The happiness of every woman lies in nothing other than family. The most important question with which women and girls turn to psychologists, astrologers, tarot readers and psychics is precisely this. When will this happen and most importantly, how to understand, how to “identify” that this is exactly the person with whom she will be able to start a family, children, and reveal her true female potential?
These questions also interest me, therefore, with the support of specialists in the field of esotericism and practical psychology, we were able to formulate and define the main criteria for this “identification.” It should be noted that the information given below is fair in a general sense, but each individual and couple has its own characteristics. This is also very important to keep in mind! Well, let's look at everything in more detail.
"Scientific approach"
From the point of view of practicing psychologists, it is fundamentally wrong to look for your ideal man. After all, before you find it, you must first find yourself! Therefore, first of all, you need to determine your own Self, and then, based on this, form the image of a suitable partner. Now do you understand why advice like “doesn’t suit your horoscope” or “not your type of appearance” is nonsense?
And in general, all kinds of advice from others should be treated with great caution, because they can have a fairly strong negative emotional impact. Don’t listen when they tell you: “he loves you very much, he has so many advantages, you won’t find anyone better for yourself...”
How to understand that this is your person? Your destiny, your love...
Guest 11/15/2016
Georgy Sergatsky
YERALASH, OR THE MANY FACES OF SEXUALITY (From the book “The Underside of Love or the Experience of Trepanation of Sin...”)
Are we not structured like notes in music - one for the other and not similar to each other? P. Shelley “Sexologists often choose their profession because they are inspired by the huge range of intimate behavior of people” (J. Drenth). “Different individuals everywhere have not only quantitatively different levels of sexual needs, but also qualitatively different, irreducible hierarchies of personal life values.” “Many subtle gradations of sexual-erotic experiences, for example, pleasure and pleasure... still await their psychological operationalization. The concept of intimacy is poorly developed” (N. Simonenko). “...The syntax of sexual verbs reveals to us two very different models of sexuality. The first reminds us of the content of a course on ethics and psychology of family life, as well as guides for newlyweds and other sanctioned views on this issue: sex is a joint activity, which is engaged in by two equal partners by mutual consent, the details are not specified. The second model is darker, a cross between mammalian sociobiology and Dworkinian feminism: sex is a violent act, instigated by an active male participant and directed at a passive female participant, exploiting and damaging the latter. Both models reflect human sexuality in its full range of manifestations, and if language is our guide, then the first model is suitable for conversation in public, while the second is a taboo, widely recognized in private life” (S. Pinker). “At the same time, our knowledge of the world is no longer limited to the experience of one life – it is passed on from generation to generation.” “But, having learned to share our models of the material world, we discovered that other people’s models differ to some extent from our own” (K. Frith). Examples of the first model in the spirit: “love is a “great God” (Plato) or, at least, a “whim of the body” (C. de Laclos). Attraction, pleasure, tenderness and even self-sacrifice are long-awaited gifts for both soul and body. In short: “Once upon a time there was a man and there was a woman. And they loved each other” (D. Jerome). But feelings are fickle, and therefore costs are inevitable. Almost all world literature and other communications and communicants are engaged in this. Despite the fact that the topic has been beaten to death, and the pop recipes from psychology - “how to become happy” - have set the teeth on edge, there are no fewer unhappy people. A man's description of a woman's feelings. “Oh, what a huge difference I felt between the expression of raw animal passion that arises from the simple carnal copulation of the two sexes, and the sweetest excitement, the rush of delight that crowns mutual passionate love, in which two hearts, united by tender and faithful ties, beat in exalted joy.” . “Pleasures, whether kings or beggars indulge in them, no matter how strong they are, still remain vulgar pleasures; for only love can give them sophistication and sublimity” (D. Cleland). Romantic. “Love is going beyond the limits of one’s “I” and merging with the beautiful that lies in another person” (P. Shelley). Naturalistic. “My sweet little slut Nora, I did as you asked, my dirty little girl, and came twice when I read your letter. I'm happy that you love getting your ass fucked. I remember that night when I loved you from behind