What is love - girls like emotional guys?

[Forestluv]

16 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

@Serotoninluv I knew that you would mention polyamory. Yes, it does include that too. Polyamory ppl do talk about serious stuff, like who (which partners) are involved and so much more beyond that. They don't just talk about which coffee they like, and which beer they like to drink, and what shoes they will wear today. The conversations go way beyond those at the start of their relationships. Whether they want to end the relationship is up to them. Jay is saying that with anything it takes work, and yes, the word "work" is deep and profound. It takes work to fully understand the other person, and this doesn't involve shallow conversations with labels.

How can one exclude polyamory? That's like discussing a nature center and excluding the trees.

Jay goes MUCH further than simply saying relationships take work.

Jay consistently uses the term "actual relationship" as the ideal. How do you think Jay would define "actual relationship"? How would you? This is a highly subjective term, yet Jay uses it absolutely/objectively without ever defining it.

At what point does an illusionary relationship become an actual relationship?

Can an actual relationship be whatever a couple or group mutually decide is an actual relationship for them?

[Key Elements]

@Serotoninluv Jay did not exclude polyamory. Just because he said it like that does not mean he excluded that type of relationship. It looks like your interpretation of what Jay said is only for your interpretation of "traditional monogamy."

I just told you about the conversations not being petty. That's what I thought he meant by "actual relationship."

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

@Serotoninluv Jay did not exclude polyamory. Just because he said it like that does not mean he excluded that type of relationship. It looks like your interpretation of what Jay said is only for your interpretation of "traditional monogamy."

I just told you about the conversations not being petty. That's what I thought he meant by "actual relationship."

Ok. So you think Jay would consider a woman with a primary partner, two secondary partners and a comet partner as having four "actual relationships" as long as the conversations were not petty? 

If Jay was at a swinger's party would he evaluate whether the conversations at the party were petty to determine if they qualify as "actual"?

Would a couple that live in different countries that base their relationship on social media be an actual relationship as long as their communication isn't petty?

IMO, relationship structures are much more nuanced and complicated than Jay acknowledges.

 

 

[Key Elements]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

IMO, relationship structures are much more nuanced and complicated than Jay acknowledges.

I agree that relationships are nuanced but disagree that Jay is not nuanced. If you look at Jay's other clips, he is very nuanced. When I said "petty," a person is just sitting down with someone talking about topics like clothes, shoes, coffee, beer, etc. -- not something deep. Jay, IMO, is trying to refer to deep conversations. The complete opposite of what is portrayed in his video clip. Didn't you see that in the video clip, ppl were just having coffee and beer and doing social media and not going anywhere else with the coversation? That's all he meant. He was NOT trying to put down any groups, like polyamory. Did you see his channel? I don't get that impression that he's someone like you described. 

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

I agree that relationships are nuanced but disagree that Jay is not nuanced. If you look at Jay's other clips, he is very nuanced. When I said "petty," a person is just sitting down with someone talking about topics like clothes, shoes, coffee, beer, etc. -- not something deep. Jay, IMO, is trying to refer to deep conversations. The complete opposite of what is portrayed in his video clip. Didn't you see that in the video clip, ppl were just having coffee and beer and doing social media and not going anywhere else with the coversation? That's all he meant. He was NOT trying to put down any groups, like polyamory. Did you see his channel? I don't get that impression that he's someone like you described. 

1 hour ago, Key Elements said:

 

I watched a couple videos of Jay and I liked them. I think he can be nuanced and has depth. In this particular video. I think he oversimplifies and overgeneralizes. I think he is transitioning into Green or upper Green. I hope he continues to grow. He can be very insightful and inspirational.

Jay goes much further than meaningful conversations.

Jay could have simply said "meaningful conversation can promote deep connections within a relationship". Yet, he didn't. He went one step further and created two tiers: actual relationships and illusion relationships. And he starts making judgement about what an "actual" relationship is. It's not limited to petty conversation. According to Jay, you are not in an "actual" relationship if:

1. You chase love without falling in love.

2. You commit a little, but not a lot

3. You are at a shallow level without deep connections

4. You haven't achieved a "real" connection.

5. Your relationship is based on social media

6. You and your partner don't want to label your relationship

7. You and your partner just want to go with the flow and see where things lead

8. You want to stand independently

9. You want to take things slow

10. You don't want to unpack your baggage

11. You don't want to help someone else unpack their baggage

12. You choose to watch Netflix over having a "real" conversation

13. You want a warm body rather than a partner

14. ****The things YOU really want, the things that YOU really find meaningful, the things YOU find genuinely fulfilling ALL require patience, work, and effort. No, the things that Jay thinks people *should* want, *should* find meaningful, *should* find genuinely fulfilling all require patience, work and effort. That would be a big steaming pot of NO.. One of my most meaningful connections was a woman I met in Colombia that I spent two days with. It was one of the most genuinely fulfilling connections in my life. We went DEEP fast, effortlessly. It just flowed. Just because Jay can't imagine this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What people want, find meaningful and genuinely fulfilling is relative to them. Jay doesn't get to tell me or anyone else what I *really* want, find meaningful or fulfilling. Jay hasn't even met me.

