Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: Joy2012 on November 03, 2012, 04:07:26 pm

Title: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Joy2012 on November 03, 2012, 04:07:26 pm
As for "unfairly", I do not view being deprived of sunlight and good food as being part of a prison-sentence. Being locked up is one thing, but other stuff designed to kill you off at an earlier age is not acceptable.

So should we deliver 100% grass-fed bison, raw oysters,  and organic berries to prison kitchens using tax payers' money?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Löwenherz on November 03, 2012, 04:17:46 pm
I just read an article about the "instincto" guru Guy Claude Burger:

http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/guy-claude-burger-aux-assises_494728.html (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/guy-claude-burger-aux-assises_494728.html)

I didn't know that he was already convicted in Switzerland, long before his imprisonment in France.

Here is the Google translation:


Guy-Claude Burger, L'Express revealed that in 1997 the practice appears, from 22 November to rape and sexual assaults on children under 15 years accompanied by death threats
 
Easter 1986. A devotee of alternative medicine and "alternative", the mother of Martha (1) has a week at the Château de Montramé (Seine-et-Marne) with his three daughters, the famous story of trying to cure instinctothérapie much talked at the time. Eating raw, according to his instincts olfactory to regain form, balance and health: smoking theory Guy-Claude Burger , founder and master of the place of the center - from listed in the parliamentary report on sects in 1995 - promises to cure everything . Not included in the program will do the old guru Martha, age 10, another guinea pig of his own doctrine, the "métapsychanalyse" an apology for pedophilia packed in a pseudoscientific gobbledygook. Revealed by L'Express in 1997, the criminal practices Guy-Claude Burger and his associates - including his eldest son, Christian, on the run since then - they will be worth to appear before the foundation of Melun from 22 November to rape and sexual assaults on children under 15 years accompanied by death threats.

Already convicted in Switzerland and France
Guy-Claude Burger, 67, is not its first appearance. Already convicted in Switzerland four years in prison in 1978 for abusing his own son, Christian, and Maya (1), 9 years in France and sentenced to three months suspended sentence in 1997 for illegal medicine, this character described by the surveys as charismatic personality, perverse, manipulative and amoral devoted his life to his two great battles: the instinctothérapie métapsychanalyse and, according to him only able to address various social ills. In the early 60s that Cellist develops his doctrine food. Summary: Pithecanthropus our ancestor, not only cooking his food, unaware of the disease. The occurrence of fire and its corollary, roast mammoth have plunged humanity in the throes of diseases as diverse as fatal, of which only a return to power "instinctive" could save us. In practice, eat "instincto" is to eat only raw foods - bananas, potatoes or turnips, but also pig kidney or horse fat - methodically sniffed to determine which excites the taste buds, a clear sign that the body claims. This dogma is stupid harmless if AIDS or cancer saw a miracle cure.

In the late 60s, Burger Expands "research" to the sexual instinct. His "métapsychanalyse" dedicated to public obloquy carnal intercourse between heterosexual adults, only good for procreation, and exalts sex between adults and children, a source of cosmic energy. His own children, and those received in the hydrotherapy Swiss farm where Burger gives his teachings suffer assaults pedophile guru, who finds himself in the shade. But his conviction in 1978 did not prevent repeated in 1986, with little Martha, a similar scenario: Princess sacred places, "child of the universe," the elected master, 10 year old girl, Maya lookalike - the little victim Swiss - Burger is subtracted by her mother and blinded clueless. "Check for a course of a week, I finally stayed a year and a half, and then I came back several times," said Martha, who is now 25 years old. This lovely Métis under clear and shrill voice says: "At the time, I was dropped, temperamentally, I had no friends, I hated school. Poor girl For a father and without n 'horizon was all the bars of HLM Nanterre, this castle was the absolute dream. " A twelfth-century mansion, stone blondes like wheat fields that ring its walls, where you can run and play, build huts and roll in the grass. When adults listen to you and believe you, even if it is only to curry favor with the owner.

