Find my Soulmate through the Law of Attraction

Beck, Martha. “Go Tell Alice,” part 2 of “The Love List,” in O! magazine, February 2008.
Dyer, Dr. Wayne. The Power of Intention—Learning to Co-Create Your World Your Way
(Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2004).
Hicks, Esther and Jerry. The Vortex: Where the Law of Attraction Assembles All Cooperative
Relationships (Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2009).
Hinkle, Terry. Plan Be: The ReMembering, Secrets of the Divine Feminine (Bloomington, IN:
Author House, 2007).
Losier, Michael J. Law of Attraction: The Science of Attracting More of What You Want and Less
of What You Don’t (Victoria, BC: Michael J. Losier, 2006).
Ponder, Catherine. Open Your Mind to Receive (Marina del Rey, CA: DeVorss & Company,
1983).
Tolle, Eckhart. A New Earth: Awakening to your Life’s Purpose (New York: Penguin, 2005).
Tolle, Eckhart. The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment (Novato, CA: New
World Library, 2004).
Zukav, Gary. The Heart of the Soul: Emotional Awareness (New York: Fireside, 1989).
164 Choose Him

Appendix A: Relationship Models with the Love of My Life

OUTDATED RELATIONSHIP MODEL EVOLVING RELATIONSHIP MODEL
Qualities: static, limited individual expression, restrictive
and highly defined roles and rules, resistance to
change, stale, stagnant
Role Driven and Survival Based
Qualities: dynamic, expansive individual expression,
renewing and re-creating, open to change, adaptable,
co-creative, high vitality
Choice Driven and Self-Expression Based
BATTLE of the SEXES HARMONIOUS RELATIONSHIPS
Repetitive cycle based on stereotyped roles and
behaviors resulting in disillusionment and limited
evolution, competition for upper hand, disrupted lives,
internal chaos, and loss of joy. Conflict-driven.
Mutually beneficial partnerships that value personal
potential and self-expression, marked by compatibility
in navigating through ebb and flow of life. Supportive,
caring partnerships focused on peace of mind and joy.
Cooperation-driven.
ROMANTIC FANTASY/CHEMISTRY ATTRACTION ROM ANTIC RE ALITY /ENERGETIC COMPATIBILITY
• Mate selection is based on temporary, hormonally
induced and lust-driven attraction
• Stereotypical attraction factors based on image,
surface attributes and perceptions
• Cultural and media-driven stereotypes of beauty
and desirability
• Initial passion and lust fuel unsustainable fantasy
roles, (i.e. knight in shining armor rescues princess
and they live happily “ever after”)
• Physical appearance (image) and external/surface
qualities predetermine standards of compatibility
• False assumption that long-term compatibility
will automatically follow chemical compatibility.
(Divorce statistics prove otherwise)
• Female is chosen by male
• Male decides and “surprises” female with
proposal (often under pressure from her)
Results in:
Limited available partner choices through hasty
judgmental exclusion of candidates; unsustainable
relationships.
• Mate selection is primarily based on harmonious
feelings and essence compatibility between
partners
• Lust and chemistry attraction is secondary to longterm
compatibility factors
• Beauty & desirability defined individually &
stereotypes are viewed as caricatures
• Reality-based roles and long-term compatibility
considerations take priority
• Long-term compatibility and energetic resonance
takes precedence over external and surface qualities
• Energetic compatibility (includes essence, core
desires, shared values, complementary lifestyles,
and ways of handling conflict, intimacy, and
communication)
• Coupling/marriage is a mutual decision
• Proposal ritual is a formality and celebration
Results in:
Expanded available partner choices through broader
selection criteria based on energetic compatibility;
sustainable relationships.

ROLES EQUAL PARTNER SHIP WITH THE LOVE OF MY LIFE


• Tightly defined roles by gender
• Masculine dominant / feminine submissive
• Masculine superior / feminine inferior
• Lack of autonomy and individual identity
• Restrictive rules for behavior that define one
another and actions viewed as a reflection on
each other; one’s identity is impacted by the
other’s behavior
• Money equals power only for masculine role;
money does not increase submissive role’s power
• Nurturer/submissive role has no defined monetary
value
• Masculine primary decision-maker/authority figure
• Expectation that each will remain unchanged and
value placed on consistent and static routine
• Assumption that one needs the other to complete
unmet needs and heal wounded self
• Parent/Child relationship—Inequality
Results in:
Co-dependency, power struggles/conflict,
possessiveness, hostility, deterioration of relationship.
• Shared roles and flexibility in role swapping
• Partners hold balanced & equal power roles
• Equal value attributed to both feminine and
masculine qualities
• Individual identity and autonomy
• Freedom for individual choices and selfexpression;
mutual agreement for expectations
for each partner role
• Money viewed as a shared neutral resource ; does
not increase power or define value of provider
• Equal value attributed to both provider and
nurturer roles; monetary value attributed to
nurturer role
• Collaborative decision-making; mutual
delegation of decisions
• Expectation of change/evolution; supporting each
other to achieve greatest potential
• Self accountability and self-responsibility; one
does not complete unmet needs or heal other
• Adult/Adult relationship—True equality
Results in:
Mutual support and fulfillment, compatibility, harmony,
co-creation.

