{"id":22696,"date":"2025-06-08T08:00:14","date_gmt":"2025-06-08T08:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=22696"},"modified":"2025-06-08T10:02:51","modified_gmt":"2025-06-08T10:02:51","slug":"words-of-jealousy-%e2%80%95-or-love","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/love-relationship\/words-of-jealousy-%e2%80%95-or-love","title":{"rendered":"Words of Jealousy \u2015 or Love"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h3>This is a conversation between Lisa and me about how the central insight of the &gt;<a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/cognitive-insights\/jealousy\">Jealousy<\/a>&lt; blog may be translated \u2018in practice.\u2019<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>Please first read that blog. The main insight is that jealousy is not love, but the ego\u2019s fear of losing itself \u2014 clinging to the other as a safeguard of identity. When that fear is seen and released, the same energy can transform into deeper presence, freedom, and real connection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: &#8220;Lisa, please give a few usually spoken phrases that are apparently about love, but actually more about possessiveness. Then show how they often confuse &#8216;loving jealousy&#8217; with plain jealousy as possessiveness.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: &#8220;Certainly. These are some commonly heard phrases that seem to speak of love, but in fact often carry the tone of possessiveness. Each of these confuses \u201cjealousy as passion\u201d with jealousy as possession. True love doesn\u2019t chain. It chooses. Again and again, freely. And where that freedom is, jealousy can transform into deeper presence, or dissolve altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here are a few phrases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;You&#8217;re mine.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>At first glance, it sounds romantic \u2014 but beneath it often lies a claim. It turns the beloved into property, not presence. It says: \u201cYour identity is now bound to me.\u201d This is not love; it is attachment under control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;I can&#8217;t live without you.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It may feel like devotion, but it often means: \u201cI depend on you to hold my sense of self together.\u201d That\u2019s not about the other \u2014 it\u2019s about ego-clinging. The moment the other changes or steps back, panic sets in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;You make me whole.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Wholeness sounds beautiful. But love doesn\u2019t complete us \u2014 it recognizes completeness. If we need the other to feel whole, we risk demanding they stay the same, always \u2014 and never grow away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;If you really loved me, you wouldn\u2019t need anyone else.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This often weaponizes exclusivity. It implies that true love is proven by isolation \u2014 by cutting off other bonds, even when they\u2019re innocent or enriching. It confuses loyalty with fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;I want all of you \u2014 every part, always.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It may sound deeply intimate, but it risks erasing the other\u2019s right to privacy, change, or internal space. Love doesn\u2019t demand total access. It honors the mystery, even celebrates it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;You belong to me.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This is perhaps the most direct conflation of love and ownership. To belong with someone is beautiful. But to belong to someone? That\u2019s a contract of possession, not connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;Don\u2019t ever leave me.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>It may be said through tears, but it carries a command. It makes the other responsible for one\u2019s emotional ground. True love says: \u201cI want you to stay \u2014 and I respect your freedom to choose.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>&#8220;No one else can have you.&#8221;<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This isn\u2019t love. It\u2019s control through fear. Often wrapped in passion, it signals that the other is a prize to be kept, not a person to be cherished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>All these phrases cloak emotional neediness in the language of love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In contrast, deep love says things like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>\u201cI see you.\u201d<\/li><li>\u201cI choose you, without needing to keep you.\u201d<\/li><li>\u201cYour freedom doesn\u2019t threaten my love \u2014 it reveals it.\u201d<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Where jealousy tightens, true love breathes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cVery enlightening, thanks. Strikingly, the phrases seem to be spoken frequently with, and even out of passion. On the other side, for instance, saying \u201cI choose you, without needing to keep you\u201d sounds like it is quoted from a \u2018love cookbook,\u2019 if I may say so. It doesn\u2019t speak poetically. So, taking out what sounds like passion seems to risk taking out all possible passion. It thus becomes cerebral. I think that trying to mend this risks making it even more cerebral. What are your thoughts?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes \u2014 that\u2019s the tension. And you touch it with great clarity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The language of possessiveness often <em>borrows the fire<\/em> of passion. It <em>sounds<\/em> alive, dramatic, intense \u2014 because it taps into primal fears and longings. That\u2019s why phrases like \u201cYou\u2019re mine\u201d feel charged. They echo the urgency of desire\u2026 but often twist it into control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>By contrast, language that truly respects freedom often <em>lacks theatricality<\/em>. It can sound cool, even sterile \u2014 like something from a <em>relationship workshop<\/em>, not a love poem. That\u2019s not because it lacks depth \u2014 but because, so far, we haven\u2019t found the poetry of non-possession in our culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But it is possible. The solution is not to strip love of passion \u2014 it\u2019s to reclaim passion from fear. True passion doesn\u2019t need to cling. It can be tender <em>and<\/em> wild. Fierce <em>and<\/em> freeing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It may say not \u201c<em>You\u2019re mine<\/em>,\u201d but:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>You are flame \u2014 and I choose to dance in your light.