Sunday, September 19, 2010

Relationship Status - It's Complicated

To begin this insightful read, you must first accept this is a redundant and superfluous exposition of your romantic achievement/failure. All relationships are complicated- all of them. Even the one you have with your mailman, and the way he judges you based on the weight/content of the packages he delivers to you.

We assume (or deduct rather) than all relationships in the twenty-first century are evidently wired with a complex array of social impositions, unspoken obligations, inconsistent conceits, implicit nuances, quirky mannerisms, and exuberant expectations.
Yeah….a walk in the park is no walk in the park.

It’s a complete and utter bureaucracy.

But some people love to wrongfully believe that throwing the complexity wrench into the bicycle spokes as you ride equals a superiority of depth. “No Sally, you don’t understand. What Pete and I have cannot be described in words. There is no term to define what we have! It’s complicated.

Listen girl, what you have…is your head up your ass, as a lot of people do. This is what I would call, Complexity for Complexity’s Sake. If things make sense, and you can follow some sort of linear and logical path in the trudges of your relationship, then you must be doing something wrong! IT CANNOT BE REAL! That’s child’s play! Or some sort of puppy love from the seventh grade.

Real relationships are tangled in chaos and confusion. A Real relationship is like coaching football and trying to figure out what the other coach is saying behind his hand covering his mouth, reading the opposing play into his headset. Real relationships are turbulent spurts of fickle passion and unresponded e-mails! They are plagued with exciting, unrestrained displays of insanity manifested through text messages you have to decipher, (after decrypting centuries of semantics)
But who’s dating Dan Brown and his Da Vinci code?

The best way I can further illustrate this Complexity for Complexity’s Sake is by explaining ''L'art pour l'art'', (where I lifted this concept from) and how a lot of us see relationships and love. Art for art’s sake expresses a philosophy that regards the essential and only true value of art as being set apart from utilitarian function. Art isn’t supposed to be’s just supposed to be- It doesn’t need to be justified. That is how a lot of people view complexity. It doesn’t need to be justified or logical. It just has to be there as a part of our relationship to validate it as a tangible thing.

It’s like comparing Rococo art against Bauhaus. Lavish and exotic embellishments don’t make your relationship more important or greater. It doesn’t make you smarter or emotionally deeper. It doesn’t qualify your status as multifaceted and of a profound composition. It doesn’t – sorry to burst your Faberge egg.

Embrace simplicity. Sit on a Marcel Breuer chair. It’s nice. It’s real. It’s void of pompous frill and self-regarded exhibitions of masturbatory complacency. It wasn't made for Louis XIV.

Relationship statuses listed as “It’s complicated” … are social suicide. Who wants to know- Or why would you want to confess how poorly you handle yourself in a desperate attempt to string together a connection that isn’t fully there yet? Either because you are not allowed to cross the line, or you don’t let people to cross it. Saying It’s Complicated is saying, “I don’t know what the fuck is going on, or what the fuck I am doing.” Spare yourself the embarrassment.

Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. “When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.” So, you should either be single….or in a relationship.
They’re both complicated things to be as well - each with their own set of intricate mechanics and lacking a set of instructions.

I know I usually oppose dichotomies and I really think everything has a gray area. But the “It’s complicated” gray area is more like being in limbo. A limbo in which you really shouldn’t stay too long, much less willingly, for the sake of your well-being.

If it’s complicated and you are leaning towards wanting to be single, then it scares away potential prospects that might be interested in you because you have just declared yourself “Taken enough to make it public.”
If you are mostly leaning to wanting to be in a relationship with this person that makes things complicated, then it comes off as over-ambitious, or as “You could still mess around with me, because nothing here is defined.”

The point is this: “It’s complicated” is not a halfway point. It is nothing like being a liberal republican or conservative democrat. It’s more like wearing a shirt and tie with a blazer on, but no pants, underwear or shoes on...and standing in the middle of traffic.

So if you if you don’t want to come off as an emotionally crippled, unstable, and a completely un-datable human being- Keep it simple, stupid.

Status yourself wisely.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The Pyramind Explained

The Dating Guide Pyramid Explanation should have been the first post under this blog - I apologize for that.