OUTDATED WAY OF BEING/PERSPECTIVE EVOLVED WAY OF BEING/PERSPECTIVE WITH MR. RIGHT


Inauthentic, powerless, fear, resentment, insecurity,
cynicism, anger, struggle, violence, externally
sought solutions, blame, complaining, alienation,
purposeless, boredom, depression, conflicting
co-existence, intolerance, resistant to self-awareness,
personal growth and change, ensnared in repetitive,
negative cycle.
Authentic, self-authority, self-determining, self-worth,
self-accountable, empathy, intimacy, belonging, purposeful,
adaptable, joyful, optimism, non-judgmental,
peaceful co-existence, tolerance, trust in self-discovery
process, expansive potential, acceptance of
change, flow and positive attraction cycle.
In the above comparison, dominant/masculine is used to refer to the male partner and
submissive/feminine refers to female partner. However, dominant and submissive roles can
be reversed between male and female and can also apply to same-sex partners resulting in the
same dynamics. © 2009 Brilliance MultiMedia
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU Data Set: 2005-2007 American Community; Survey 3-Year Estimates Survey: American Community Survey
NOW MARRIED NEVER TOTAL
Subject TOTAL (exc separ.) TOTAL WIDOWED TOTAL DIVORCED TOTAL SEPARATED TOTAL MARRIED TOTAL SINGLE
Population 15 yrs
& over
237,984,051 50.5% 120,181,946 6.4% 15,230,979 10.5% 24,988,325 2.2% 5,235,649 30.4% 72,347,152 117,802,105
AGE AND SEX
Males 15 yrs & over 116,033,759 52.6% 61,033,757 2.6% 3,016,878 9.2% 10,675,106 1.9% 2,204,641 33.7% 39,103,377 55,000,002
15 to 19 years 11,027,046 1.1% 121,298 0.2% 22,054 0.1% 11,027 0.1% 11,027 98.6% 10,872,667 10,916,776
20 to 34 years 31,052,854 33.8% 10,495,865 0.1% 31,053 3.8% 1,180,008 1.5% 465,793 60.7% 18,849,082 20,525,936
35 to 44 years 21,816,745 63.7% 13,897,267 0.4% 87,267 11.7% 2,552,559 2.7% 589,052 21.4% 4,668,783 7,897,662
45 to 54 years 21,278,749 67.1% 14,278,041 1.1% 234,066 15.7% 3,340,764 2.6% 553,247 13.5% 2,872,631 7,000,708
55 to 64 years 15,208,503 72.6% 11,041,373 2.5% 380,213 15.2% 2,311,692 2.1% 319,379 7.6% 1,155,846 4,167,130
65 years and over 15,649,862 71.5% 11,189,651 14.1% 2,206,631 8.5% 1,330,238 1.3% 203,448 4.5% 704,244 4,444,561
Females 15 yrs &
over
121,950,292 48.5% 59,145,892 10.0% 12,195,029 11.6% 14,146,234 2.6% 3,170,708 27.3% 33,292,430 62,804,400
15 to 19 years 10,442,734 2.0% 208,855 0.2% 20,885 0.1% 10,443 0.2% 20,885 97.6% 10,192,108 10,244,322
20 to 34 years 29,779,934 40.8% 12,150,213 0.3% 89,340 5.5% 1,637,896 2.8% 833,838 50.6% 15,068,647 17,629,721
35 to 44 years 21,805,589 64.0% 13,955,577 1.1% 239,861 14.4% 3,140,005 4.1% 894,029 16.3% 3,554,311 7,828,206
45 to 54 years 21,954,685 64.0% 14,050,998 3.2% 702,550 18.5% 4,061,617 3.6% 790,369 10.7% 2,349,151 7,903,687
55 to 64 years 16,352,102 62.0% 10,138,303 9.6% 1,569,802 19.2% 3,139,604 2.5% 408,803 6.8% 1,111,943 6,230,151
65 years and over 21,615,248 40.1% 8,667,714 44.3% 9,575,555 10.0% 2,161,525 1.0% 216,152 4.6% 994,301 12,947,534
COMPARISON MALES & FEMALES 35-64 YEARS OLD
Males-Age 35-64
35 to 44 years 21,816,745 63.7% 13,897,267 0.4% 87,267 11.7% 2,552,559 2.7% 589,052 21.4% 4,668,783 7,897,662
45 to 54 years 21,278,749 67.1% 14,278,041 1.1% 234,066 15.7% 3,340,764 2.6% 553,247 13.5% 2,872,631 7,000,708
55 to 64 years 15,208,503 72.6% 11,041,373 2.5% 380,213 15.2% 2,311,692 2.1% 319,379 7.6% 1,155,846 4,167,130
Total 58,303,997 39,216,680 701,546 8,205,015 1,461,678 8,697,261 19,065,500
Females- Age 35-64
35 to 44 years 21,805,589 64.0% 13,955,577 1.1% 239,861 14.4% 3,140,005 4.1% 894,029 16.3% 3,554,311 7,828,206
45 to 54 years 21,954,685 64.0% 14,050,998 3.2% 702,550 18.5% 4,061,617 3.6% 790,369 10.7% 2,349,151 7,903,687
55 to 64 years 16,352,102 62.0% 10,138,303 9.6% 1,569,802 19.2% 3,139,604 2.5% 408,803 6.8% 1,111,943 6,230,151
Total 60,112,376 38,144,879 2,512,213 10,341,225 2,093,200 7,015,405 21,962,044
Note: Calculation of actual numbers shown ab