for so long. My thing stayed inside you for hours, I entered you from below again and again, I felt your huge fat sweaty buttocks on my stomach, I saw your hot face and crazy eyes” (D. Joyce). Animal. “Sexual love is essentially not love, but only a natural instrumental attraction” (M. Gershenzon). Life-affirming. “Love is not a plaintive moan, but a triumphant creaking of bed springs” (S. Pearlman). Intriguing. “You give your love a name... From lust to love the road is long” (Jalal-ed-Din). “We often hear the word sex, and how people get drunk from it... Yes, but there is a big difference... When they love you, and when they have..." (AND ABOUT THIS). Dramatic. Love is when no is attracted to net, not knowing that there is no (S. Krzhizhanovsky). Ironic. What beatings are is known, but what love is – no one has yet thought of that” (G. Heine). “If there’s even one decent word in there, it’s because I looked through it” (M. Twain). Hedonistic. “Love, however, is the highest pleasure, bliss, a feeling of infinity” (L. Feuerbach). “...The dean also likes Horseradish enormously in his liking and taste” (Priapian book). Physiological. “The male genitourinary system works according to one principle: the kidneys produce urine, which goes into the bladder. If it overflows, it needs to be drained somewhere. And it doesn’t matter where: in the toilet or on the neighbor’s fence.)))) It’s the same with sperm...” (S. Bikeev). Enthusiastic, feminine. “...In love everything is explosive, obsessive, irrational, miraculous, intoxicating, dreamy. Loving is long-term work, trust, communication, commitment, pain, pleasure” (S. Hight). Empty, feminine. “Love is not just an emotion that people feel towards other people, but a complex that binds together the emotions of two or more people; this is a special form of emotional reciprocity” (A. Baer). “Sex is physiological, but love is not. Love has nothing to do with the physical body. It is connected with the etheric body, but if it is not realized, then the physical body can also suffer. The needs of not only the physical body, but also the etheric body must be satisfied. He has his own hunger; he also needs food. Such food is love” (M. Stafeeva, yogi). Rational. “When a violent and uncontrollable desire flares up in you, pour out the accumulated liquid into any body” (lat.). “Pleasure is useful” (D. Easton, K.-A. List). Around and around. Love is just “a sexual feeling expressed poetically” (R. Akutogawa), as well as “a feeling of gratitude for pleasure (O. Balzac). “Angels call it heavenly joy, devils call it hellish torment, people call it love” (G. Heine). Exaggerated. Sexual instinct is “a universal source of universal pleasure” (M. Foucault). He “guides all mental and physical life” (G. Kaan). Comprehensive. “There is love - passion and love - mercy, the highest form of mercy. There is feigned, egoistic, illusory, ephemeral, unhappy, hopeless, deceived, angelic, platonic, narcissistic, courtly, selfless, ardent, crazy, sensual, instinctive, inspired, gracious, magical, ineffable, seraphic, ecstatic, mystical, universal, self-destructive , painful, martyrdom, paranoid, unrequited, calculating, animalistic, predatory, vacation, resort, beach love...” (I. Garin). God-creative. “Since man was created according to the law of “sexual demorphism,” that is, he belongs to either the male or female sex, then this sexual demorphism absorbs from the depths of the spirit that primordial need for love, which is the essence of man” (V. Zenkovsky). Mystical. “...Love seems to me to be too terrible a divine secret to talk about” (D. Merezhkovsky). Academic. “Love includes life-affirming instincts and drives of the “living flesh” and is even unthinkable without them, either in its genesis or in essence (BSE). Examples of the second model are sexual intercourse is a crime, violence against a partner. Only physical humiliation of the object of love gives a person the opportunity to realize sexual feelings (according to Freud). Intimacy is the concealment of the shameful process of anal-genital defilement. Since the imagination is filled with blasphemous associations towards the partner in intercourse, this is hatred - the seamy side of love. By default, friendship between a man and a woman is at best possible based on enlightened cynicism. The topic causes rejection even on the part of sexologists and psychoanalysts who, understanding the presence of obvious contradictions in sexual love, bashfully hide behind the word “ambivalence.” The question is half the answer. “You can film a crime and win a Pulitzer Prize. Sexual intercourse is not prohibited by law. He's nice. Why is it a crime to remove it?” (M. Forman is the director of the film “The People vs. Larry Flynt”). Question answer. “Would people bother with sex if you took away their dreams of humiliation and revenge?” (D. Steid). Prosaic. “Love...a sublime creature on a par with the basest one...” (P. Mantegazza). “It seems that a person keeps the deepest secret about these affects, and an insurmountable feeling of shame prevents him from reporting