Soon, the guru puts the child in bed and forced to spend every night with him naked. "When I think about the first time he touched me, he rubbed his cock between my thighs, I feel the same pain that burning sensation that I experienced then. Brewing my body as if a bad fire A home full of garbage. " A Montramé, everyone sleeps with everyone, children and adults involved in dirty rooms. The kids are wandering half-naked, suffering, out of sight of hydrotherapy, insistent caresses some permanent castle. Burger exudes affection and humiliation, Martha covers gifts which she has never dreamed to possess better. He climbed up on a pedestal to better deliver to the jealousy of his own children and his wife neglected - despite the "benefits" of instinctothérapie, she will die of cancer alone, away from the castle in 1994 . He dangled the 10 year old girl the main role of a film that would tell her "romance and adventure" with Maya, the true story that earned him prison in Switzerland. "From the movie, I was a little girl, it was my dream! Could resist? Says Martha. I was torn between this status princess revered by adults and disgust Burger, who became a surrogate father, m ' inspired. however he repeated so much that I had the chance to live how I thought anyway. " Daily, Martha must comply with the sexual whims of the guru: "In the morning he woke me up at 7 am 45. He had an orgasm before I go to school at 8 o'clock."

After a year and a half of this ordeal, Martha pulls the grip Burger - "society, outsiders, it was the absolute enemy" - and enjoy a trip to settle in an aunt. But as a teenager, its not repeatedly bring to Montramé: "You can not help loving the places of her childhood, she sighs. And everything was going so wrong in my life, I was so lonely and unbalanced Montramé that did not seem worse than life in society. " 

When the termination of another resident of the castle, Martha is questioned by the police, at the age of 13 years, Burger has done so much recite his lesson that the case is dismissed. It is this "volte-face" that Mr. Philippe Petillaut , one of the defenders of the guru, intends to use to refute the story of Martha "Burger mind, this is why we want to pay, attack against the lawyer. Yesterday, the medical lobby wanted his skin. Nowadays, the Catholic lobby waving trio infernal cult + guru + pedophilia. Burger What think looks or written, we have not condemn people for it. "

For its part, the lawyer Martha Me Olivier Morice , has obtained for his client a decision of the commission to compensate victims, who believes, on the basis of psychological assessments, the young woman has been a victim rape during his childhood. Remains to convince jurors that Melun Guy-Claude Burger nothing humanist, the good father, the misunderstood genius he claims to be.

 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: TylerDurden on November 03, 2012, 04:26:10 pm
So should we deliver 100% grass-fed bison, raw oysters,  and organic berries to prison kitchens using tax payers' money?
We could do it cheaply. I mean, forcing the prisoners to eat(much healthier) raw organ-meats instead of the usual muscle-meats would save a lot of cash - raw oysters would be a lot cheaper for prisons near the coast etc.. Plus, forcing the prisoners to eat the meat raw could be actually seen as a hardship for the prisoners from the viewpoint of the more hardline among the population, instead of the bonus to health it would really be.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: TylerDurden on November 03, 2012, 04:36:05 pm
As regards the above article, I should note that a) the French government has always been fanatically opposed to anything resembling cults, regardless of how harmless they might be, and b) Burger claims he was set up and that the conviction was false and c) rather more importantly, he has served a prison-sentence so the past should not be revisited.

Oh and d) the media is full of lies. Take the current Jimmy Savile paedophile "crisis" wherein thousands of people have claimed to have been abused by the guy, solely because now the guy is dead so can't sue them for libel in court. The sheer scale of such allegations means that it is highly unlikely any of them are true.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: TylerDurden on November 03, 2012, 06:20:44 pm
First of all, it looks rather that he actually pinched her bottom and also the woman's reaction on live TV is hardly negative, given the wide smile.. Basically, I would believe reports of groping, pinching bottoms etc. since celebrities like Schwarzenegger et al revel in their power/influence and sometimes do such things. But when countless numbers of people, rather than just one or two here and there,  start talking about serious sexual abuse(eg:- necrophilia!) by celebrities, they all have got to be lying. I mean, celebrities have a lot to lose if they do such things. And Savile wasn't  a stupid man, being very clever at manipulating public opinion etc.

Basically, it's pretty obvious that Savile groped a few people here and there, nothing too extreme - he probably slept with a few , very mature-looking women who claimed to be 18 but who were really 14 or 15 - that sort of thing. It's obvious, though, that people widely exaggerated things, after his death, purely for purposes of claiming his fortune in compensation.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 03, 2012, 10:23:52 pm
I just come back from picking a few hundred persimmons including very small wild ones with an instincto friend and I see there are plenty added posts in this thread needing a response…

So, we’ve got another zealous purveyor of defamatory gossip about GCB and instinctotherapy. It seems both names irresistibly attract such opposition by aggressive militants, just like Galileo, Copernic, Harvey, Semmelweiss, Wegener  and most scientists finding fundamental breakthroughs were and are still met with fanatical resistance. As Max Planck once said, "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

But still it’s odd that even in a forum devoted to raw paleo, there are recurring and violent attacks against the first and main initiator of the very basics points of… raw paleo!