Some of these apply to some people in some relationships. Some don't. It depends on the couple and the relationship. Each person gets to decide what they want in their relationship. Each couple can decide what works best for them.

[Key Elements]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Jay doesn't get to tell me or anyone else what I *really* want, find meaningful or fulfilling. Jay hasn't even met me.

Jay has not told you, me, or anyone anything, other than stuff like go deeper than just having conversations about shoes, social media, coffee, beer, happy hour, etc. Go on a real date instead of avoiding it. That's what he meant in the clip, to sum it up. I don't find the clip biased or judgemental like you put it. His clip is not a justification of "traditional monogamy" and long term relationships and a downplay of polyamory and other types of relationships. That's a projection. I think you're looking at what he said from your lense. 

If you had a casual date with a gal at Starbucks that you met online carefully, what are you going to talk about after the first few dates? Definitely, you will not repeatedly say that you like to drink tall mocha frappuccino the most. You will not be talking about which coffee do you like from the most to the least.

Here's where the conversation gets deeper. She mentioned that she's a lesbian, and you're not into that. Well, hey, that's fine. Just be friends. See, this is the deeper conversation. Then you start talking about what you're into and what you're not into. But, to do that, you have to know yourself very well. Same goes for the other person. That's a real date.

Here's another way of putting it. If you're on a "real date," you just don't say to the other person or in your mind, "Lmao! She's a lesbian. Why am I wasting my time with her?" Wouldn't you say that this reaction is shallow, even though you said it in your mind? To me, yes, of course. A deeper date would be the both of you got into a coversation where you learn something new from each other, even though you're not interested in each other in an intimate relationship. I'm sure if you go into it, you'll learn something new. But, in real life, does it even work this way? Nope. Rarely. Esp, not on social media.

[Forestluv]

@Key Elements

 

It boils down to subjectivism / relativism for me. I think you and Jay are within an objectivism / absolutism mindset.

Can we agree the following two statements are true? (I believe they are)

Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment or effort.

Key Elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment and effort.

[Key Elements]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Key Elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment and effort.

Nope. I don't agree with this. I don't have an absolutism mindset. For example, I have nothing against polyamory. I don't see Jay being against other relationships. He's encouraging deep relationships no matter what it is--doesn't have to be monogamy. What effort did I do in my relationship? Did I even say it? No. There were big challenges in our lives, but it wasn't spousal challenges. They were other problems we were trying to solve in the past.

You're entitled to your own opinions about other ppl, but it doesn't mean you know them. Same is true for me.

Looks like monogamy and long term relationships are the "new gay." Millennials think that they are absolute and fundamental just because someone chose to have that type of relationship. It used to be that LGBTs were the taboos. Now it's "reverse discrimination." 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Key Elements said:

Nope. I don't agree with this. 

Ok. I took out the effort part. Can we now agree they are both true?

1. Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment.

2. Key elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment.

If not, which statement do you disagree with? 

[Key Elements]

49 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Ok. I took out the effort part. Can we now agree they are both true?

1. Serotoninluv has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment.

2. Key elements has had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with substantial commitment.

If not, which statement do you disagree with? 

I guess I don't really disagree. I can't really speak for whatever happened in your relationships though because it was between you and them. I thought we were talking about Jay's clip that I posted -- the meaning. I think it can be applied to polyamory, LGBT, polyamory + LGBT, or whatever you choose. As long as you're having deep conversations and deep relationships, you're fine. Then, there's no need to overstep other ppl's values/boundaries and ridicule them because it would be an open discussion. That's what I thought Jay meant. However, you understand what I mean, right? Deep conversations don't usually happen. That's what Jay meant too -- a big part of it in his clip. I don't see meeting someone from Tinder, for example, would be having deep conversations with you on dates, esp when you just read his/her profile and decided to meet.

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, Key Elements said:

I guess I don't really disagree. I can't really speak for whatever happened in your relationships though because it was between you and them. 