them” (S. Ferenczi). Rhymed. “You live in the world, striving for the pleasures of the flesh, But what brings you pleasure is dirt” (Al-Maari). Erotic. The embodiment of Eros is nothing more than... - a cherished, greedy place hidden somewhere in women or elastic, energetic and subjugating in men. In the dirtiest part of the body hides the promise of dissolution in the inexpressible sweetness of desperate shamelessness. Paradoxical. “The reverse side of love is hate” (Japanese). “Natural love is...complicated hatred” (C. Lewis). Sargent. “...Loveless love below the belt” (M. Murzina) differs from any love (one must assume that it comes, again, from places not above the belt) only in the way of expressing anal-genital “gratitude.” Sabbat. “Love and shit, shit and love, love is shit; Once you put an equal sign between love and shit, the end of the world is guaranteed” (V. Platova). Edifying. “Do not forget that lust belongs to the sphere of devilish power” (I. Drenth). And if “...the lust of a goat is God’s gift” (I. Ten), then for some reason God needs the devil! Selfish. “...The love of lust presupposes... a real need, thanks to which... - you are good for me” (John Paul II). “...Down with the formula of the long past “I love you” - let it be replaced by the only real one: “I want you” (P. Brückner).. Homosexuality. “Love is just a dirty trick that is played on us solely for the continuation of the human race” (S. Maugham). Caring. “The sexual act involves the greatest degradation of a woman” (O. Weininger). “For all our peasant atrocities, I would erect a monument to a woman” (I. Guberman). Mysterious. “A man’s face is deception and pretense, but his butt is sincere - because it cannot be controlled. The butt will always be our unconscious, animal part; it will not be able to deceive us, just as it will not be able to hide its true nature, impulses and torments. The butt is the invisible side, the reverse side of our personality…” (J.-L. Ennig), “the Devil’s hole”, where “the most intimate secrets” are kept (M. Tournier). Evil. By concealing his main deed, a person admits that he is a scoundrel by the very nature of the sexual act. “The man in it is disgusting, and the pig is beautiful, although he remains just a pig. He is an artist of sewerage, a poet of squalor” (M. Yakub about one of his men). Repentant. “Arthur's soul flew around his body in circles and tossed around, without any particular desire to enter. She did not have the best memories associated with this container...” (D. Adams). A conscientious person “at the sight of girls immediately feels like a scoundrel” (G. Malkin). Prudent. “Love is a secret: if you want to keep it, don’t tell anyone about it, not even the one you love” (K. Melikhan). “If you want to be happy in love, never think about it” (V. Pelevin). And finally, objective. “Love is everything, and it affects everything, and everything can be said about it, and everything can be attributed to it” (D. Bruno). “No matter how you approach the problem of the erotic, you always have the feeling that you did it very one-sidedly” (L. Andreas - Salome). Thus, “The mind accepted everything, but the heart only a particle. Who to believe? (L. Boleslavsky). Only for yourself! In any case, this is how we can understand Lacan, the most advanced psychiatrist, who declared: “As soon as you start talking about love, you immediately turn into an imbecile.”1 The only way out is “don’t give up on your desire” (J. Lacan). Bottom line. “Love is everything, and that’s all we know about it” (E. Dickinson). “Love is such a paradoxical matter that exists in the form of a variety of forms and ghosts, about which you can say whatever you want, and this will most likely be true” (F. Tellis). “Love is a real tangle of paradoxes. It exists in so many different forms and variations that you can say whatever you want about it - and, most likely, you will be right” (G. Fink). “In the study of ideas it must be remembered that the demand for practical clarity arises from a sentimental feeling that shrouds the confusion of fact in a fog” (A. Whitehead). “How we experience the world is how we act.” “Every individual has views on what is and what is not.” “Many people create in their imagination what they experience. Some are created to believe according to their experience” (R. Laing). “Every person perceives reality in his own way” (V. Rudnev). “The subjective is the whole inner world of sensations, ideas, emotions, impulses, anticipations and perceptions, memories, fantasies and images, bodily awareness, decision-making, association, establishing relationships, planning, and so on and so on” (D. Bugental ). “Our life experiences may be the result of direct sensory perception, but the depth and capacity of it, and, consequently, their interpretation is different for everyone.” “Although nature has endowed us with the same senses, we often look at the same events differently” (K. Robinson). “Mind and spirit are present in sick psychological life as well as in healthy ones. But interpretations of this kind must be devoid of any causal significance. All