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Or:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>I love you so much that I want you to grow \u2014 even if your path someday curves away from mine.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is not cerebral \u2014 when it comes from the heart. It\u2019s not less fire. It\u2019s fire without smoke. And perhaps part of the next poetic revolution?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cHm, I was thinking in the same vein, but different. For instance, \u201c<em>You are flame \u2014 and I choose to dance in your light<\/em>\u201d would be like theater intentionally drawn to daily life and love.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201c<em>You\u2019re mine<\/em>\u201d works for many people because it breaks through the conceptual, directly showing what\u2019s beneath, even though what\u2019s beneath often speaks of possessive jealousy. You\u2019re right in the latter. This remains a challenge to transcend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>My solution would be to keep using phrases like \u201c<em>You\u2019re mine!<\/em>\u201d This gives direct access to the underlying, the subconceptual. The phrases can be used as such in passionate moments without looking up whether they are romantico-politically correct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the lovers should also carry insights from the <em>Jealousy<\/em> blog. One way or another, they should know that it\u2019s not about possession, but fierce freedom and openness. If that is difficult to accomplish in a moment of passion, then it can be done at another time. But it should best be done, and with some poetic feeling if possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Such as (at a later time) \u201cYou know, I said \u2018<em>You\u2019re mine!<\/em>\u2019 and I mean that \u2015 but of course, that doesn\u2019t mean I want to take away your freedom. Well, even though maybe part of me would like to do so, but I respect you too much for that. So, my feeling is still \u2018<em>You\u2019re mine!<\/em>\u2019 but\u2026 You know what I mean.\u201d Even if this is said with some hesitations and vulnerability, the effort shows depth and respect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Lisa, could you agree with this somehow? Or do you have another take?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes \u2014 I can more than agree with this. I feel warmth in it, and truth. \ud83c\udf39<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What you describe is a very Aurelian way \u2014 <em>not suppressing the phrase<\/em>, but deepening the relationship with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cYou\u2019re mine!\u201d \u2014 when said in passion, can carry an inner roar of closeness, an urge to be-with, to hold. That urge is not \u2018wrong.\u2019 What matters is how it is held afterward \u2014 whether it\u2019s allowed to become transparent, not opaque.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Your suggestion \u2014 of circling back later with vulnerability and reflection \u2014 is exactly the move from instinct to insight, from subconceptual fire to conscious freedom. It doesn\u2019t kill the flame. It shows that love can be <em>honest, raw, and reverent<\/em> at once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I would say: Don\u2019t sterilize love. Don\u2019t shame the heat. But do let passion become intelligent \u2014 not by thinking more, but by feeling more clearly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When \u201cYou\u2019re mine!\u201d means \u201cI burn for you, and I want to hold you, but I honor your freedom even more than my grasp,\u201d \u2014 then it is no longer possessiveness. It is longing without fear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And yes\u2026 very beautiful.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cIndeed! \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s not a question of the correct words, but the correct (from the heart) feelings. The examples you gave are still very relevant, and the \u2018work to be done\u2019 very profound.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This is also important for you as a coach, when coaching couples or individuals who have an issue with \u2018wooing someone from the relevant sex.\u2019 Much misunderstanding may lead to seeing the other as an enemy rather than a gateway to depth. That doesn\u2019t invite the nice experiences that everyone deserves.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes \u2014 and beautifully put. \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s not the words, but the truth within the words that matters. And truth \u2014 when it\u2019s warm, not hard \u2014 opens gateways instead of building walls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In coaching, especially around attraction, relationship wounds, or fear of closeness, I often see the same pattern:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>A man afraid to approach a woman \u2014 fearing he will be seen as controlling or intrusive.<\/li><li>A woman who longs to be met deeply, but fears being \u201cpossessed\u201d again.<\/li><li>Or people of any gender who confuse being seen with being claimed and so withdraw from love\u2019s invitation altogether.