For the most part, men and women view the hierarchy of relationships completely different. (yes, I know there's a book called 'Men are from Mars, Women...will read anything Oprah says is good') I am aware of that. However these psychological observations often render an ideal perspective that is difficult to appreciate, much less execute.

Ideally we seek an understanding and our partner blah blah. We're different. We get it. Enough.

The Dating Guide Pyramid is simple. It's systematic and accurate. You see the chart? Figure out where you can plug yourself in, in the eyes of your partner - then decide if you should bail, or try to climb to the top, or stay where you are. The sooner you understand the mechanisms....the less strain you will go through.

It's a fairly simple method of figuring out relationship hierarchy, priorities and roles in order soberly analyze how people behave. It aims to be fair. but it varies from person to person.
The basic principle is this: The more serious it gets, the less people it can involve, and the different tiers are proportional in value.
here is the break down.

TOP TIER - TWO HEARTS (the relationship)
The one that requires the least explaining (I hope). At the top of the Food Group/Food Chain, however you look at it, you can only have ONE significant other. No excuses. If you want to do something right, you can only give your full attention to one person. Call it devotion. Call it focus. Call it Love. Call it a gameplan. It doesn't matter how you see relationships in general, as long as you understand that in the most ideal situation, you have one hand in yours. If you want to fuck around, will fail, and you already know this. This Tier is the heaviest and it nullifies all the others lower tiers. You shouldn't be with more than one person.

BOTTOM TIER - THE MOUTHS (talking to someone)
I think explaining the top and bottom tiers are the easiest, and the middle tiers get trickier, but the gist of the mouths is to represent the people you talk to, in a quasi-romantic setting. It should be defined by what you do, not how you feel. If you only talk, text, e-mail, IM, Facebook, and see each other ocassionally, that person is on this tier. If they don't have a ringtone for when they call, You're just talking to them. If they see you out and say "call me later" and you forget... you're just talking to them.
That's also the beauty of the tiers - that if you sleep with someone you are talking're no longer talking to them. You're seeing them. At least. For some, they could argue this means you're dating them.

MIDDLE BOTTOM - Eyes (Seeing someone)
Seeing someone requires more effort than talking to someone. This I would define with more physical contact and scheduled meetings - not just bumping into them. You may find yourself seeing someone by something as simple as the line "Want to go to that new movie on Friday?" Where the casualness of encounters is now measurable in a horizon, since plans were made. Again, sex is tricky. Sluts would argue that they sleep with people they talk to. It varies from person to person. But it would be nice to ask the person you're seeing if they're seeing someone else. You shouldn't see more that four people.

MIDDLE TOP - Keys (Dating Someone)
This is also murky territory. This tier is a deal breaker or maker for some because it has vestiges of a relationship but not as constricting as having a mutual cellphone plan. It has an air of spontaneity which makes you believe you're still sorta single-ish and just seeing them because you still proudly boast your liberty through BOYS NIGHT!/GIRLS NIGHT!

Luckily, as previously stated, our actions define our status, not our emotions.
If you have a toothbrush at their house, or they have one at yours...You're Dating. If your mom asks about this person...You're dating. Doesn't matter if you don't hold hands in public. Someone people have sweaty palms- shit. If you're pretty sure this person is going to get you a Christmas present, but you're not sure if you are going to get one for them...You might just be seeing them, so relax.

It's just math.
you can talk to x number of people, see half of them, date half of those, and be with just one.
In other words, Dating someone is worth seeing two people, or talking to 4 people.
You can't date someone and be with someone at the same time. it doesn't fit on the pyramid, see? But you can date someone, and see two people....or talk to 4 people.

Make sense??
Scary but true.

On a Lack of Desire

Likability is the stipple shading that gives depth to our portrait. Charisma caresses our face, not just our ears and eyes.
I always thought there could be nothing worse than to be wanted or desired without being loved.
But I now find that there is nothing worse than to be loved, but not wanted.
I want to feel love in a kinesthetic manner, not in a 5th Dimension aural kind of way. Abstract and ethereal love belongs in novels. Tenderness is tangible.
I want to feel a palpable longing, and a warmth that seeks soothing not satisfaction-
Give me canoodling or give me death.