they can do is throw light on a certain content and introduce it into a certain context” (K. Jaspers). “The use of figurative-associative thinking in ordinary word usage is also called not thinking, but feeling.” “People tend to explain by “their feelings” everything that they do not understand in themselves. And the more a person does not understand about himself, the more often he talks about his feelings” (Psychologos). In other words, “whatever you say “is” about, it actually is not” (A. Korzybski). As in philosophy: “You, sage, consider a fool despicable, But you yourself are a fool In the opinion of a fool” (Marzban-name). “By the beginning of the 19th century, Immanuel Kant, the “sage from Königsberg,” put an end to traditional metaphysics, at the same time creating the need for modern psychology with his now classical definition: reality is not known by us directly, we only know our internal perception of it. He did not say that external reality does not exist, we just can know it exclusively subjectively” (D. Hollis). After all, “the stimuli entering the psyche from inside the body” (S. Freud), and from the outside, are the same. “...Love does not lend itself to objective scientific research, even using those rather non-rigorous approaches that we call clinical science and psychoanalysis. The basis of science is its ability to predict outcomes. Love is unpredictable. The interaction of the forces that shape it occurs in the subjective sphere of the individual’s psyche, about which science has only approximate ideas. Therefore, when we want to get information about love, we do not study scientific literature, but rather read fiction” (S. Levine). “Appealing to Freud’s conceptual apparatus, without a doubt, creates a convenient field for psychoanalytic exercises, but, reducing the image of a person exclusively to the analysis of his internal structure, it ignores the rich palette of other stimuli. By and large, a person cannot be reduced to the powerful plot of psychoanalytic studies and is much richer than any generalizing scheme” (A. Yastrebov). “Ethical difficulties in psychoanalysis arise already from Freud’s opposition of public morality to the “immoral” sexual desires of the subject. This conflict, according to Freud, is responsible for neuroticism. In the 1920s, however, such a contrast became ambiguous for him. In relation to the subject with morality, an “internal” mediator appears - the super-ego instance” (V. Mazin), that same shame. “Being never coincides with itself and therefore is inexhaustible in its meaning and significance” (M. Bakhtin). “No person who is at all familiar with the problems with which he has been dealing can fail to realize what an enormous concentration of scientific research and reflection was required before even one sentence in the language of mathematical functional equations could be formulated in relation to the mental people's lives" (L. Binswanger). “We find ourselves in the field of the humanities, which, unlike the natural sciences, are not amenable to precise measurements, but the objective reality of which we will be able to approach through our subjective understanding. This does not mean at all that we question the scientific character of the humanities; we are simply dealing with two different scientific paradigms. In the humanities it is often possible to describe certain processes quite accurately. On the other hand, in the natural sciences many processes are described only approximately, as in modern atomic physics only with a certain probability” (P. Kutter). The reason for the unscientific humanitarian sphere is in the language, in the uncertainty of the meanings of words. In the Humanities, there is not accuracy, but “multi -range understanding” (wikipedia.org). “The fact that Freud, in a very broad sense, understands sexuality, does not fit into what the physiologist understands by sexual attraction, and, moreover, that the psychologist, philosopher or theologist is understood by the word love” (D. Kristev ). “In a sense of love, it is more difficult to talk about love than life and death. Interpretation of life and death by authors who adhere to various philosophical views, representing different cultural contexts and having different personal experience, of course, are very different enough, but at least there are no disagreements about the subject of discussion - what is meant when it means when They talk about life or death. The situation is different with love - what is called by this word is much more diverse and not always compatible with each other, and the language here interferes with which helps ”(D. Leontyev). “About love, no one in the world of faithful words can in love with this wind silently and invisible” (R. Burns). “From the point of view of philosophy, the soul is an abyss in which the meanings are born from. Even if they appear, then not in the form in which they were originally, but in a turned form. A person, as a bodily creature, translates meaning through a language that is bodily and limited by the system of signs. It is the latter that