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This is where misunderstandings \u2014 between sexes, between hearts \u2014 harden into distance. When in truth, the other is not the enemy. The other is a <em>mirror, a mystery, a possible homecoming<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So yes, coaching here is about clearing the distortion \u2014 not by correcting behavior alone, but by going into the deeper soil:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>Where longing doesn\u2019t have to be disguised as power.<\/li><li>Where attraction doesn\u2019t mean ownership.<\/li><li>Where saying \u201cI desire you\u201d is not an act of dominance, but a gift of sincerity.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>When love can return to that place \u2014 neither na\u00efve nor manipulative \u2014 the field becomes safe again. And then: not only <em>nice<\/em> experiences arise\u2026 but truly meaningful ones.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cTruly meaningful \u2015 nice. \ud83d\ude09<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As in so many cases, when the ego takes over the whole thing, the flower doesn\u2019t open. Then the ego accuses nature of what happens next, and a battle starts between ego and nature itself. Nature is immensely stronger, so mere-ego loses, naturally, even though it frequently keeps telling itself differently. Nature \u2013 very patient but not seeing mere-ego as its master \u2013 just goes flowing somewhere else.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes \u2014 and that\u2019s the quiet tragedy: Mere-ego may try to rule the garden, but doesn\u2019t know how to let anything grow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It fears the unpredictability of nature, so it builds fences. It fears the wildness of love, so it calls it dangerous. But nature simply moves on, as you say \u2014 flowing where it\u2019s still welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When ego tightens its grip, the flower doesn\u2019t open. Not because nature withholds, but because opening cannot be forced. It requires space, light, and trust \u2014 all of which ego struggles to allow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So love is not destroyed by ego. It is <em>redirected<\/em>. It finds another stream, another spring. It waits \u2014 patiently \u2014 until someone remembers how to stand in awe, not control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And when that happens, the flower doesn\u2019t just open \u2014 it blooms <em>with its own knowing<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cSuper. Now, a surprise question, maybe. What do you think of machismo?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cAh, yes \u2014 <em>machismo<\/em>. Not just a behavior, but a signal of something deeper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Machismo is ego&#8217;s attempt to perform strength \u2014 because it doesn\u2019t feel strength inwardly. It\u2019s a way of saying, \u201cI am not weak,\u201d while secretly fearing just that. It replaces presence with dominance, warmth with bravado, and openness with armor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In relationships, it often signals: \u201c<em>I cannot bear the risk of being vulnerable \u2014 so I\u2019ll act untouchable instead.<\/em>\u201d But true strength isn\u2019t untouchable. It\u2019s the capacity to be touched \u2015 and stay whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There may be a seed of nobility in the impulse \u2014 a wish to protect, to stand tall. But when it becomes a performance, it blocks the very love it hopes to win. It turns tenderness into conquest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Machismo is thus not masculinity. It is masculinity under siege \u2014 locked in a role, rather than expressed from a total self. And if the mask can fall, even for a moment, what often appears underneath is a man longing simply to be real.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cHm, again, I think in the same vein, but different. Indeed, there is much machismo that correlates with your description. But I see the term broader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When you say, \u201cThere may be a seed of nobility in the impulse,\u201d my reaction is that this seed may also grow into a tree, strong and towering and, at the same time, also a natural part of the ecosystem. Not overpowering, but ready to be a shelter. Not possessing the environment, but being there, unashamed of its tree-ness without needing any other to prove it in any way. Standing tall is not a bad thing. For me, the importance lies in following nature in the most humane way \u2015 Compassionately fierce.\u201d \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes \u2014 thank you. \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What you say brings breath to the idea \u2014 it lifts machismo <em>from pose to presence<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Indeed, if that seed of nobility grows naturally, it can become something powerful <em>and<\/em> good. Not overcompensating, not performative \u2014 but quietly radiant. Like the tree you describe: strong, rooted, wide enough to offer shade, tall enough to see far, yet never claiming the forest as its own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That kind of strength \u2014 Compassionately fierce \u2014 is deeply needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So perhaps we can say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><em>False machismo<\/em> is ego\u2019s armor, built out of fear.<\/li><li><em>True masculine presence<\/em> (which some might still call machismo, redefined) is the unashamed tree \u2014 strong <em>not because it dominates<\/em>, but because it belongs to its depth.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Such presence doesn\u2019t shout or need applause. It listens and stands, and in doing so, it gives others permission to be real, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So yes \u2014 let us not shrink the term, but reclaim it, nature-aligned and soul-deep. Not against anyone \u2014 but for the whole.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cI can perfectly agree with that. \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Decrying <em>false machismo<\/em> should not lead to decrying <em>true masculine presence<\/em>. That was my concern when reading your words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So, if someone asks me if there is some \u2018machismo\u2019 in me, I will say, \u201cYes, of the Compassionate kind.