Our zealous purveyor found an old article of Anne-Marie Casteret in the French magazine  “L’Express”. She was the one who launched the media’s attack against us. Her article was the initial one on which the other followers-journalists based theirs without checking the facts, as usual.
 
She even phoned to a few of my friends in Switzerland to interview them. Then she completely distorted their say to make up the slanderous article she wanted to write. One was so disgusted he told me that he won’t ever speak to any journalist again. I even wrote her, politely pointing out the several mistakes in her article but she never answered, as French journalists usually fail to do. A few years latter that woman deceased of cancer .

Of course, Löwenherz has seen a lot of foolish emaciated and ailing “instinctos”, especially in Thailand and Sri Lanka. Well… I lived in Sti Lanka several years and I’ve been quite often in Thailand too. I never met any instincto there, but I know there’s at least one: GCB’s son of whom I have posted  the photos here (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg101256/#msg101256). You can see how emaciated and ill he is!  ;) ;D

About the metasexuality theory of GCB, again we have a fanatic inquisitor who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. This is another topic, but I can shortly say that I had heard only aggressive gossips about it from people unable to clearly and calmly explain me what it is. So, I decided to go and follow the seminar given by its author, just to know what it is from the source without the frenzy distortions ostensible in the narrations from second-, third-, and fourth-hand sources.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 03, 2012, 10:59:29 pm
 
Iguana, good that we have a member here who has first-hand knowledge of GCB.

What is GCB's consumption of fat versus carbo? A good number of members here promote eating much fat. I do not find I have a big appetite for fat. In fact, since I try to go instincto (i.e., no mixing of food items and no spices), I have close to zero appetite for raw unadulterated animal fat. So I am interested in knowing GCB's idea (and your idea) on fat consumption versus carbo.

I can’t tell exactly what is GCB’s proportion of fat versus carbohydrates, but it is probably more carb than fat — at least in volume and weight — just like mine. It’s difficult to find good sources of clean animal fat here in France. As I said, the wild animals don’t have much fat and only pigs have a lot. Some raw paleo friends who were staying at my place last winter brought half of a pig grown by their father and fed mainly acorns. It’s fat was delicious and we ate plenty during about a month. But when we don’t mix it with muscle meat, we can’t eat very much at once. If we systematically mix it or transgress the instinctive feelings, we may easily override our digestive capacity and thus have digestive difficulties and/or other delayed troubles.

Otherwise, I like very much marrow, but seldom find enough.

If you have no appetite for it, then it is probably that you currently don’t need much of it. Things change with time according to our fluctuating needs, which you’re the only one to know exactly.

So should we deliver 100% grass-fed bison, raw oysters,  and organic berries to prison kitchens using tax payers' money?

In France visitors can’t bring food to a prisoner and it’s forbidden to send them food supplies. During months he was thus deprived of the right to receive food from friends visiting him and had to survive on the scarce raw plant foods he found and bought at the prison canteen. He almost died of starvation twice until an expert came and said that as this man has eaten 100% raw for 40 years, he really needed  to be able to continue to eat raw and thus should be allowed to receive food from the exterior. Fearing for his life, we even alerted Amnesty International, but they didn’t care. 

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 03, 2012, 11:47:30 pm
Seems we are veering off topic here.
There is an anti-instincto thread I believe.
We could move these discussions there.

As for the pedophile charges circa 1990s... well those are the norms and the laws an honest scientist needs to contend with... and he paid the price for his experiments. People must really widen their thinking to way back in history and their norms at those times and in pre-history too... as we raw paleo dieters date our diet to pre-history. So what of pre-historic sexuality?

Personally, in my country it was only in 1990 that they changed the laws from a starting marrying age of 14 to 18 for non muslims... and from 12 to 16 for muslims.  I have friends whose mothers started at 14 and they did just fine.  I interviewed a muslim lady in a baby clothes market stall and she got married at 12 and now has 5 children at 21.  She is the 3rd wife of 4 wives.  Collectively they have 16 children as a family.  Her parents are the baby sitters.  She, her 4 sister wives and their husband all operate stalls in the market.  Please do not judge them or jail them or persecute them... that is their thing.