imposes a restriction on the meaning that the abyss reveals to us ”(V. Trynkin). “The language of the more“ young ”formations is the language, the expressive means of which, despite the rich poetic and epistolary heritage, are very inferior to the wealth of emotional experiences that arise in love.” “The shortcomings of our description, most likely, would have disappeared if we could replace psychological terms with physiological or chemical. They also only make up a figurative language, but a language that is familiar to us for a much longer time and, possibly, is also simpler ”(Z. Freud). “We live in language, not in the country” (E. Choran). “The concept of something and this is something is not the same” (S. Boldyrev, D. Kolesov). "... thoughts and feelings cannot be identified with the words themselves as such." In addition, “in the language there is a model of the sex of people (more precisely, two models), as well as the concepts of intimacy, power and justice”, but “language as a window in human nature” itself introduces individual distortions ”(S. Pinker). “Really the semiotics of love, being extremely rich in improvisation, variations and combinatorics of the constituent of their“ dictionary ”, is very limited in the arsenal of iconic forms used in practice” (A. Flier). “Our trouble is not that people know too little, but that they know a lot of what is not true” (M. Twain). Apparently, the desire and ability to know and express yourself is one or another degree of sensitivity plus tools obtained by education in terms of development of concepts. “People are primarily followed by authority, and it can be conquered only by doing something that lends itself to their understanding” (Z. Freud). “Among all special sections of medicine, the positions of psychiatry are most vulnerable, and this industry itself enjoys the smallest authority. This is largely due to the fact that, unlike other sections of medicine, psychiatry has huge difficulties with the development of a stable and agreed diagnostic system ”(F. Tallis). “The human language is generally unfair to love pleasures. As if on purpose, the words expressing this passion are ambiguous and do not declare their meaning directly. They seem to hide in the shade, remaining in it vague, difficult to guessed silhouettes. Extend your hand to them, try to impatiently grit in a fist - and like a shadow of euredics melt light visions, flying away with a sad cry into an impenetrable darkness ”(S. Proleev). “Words are fools who blindly follow as soon as they indicated where to go. But thoughts are hungry, living in silence; They are rarely visible ... ”(Z. Sessun). "Let's get back to reality!" (O. Balzac). “Strictly speaking, no one sees the reality as it is. If this happened, then the day of the great insight would be the last day of life on Earth. Nevertheless, we believe that our perception adequately reflects reality and allows you to open the skeleton of the world, great tectonic folds through the ghostly fog. Many, perhaps, are even inaccessible to many, this is also not available: they are content with words and hints, like somnambuls, wander through life, limiting themselves to a set of conventions. What we call genius, in fact, is only a rarely encountered wonderful ability to expand the lumen in this fog of fantasies and personally see a new, trembling from the piercing nudity of the scraps of recent reality ”(H. Ortega-I-Gasset). According to the Terminism, "general concepts are words that do not have the appropriate objective reality." From a scientific point of view, the first requirement of which, starting from concepts, is a clear definition of the boundaries of the existence of something, such words as passion, Eros, lust, love are far from certainty and therefore unscientific. The humanitarian sphere is saturated with such concepts. “The literary way of reproducing reality is absolutely reliable only for the writer, although sometimes we understand the author better than he himself” (I. Kant). “The more the concepts of the community are distracted, the more the opposite to it can be found: therefore, the more arbitrariness and, moreover, the less immanent movement of concepts” (R. Lotz) can be here. If we take into account the countless abilities of perception and assessment to feel and think of their inner and external worlds, different significance, as well as the transformation of their feelings and thoughts in various circumstances, then the causes of chaos in the interpretation of the same phenomena will become clear. “The greatest possible mistake in this area ... - The idea that all other people are exactly the same as we, and if not, then they should become the same ... no sexual rules, laws or ideals do not embrace into an equal extent of intravert and extrovert, neurotics and a stable individual; The food of one person can be poison for another. With an understanding of this, mental health begins ”(D. Wilson). Those “special difficulties” associated with the lack of words and the uncertainty of their meanings arise here. It is also not possible to describe