Fitting If Differently Equal

Much of my youth remained unfulfilled because I believed my 'perfect partner' would be my 'perfect equal', a person identical to me in interests and desires, and then when the reality of humanity eventually forced me to give up this idea I spent some time believing I might attain sufficient intimacy piecemeal. I discovered the problem with piecemeal intimacy quickly because the lack of time and effort spent on sufficient symbols clearly resulted in insufficient paths of expression from interior to interior.

But it took time to learn identical interests and interior spaces, or even just largely common interests and interior spaces, is not the same thing as intimacy, though such commonality may afford similar starting symbols and so more easily facilitate the communication and understanding passing from interior to interior that is intimacy. Thus in relationship mathematics one plus one does equal one, but those ones need not be equal and identical in shape, personality or interior, and the fitting we feel in a relationship does not depend upon 'equal' as identical in nature, or even similar, or even congruent. Just as there are different kinds of equality, there are different kinds of fitting matches; a left and right glove match, but so do two left gloves, or different color gloves is the same size, or vice versa, or even the proverbial hand and glove.

Difference from other kinds of matches does not necessarily mean less functional, or less quality, or less happiness, than the popular ideal; if the sense of relationship fit and functionality is retained, their relationship is just different. Besides, since there are certainly some who have the popular ideal of high partner commonality but who aren't very happy, we should likely remember, whether our relationship is differently handed (or gloved) or not, 'what works works.'