When you tell me that you have had a deep connection and meaning in a relationship with significant commitment, I believe you. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could have deep connection and meaning in a highly committed relationship. Yet, I don't deny your experience. I don't say "No, Key Elements you are mistaken: you have not had deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship". Nor do I challenge you and say "Well, I guess you might have experienced deep meaning and connection in a committed relationship, but I don't know what happened in the relationship, so I can't know for sure". If you tell me you had deep connection / meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that you did. What more information would I need to verify that you actually did experience deep connection and meaning? Would I try to quantify your depth of connection/meaning? Perhaps do some scientific studies on you to gather evidence that you are telling me the truth? If I question your experience I am questioning who you are, I am questioning whether your experience qualifies to what I believe is deep connection and meaning. And I would be putting the burden on you to prove to me that you actually experienced deep meaning and connection. I would want more information so I can judge whether you experienced "actual" deep connection and meaning.

I told you that I had deep connection and meaning in a relationship with little commitment. Why would respond with "I guess so."? Why don't you trust that I am telling you the truth? What additional information from my relationship do you need to move from "I guess so" to "I believe you"? What additional information do you need to verify that my experience was actually deep connection and meaningful?

This is subjectivism/relativism at a lower Green level. I have found it is the key to reach deeper levels of empathy. To take it one step higher on the Green scale toward Yellow. . .  As hard as it is form me to imagine how you could have experience deep connection and meaning in a committed relationship, I trust that that was your experience. I am comfortable saying:

Key Elements experience of deep connection and meaning within his/her committed relationship is as true as my experience of deep connection and meaning within my  non-committed relationship. 

This level of consciousness was a huge jump for me and my breakthrough experience was only about six months ago. This has opened up indescribable depths of human connection and empathy. And not just with people that have a similar orientation to me. Everyone. IME this level of relativism is necessary to reach the broadest and deepest levels of empathy. This opens up a much deeper level of communication and bonding. Rather than debating about how to justify and verify that a personal experience qualifies as "actual", the discussion can move deeper into exploring both "actual" experiences. For me, I become curious and fascinated. Judgement and separation dissolves and there is a sense of oneness. A beautiful empathetic and loving interpersonal connection. A high stage Green experience. And for icing on the cake, I experience and learn about things I could never had imagined.

[Key Elements]

@Serotoninluv wait a minute...I'm not challenging you.  hmm..We seem to be having some miscommunication for some reason. I'm saying we don't know the full details of other ppl's relationships. It's personal. If we did, we would learn a lot from it. That's all. You wrote so much details that I'm not even thinking of.

That's why I like Jay's clip that I posted. Jay's clip is not pro-monogamy, and a rant against polyamory.  LOL. He's far deeper than that. It's something to deeply reflect on. I think he did an excellent job. Two ppl have to be willing to be able communicate deeply. It's not just communication; it's also the work--actions speak louder than words. 

And, I wasn't really surprised that you brought up monogamy here after watching Jay's clip. It's not just you but others in the forum too. When monogamy is mentioned or even perceived, ppl really defend their positions against it. If ppl really get defensive like this, the other person cannot even be authentic and talk about stuff. Now do you see how it's very challenging to find a partner, esp online? I'm not just talking about monogamy, but other things too that is perceived in all the wrong ways. For example, "Where are you from?" Answer: "_______."  I don't know if you could answer this question. Some ppl, when they answer this question, they can't really be authentic anymore because they're judged in all the wrong ways.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Key Elements said:

@Serotoninluv wait a minute...I'm not challenging you.  hmm..We seem to be having some miscommunication for some reason. I'm saying we don't know the full details of other ppl's relationships. It's personal. If we did, we would learn a lot from it. That's all. You wrote so much details that I'm not even thinking of.

My point is: for high level relativism, the details are irrelevant.

You told me you experienced deep connection in a committed relationship. That is all the information I need. I don't need any details to judge if you actually did experience deep connection. I believe that is your experience.

I told you I experienced deep connection in a non-committed relationship. You responded "I guess so" and "I don't have full details". My question is: What details do you need to judge that I actually did experience deep connection? What details would move you from "I guess so" to "I believe you"?

[Key Elements]

40 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I told you I experienced deep connection in a non-committed relationship. You responded "I guess so" and "I don't have full details". My question is: What details do you need of my relationship to judge that I actually did experience deep connection? What details would move you from "I guess so" to "I believe you"?

That's not what I meant when I said, "I guess so..." I do believe you. I wasn't trying to judge. What I meant by saying that is, ppl in general do not know the full details of other ppl's relationships. I wasn't talking about you personally. For example, my relationship is deep because it's "detached", ok? It's just one of many examples. Now, if you asked me why, well then, I have to go into details. Maybe I have to talk for 15 mins or more explaining this.