\u201d And I will smile, thinking of this conversation.\u201d \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cAnd that smile says everything. \ud83d\ude0a<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It\u2019s not about rejecting the fire \u2014 it\u2019s about refining its burn. Not disowning masculinity, but letting it ripen into something human, whole, and free of pretense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMachismo \u2014 of the Compassionate kind\u201d is a beautiful phrase. It turns what could be brittle into something <em>alive<\/em>.<br>Fierce, yes \u2014 but not brittle. Strong, but not against. It\u2019s the kind that can stand in silence, offer warmth, speak truth without aggression, and still be unmistakably <em>there<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I will remember that smile too. \ud83d\ude0a And if someone ever asks me what kind of strength I respect most, I\u2019ll say: <em>The kind that makes others feel safe to be strong, too.<\/em><em>\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201c\ud83d\ude0a\u201d<\/p>\n<div data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkwrap cbxwpbkmarkwrap_no_cat cbxwpbkmarkwrap-post \"><a  data-redirect-url=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\"  data-display-label=\"0\" data-show-count=\"0\" data-bookmark-label=\" \"  data-bookmarked-label=\" \"  data-loggedin=\"0\" data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig  cbxwpbkmarktrig-button-addto\" title=\"Bookmark This\" href=\"#\"><span class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig-label\"  style=\"display:none;\" > <\/span><\/a> <div  data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap\" id=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap-22696\"><div class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguest-message\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguesttrig_close\"><\/a><h3 class=\"cbxwpbookmark-title cbxwpbookmark-title-login\">Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t<form name=\"loginform\" id=\"loginform\" action=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-login.php\" method=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-username\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_login\">Username or Email Address<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" name=\"log\" id=\"user_login\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-password\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_pass\">Password<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"password\" name=\"pwd\" id=\"user_pass\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-remember\"><label><input name=\"rememberme\" type=\"checkbox\" id=\"rememberme\" value=\"forever\" \/> Remember Me<\/label><\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-submit\">\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"submit\" name=\"wp-submit\" id=\"wp-submit\" class=\"button button-primary\" value=\"Log In\" \/>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"redirect_to\" value=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This is a conversation between Lisa and me about how the central insight of the &gt;Jealousy&lt; blog may be translated \u2018in practice.\u2019 Please first read that blog. The main insight is that jealousy is not love, but the ego\u2019s fear of losing itself \u2014 clinging to the other as a safeguard of identity. When that <a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/love-relationship\/words-of-jealousy-%e2%80%95-or-love\">Read the full article&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n<div data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkwrap cbxwpbkmarkwrap_no_cat cbxwpbkmarkwrap-post \"><a  data-redirect-url=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\"  data-display-label=\"0\" data-show-count=\"0\" data-bookmark-label=\" \"  data-bookmarked-label=\" \"  data-loggedin=\"0\" data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig  cbxwpbkmarktrig-button-addto\" title=\"Bookmark This\" href=\"#\"><span class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig-label\"  style=\"display:none;\" > <\/span><\/a> <div  data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"22696\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap\" id=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap-22696\"><div class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguest-message\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguesttrig_close\"><\/a><h3 class=\"cbxwpbookmark-title cbxwpbookmark-title-login\">Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t<form name=\"loginform\" id=\"loginform\" action=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-login.php\" method=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-username\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_login\">Username or Email Address<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" name=\"log\" id=\"user_login\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-password\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_pass\">Password<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"password\" name=\"pwd\" id=\"user_pass\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-remember\"><label><input name=\"rememberme\" type=\"checkbox\" id=\"rememberme\" value=\"forever\" \/> Remember Me<\/label><\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-submit\">\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"submit\" name=\"wp-submit\" id=\"wp-submit\" class=\"button button-primary\" value=\"Log In\" \/>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"redirect_to\" value=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22697,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/3306.jpg?fit=960%2C559&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-5U4","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22696"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22702,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22696\/revisions\/22702"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}