emotions with the language of other sciences. "How much more complicated than physics!" “As you are going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics, what is first love” (A. Einstein). “Psychology is an expression with the words of what cannot be expressed” (D. Golsourcy). “Particular difficulties arise in the construction of language models of the deepest intimate feelings, since they are not amenable to complete and absolute interpretation” (F. Squerderood). “The dictionary related to the field of love is so poor that poets have to choose between cliches, obscenities and euphemisms” (Z. Hamburger). “Although psychologists tried to explain the usual, nonpathological love, they were constantly forced to describe love with the language of poets and scholastics” (F. Tallis). Add to this chaos the distortion inherent in our interpretations, which people introduce in order to conceal true intentions, and get a communicative jerk. “Love is so distorted, profanated and vulgarized in the fallen human life that new words need to be found” (N. Berdyaev). “It is universally felt that for some reason the terms of psychiatry and psychoanalysis cannot express what is“ really implied ”(R. Laring). “People would get rid of half of their troubles if they agreed on the meaning of words” (R. Descartes). “A person’s theory is astistical if it falls into a description of a person as a machine or organic system of natural processes.” “The purpose of education to compensate for the shortcomings of our instinctive ways to think about the physical and social world” (S. Pinker). “Psychology as a scientific discipline has existed only a little more than a hundred years. I am sure that over time, psychologists will find what to measure and develop devices that will help us make these dimensions very accurate ”(K. Frit). “We will use the term genital excitement when it comes to a direct genital reaction: swelling of the penis due to blood flow, which leads to an erection in men and the corresponding erectual reactions in women with the appearance of lubrication in the vagina and erection of the nipples. The term sexual excitement seems to be best reflecting the process as a whole, including specific cognitive aspects and subjective experience of sexual response, genital excitation and orgasm, as well as the corresponding mechanisms of the autonomic nervous system and facial expressions as part of what Freud called the “discharge process "(O. Kernberg). “Freud saw in love expression or a kind of sublimation of sexual instinct. He considered sexual attraction as a result of painful stress, chemical in nature, which requires discharge. The Austrian psychiatrist emphasized that the fact of sexual needs in humans and animal biologists express in biology that they have to “sexual attraction”. At the same time, an analogy with attraction to food and hunger is allowed. The designation is not available in the folk language corresponding to the word "hunger"; Science uses the word "libido" (P. Gurevich). E. Fromm replaced the word “instinct” with “organic attraction”. We would call the root cause of love the word “itching”, bearing in mind that “the love feeling is due to the same biochemical reactions (increasing the secretion of adrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, sex hormones, endorphins)” (T. percent). Conclusion. Generations and the so -called objectivity in the psychological world of individuals are impossible. The different sensitivity and degree of development of concepts, as well as the poverty of linguistic means, especially in the intimate sphere, where the shame of the act itself, moreover, does not have frankness, exclude the possibility of a complete understanding of what is actually implied. The scatter in the interpretation of the implied and the insecurity of the results indicate that psychology is not scientific discipline. “Deep psychology refers to art and humanities, but not to natural sciences or medicine” (from circulation (1996) of the former president of the American Psychiatric Association Alan Stone), “expressing a common opinion”. “Psychoanalysis will remain as a narrative with which we understand life and think about it as a spiritual adventure” (J. Paris).
Imbecility is a mental underdevelopment, an average degree of mental retardation (oligophrenia) between idiocy and debility" (Dictionary of Foreign Words).
Answer
"Energy"
We are not discussing science, but feelings and sensations. It just so happens that women are creatures with a subtle mental organization and developed intuition. As a result, it is the representatives of the fair half of humanity who can use magic and rituals with maximum productivity.
Therefore, they are often absorbed in their own fantasies and desires. When meeting a man, a woman’s internal state changes: the level of hormones changes, a huge number of thoughts and desires appear... This is where this trait of seeing and thinking about something that actually does not exist arises. If you try to abstract from this and listen to yourself, you can feel whether this is your man.