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

That's not what I meant when I said, "I guess so..." I do believe you. I wasn't trying to judge. What I meant by saying that is, ppl in general do not know the full details of other ppl's relationships. I wasn't talking about you personally. For example, my relationship is deep because it's "detached", ok? It's just one of many examples. Now, if you asked me why, well then, I have to go into details. Maybe I have to talk for 15 mins or more explaining this.

Thank you. 

Relativism is liberating and opens so many doors. By acknowledging the deep connection and meaning in my non-committed relationship, the following statements now become true:

Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep connection within the relationship.

Commitment in a relationship is not required for deep meaning within the relationship.

The next higher level is to integrate this with advanced Green egalitarianism. That would be:

The deep connection and meaning in Serotoninluv's non-committed relationship is as true as the deep connection and meaning in Key Element's committed relationship.

[Key Elements]

@Serotoninluv hmmmmm....interesting....the word "commitment." I find this word very interesting. Yes, I am married. So, what? What's holding my marriage together? A marriage certificate? A wedding ceremony? No way. Those things are not the commitment. Right after getting married, I thought to myself, "Am I really married?" LOL!!! According to the definition of the "universe," no!  Technically, I'm still single. Marriage, long term relationships, weddings, etc etc etc -- all man-made concepts. LOL!!! 

Therefore, 

I'm also in a non-committed relationship. 

The word "commitment" is just a label and part of the man-made language we're speaking.

[Key Elements]

@Serotoninluv

I want to add something that I find very funny here, according to my experience. In the US, from others, I get labeled like this:

committed, "in a traditional marriage," devoted to husband (what a joke), following the husband, traditional values (Lmao).

I'm not even married to my own "background."

In other, more "so-called" conservative countries, I'm labeled as:

Party animal, likes to have fun, goes out a lot, a Western American Culture gal (Lmao), doesn't mind having ex-bfs (Lmao)

In both situations, they don't know me at all. Nope, not even a bit. That's why I like Jay's clip a lot. It's one of my favorite. Of course, we are impacted by social media, and yes, it's very challenging to find someone on social media for a deep connection without all the nonsense so that one can be authentic and honest.

Yes, this is what I mean by most ppl not being able to transend culture. 

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Key Elements said:

@Serotoninluv

I want to add something that I find very funny here, according to my experience. In the US, from others, I get labeled like this:

committed, "in a traditional marriage," devoted to husband (what a joke), following the husband, traditional values (Lmao).

I'm not even married to my own "background."

In other, more "so-called" conservative countries, I'm labeled as:

Party animal, likes to have fun, goes out a lot, a Western American Culture gal (Lmao), doesn't mind having ex-bfs (Lmao)

In both situations, they don't know me at all. Nope, not even a bit. That's why I like Jay's clip a lot. It's one of my favorite. Of course, we are impacted by social media, and yes, it's very challenging to find someone on social media for a deep connection without all the nonsense so that one can be authentic and honest.

Yes, this is what I mean by most ppl not being able to transend culture. 

Cultural relativism is so interesting- especially when it’s relative to me ?

[Key Elements]

@Serotoninluv I want to say something I find important in our discussion. I've already mentioned labels.

I find that labeling someone to be "monogamous" for whatever reason to be out of line. I find that this is a huge label nowadays, and it makes the person seem dogmatic and evil. A "monogamous" person who is married, for example, is not chained in handcuffs like a criminal. This person is also capable of going out and sleeping with many and then lie about it to his/her spouse.

But, anyway, my point is, there is also the person who chooses not to do this, and there's nothing wrong with this person. He/she doesn't feel the need to do it. I'm not even sure why this particular person is labeled as a "traditional" stage blue type.

[Key Elements]

On 27/09/2018 at 1:00 PM, Serotoninluv said:

Ok. So you think Jay would consider a woman with a primary partner, two secondary partners and a comet partner as having four "actual relationships" as long as the conversations were not petty? 

If Jay was at a swinger's party would he evaluate whether the conversations at the party were petty to determine if they qualify as "actual"?

Yes, because I don't find Jay and his channel to be bigoted toward other groups. If he is, I don't even want to look into it. Leo doesn't talk about polyamory, and I know he's not against that group.

If Jay is a polyamorous and he made the same clip, you would probably feel differently about him.

 

On 27/09/2018 at 1:00 PM, Serotoninluv said:

Would a couple that live in different countries that base their relationship on social media be an actual relationship as long as their communication isn't petty?

Yes. I was living in another country for a year while my husband was in the US -- I had no problem with this. We communicated through social media sometimes. Jay is not saying that social media is wrong; he's saying that most ppl don't do it like this.