes, and it impacts brain development, but it is not a binary wash. IOW, the outcome is not 100% male extreme / 100% female extreme. Among individuals, the hormones differ in quantity, length of effect, individual response to the hormones, etc. So what you get is hopefully a baby that appears male or female and can reproduce adequately, but aside from that very very broad binary, you get lots of variations / spectrum of gender impact across the population.
Which means that while some women might be able to bear children just fine, they might in personality be more "masculine" than some males who can produce sperm and impregnate women. And vice versa.
So it is far more complicated than you realize, and there are far more "valid" combinations that can work for people regardless of where their personalities can fall across the gendered spectrum.
In addition, the hormonal wash occuring during a particular window of time can influence a baby's orientation later in life. Glad you brought up the "hormone" thing; it's not "just a choice."
Finally, in any relationship, as you suggest, I think people try to couple with someone who brings any missing qualities to the relationship. However, I don't think blatant physical gender delineates those collections of qualities. Husbands and wives in an other-sexed union can contribute both masculine and feminine qualities to the overall relationship -- the husband for example, might be more nurturing, and the wife might be more assertive and take charge. It's all based on their personalities. The same thing occurs in same-sex unions -- partners can contribute both masculine and feminine qualities they possess, to the union, to make it stronger.
You're just looking at genitalia, not at people. I think the purpose you describe can be fulfilled just fine regardless of gender, depending on the individual personalities of the people involved.
"What relationships? Failed relationships? Those relationships haven't failed yet, so obviously they think the relationship can meet their needs and learn later it won't. So in the short-term or on the surface, it's obvious that the relationship meets a need in them... even if that need ends up being false or less important than another deeper need."
just cause people think its a good idea doesnt make it one. One example: AAAA + ABBA relationships are favoured by many, but as i observe this sexual relationship represent more like friendship than real mates, and these always fail in the end cause they werent made for each other.
Lol. Did you really just say, "They tell me they are happy, but I don't think they should be because it doesn't make sense to me, so they musn't be"?
"They take what seems best to them at the time. That is what we ALL do, as none of us know if what we current think is right is actually wrong and we're just ignorant of what is better."
or you could study and become aware like me.
Lol. Did you really just say, "The fact that you disagree with me means you're wrong. I hope you one day come around and learn what I know and become as enlightened as I am"?
Ive had enough mistakes due ignorance, ill accept no more of that.
It's great to set goals for yourself. You can do it! I'll cheer you on.
You know, thats the fascinating thing about life, its possible to learn from the failings of _others_ too. You have only one life, and i suggest to not spend it failing.
Sure. I'll still be here when you're ready to move forward.
I try to knock myself back into Se and enjoy life for what it is).