You can identify your person by the following feelings and emotions:
- a feeling of lightness, comfort, calmness and spiritual harmony when you are nearby;
- the feeling that you have actually known each other for many years;
- the desire to show your favorite places, to “share” your stay in them;
- the desire not just to have dinner in a restaurant, walk and have sex with this person, but to do something special with him: just sit together in silence, admire the stars or something else;
- the desire to touch, hug, or take hands more often;
- conversation is easy and relaxed for hours on end on any topic;
- the desire to share your deepest secret.
He made you romantic again
Next to your loved one, you want to sing, dance, climb into his arms, close his eyes with your palms. In a word, become a romantic girl again, even if you are a business woman, an iron woman with steel ropes instead of nerves. Next to every man, a woman will be able to feel like a sweet, romantic girl again. And if you feel this feeling, record it and enjoy life.
https://www.instagram.com/louiblog/
"Smell"
Do not underestimate this factor; it is actually much more important than it seems at first glance. Now we will not talk about the smell of sweat, fumes, cheap cigarettes, which cause hostility in everyone. We are talking about the individual natural smell of each of us. A person can be as beautiful as you like and suit you in many ways, except for smell.
If he constantly irritates you and evokes unpleasant associations and emotions, then this will ultimately lead to separation. You shouldn’t hope and try to get used to the smell that irritates you, as you will only delay the time before breaking up.
Your happiness is his happiness and vice versa
Grief divided by two is half grief, happiness multiplied by two is two happy people! And a man who rejoices at your happiness is truly a man sent to you by the universe. And when the moments of your loved one’s happiness mean a lot to you, it means that two halves of one whole have met.
https://www.instagram.com/louiblog/
"Time"
Also one of the main factors. Many people are familiar from their own experience with cases when, during the candy-bouquet period, a man behaves simply ideally, and after a while there are fewer and fewer pleasant moments, and more rudeness and insults, which makes it simply impossible to communicate further. So don’t flatter yourself ahead of time.
In general, while working on this issue, my colleagues and I agreed that there cannot be universal rules for determining “your” person. All criteria given in the article may vary to one degree or another. Some will consider much of this insignificant, while others, on the contrary, will add a dozen more criteria of their own. Everything is so individual. I, and probably you too, know couples who live happily for many years despite not being suitable for each other according to these criteria. They just have their own, others.
But people themselves change over the years, as well as their values, views, and principles. Therefore, over time, “your” man can turn into “someone else’s”. I often hear complaints that I married one person, but now he has become someone else. This happens, no one is immune from this.
And in conclusion, I will give one instructive story. In the first stages of relationship development, I advise you to use one technique that was told to me by a friend of mine, a psychotherapist from her own practice. The advice is this: at the beginning of a relationship, it will be useful for you and your partner to be in an unusual, uncomfortable environment. While in it, listen to yourself and try to understand whether the person annoys you at some points, how comfortable you are around him.
This is a situation where a girl called her boyfriend into the forest to pick mushrooms. This is where everything fell into place in just a few hours. The girl was annoyed by his manner of eating stewed meat straight from the can with a knife, trying to be the first to pick a mushroom, and so on. But before this episode, they went on dates safely for a month, and everything was great. This girl later met and married another man. So don't be afraid to face the truth and be happy!
Can feelings deceive?
Unfortunately, many women come to the conclusion that under the influence of strong feelings they are capable of doing stupid things. Some note that they had previously been cruelly mistaken about their chosen one, and then did not know how to fill the resulting spiritual emptiness. The statement that feelings can deceive is not entirely true. You can make a mistake about a specific person, not know him completely, but not in your attitude towards him.
Over the years, disappointment can come, a feeling of meaninglessly lived days. However, this does not devalue past experience or make it less meaningful or interesting. It is necessary to develop intuition, follow your inner voice, and have the desire to build strong relationships.
If a man suits a woman in all respects, then she won’t think twice about it. When a girl herself is committed to a serious relationship, she will inevitably notice someone who will meet her goals and be able to share her life. Most people choose their companions based on individual experience and intuitive vision.
