we often talk about falling in love with someone vs the idea of someone
materialists presents a caricature of the first: falling in love with someone’s material
i suggest generally that there is a controllable and uncontrollable part to a relationship, romatic or otherwise: the sum of the two people—where each person is comprised of their physical and intangible assets—and a third, unaccountable “circumstance” factor.
in this model, right person, wrong time relationships can be viewed as a favourable combination of the two people and an unfavourable circumstance factor. the relationship not working out does not imply that there is anything wrong with the two people, just that the external circumstances the relationship was founded upon were faulty.
situationships can be viewed as an otherwise unremarkable combination of the two people but a circumstance factor so strong it overthrows to help create that bond.
in this sense, I think her math is wrong. to focus on circumstance alone, and additionally, to dogmatize the idea that those circumstances are fixed or predetermined, isn’t a good assessment of the human condition. the moment we realize we are not unicorms, do we discount ourselves, believing existentially that we are no longer worthy of love? and that nothing about the relationships we form are in our ultimate control?
besides, there is no love formed in getting with a “unicorn.” it takes growth, trauma, adaptation to build relationships, and learning to love someone (emphasis on learning) means learning to live with their imperfections. when she sarcastically says “great, because I’m Dr. Frankenstein” to a demanding client, she acknowledges that you can’t pick and choose—good and bad qualities in a person come as a package deal—but misses the fact that that’s basically the entire point.