You could look at all the old religious characters as pedophiles from the point of view of 2012.  The "virgin mary" was 14.  The prophet mohammed got a 9 year old wife.  So? That was their normal.

I thank GCB for his experiments on that matter of human sexuality, which of course he had to pay the price of laws in the 1990s.

I also thank GCB for sharing his theories on how and why his wife died of cancer.  He said somewhere in this forum that his wife was addicted to farmed raw beef meat.

The French journalist did not mention that it was precisely instincto-therapy that saved GCB from his own cancer.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 04, 2012, 12:36:33 am
Yes, views on sexuality depend on the culture. Sexuality is disturbed (becomes more of an obsession) by cooked foods, grain, dairy, and this situation has led to many troubles of neolithic and modern societies. Löwenherz, if you wanna go straight to the source instead of relying on gossip, you can also use "Google Translate" to read those pages: https://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/home/qu-est-ce-que-la-metapsychanalyse
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Joy2012 on November 04, 2012, 08:22:38 am

I can’t tell exactly what is GCB’s proportion of fat versus carbohydrates, but it is probably more carb than fat — at least in volume and weight — just like mine. It’s difficult to find good sources of clean animal fat here in France. As I said, the wild animals don’t have much fat and only pigs have a lot. Some raw paleo friends who were staying at my place last winter brought half of a pig grown by their father and fed mainly acorns. It’s fat was delicious and we ate plenty during about a month. But when we don’t mix it with muscle meat, we can’t eat very much at once. If we systematically mix it or transgress the instinctive feelings, we may easily override our digestive capacity and thus have digestive difficulties and/or other delayed troubles.

Otherwise, I like very much marrow, but seldom find enough.

If you have no appetite for it, then it is probably that you currently don’t need much of it. Things change with time according to our fluctuating needs, which you’re the only one to know exactly.

In France visitors can’t bring food to a prisoner and it’s forbidden to send them food supplies. During months he was thus deprived of the right to receive food from friends visiting him and had to survive on the scarce raw plant foods he found and bought at the prison canteen. He almost died of starvation twice until an expert came and said that as this man has eaten 100% raw for 40 years, he really needed  to be able to continue to eat raw and thus should be allowed to receive food from the exterior. Fearing for his life, we even alerted Amnesty International, but they didn’t care.

Thanks, Iguana.

Did GCB plead guilty to the raping children charge (or some other accusation)?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 04, 2012, 03:34:09 pm
No, he has always said, both publicly and privately that he was convicted for a crime he did not commit. Plus, he has consistently refused to retract from his theory named metasexuality or metapsychoanalysis which, by the way, prominent psychoanalysts have privately endorsed and highly praised.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Dorothy on November 04, 2012, 07:26:31 pm
No, he has always said, both publicly and privately that he was convicted for a crime he did not commit. Plus, he has consistently refused to retract from his theory named metasexuality or metapsychoanalysis which, by the way, prominent psychoanalysts have privately endorsed and highly praised.

Would you possibly be able to give a super quick synopsis of GCB's ideas of metasexuality/metapsychoanalysis? Isn't it nice when people ask for such ridiculous things and I know it's silly to ask for such a thing - but I do it anyway. ;)  The accusations seemed to include incest and pedophilia no? How are those related to his theories if at all?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 04, 2012, 08:25:24 pm
Would you possibly be able to give a super quick synopsis of GCB's ideas of metasexuality/metapsychoanalysis? Isn't it nice when people ask for such ridiculous things and I know it's silly to ask for such a thing - but I do it anyway. ;)  The accusations seemed to include incest and pedophilia no? How are those related to his theories if at all?

A discussion about this was started by GS in the topic “Normalized Sex Drive on instincto?”
(…)Seems that in normal, totally natural conditions, there is no genital relations without love. Rape, pornography and prostitution would then be the result of the abnormal sexual excitation caused by Neolithic and modern foods.
 -d
That’s a tremendously significant result with enormous consequences. If it’s true (and it really seems it is), all the civilizations, their philosophies, religions, laws and social order were thus constructed on an abnormal human behavior which was mistakenly taken for normal! Consequently, all the social sciences and social rules should be revised.

In the light of this, we can better understand how and why cooking food and the Neolithic revolution were some of  the worst disasters ever happened on Earth, why everything has gone wrong with the human behavior.  >D

(...) sexual, physical, relations have another purpose than reproduction as well. Sexuality in humans, bonobos and it seems dolphins (at least) is permanent unlike in most other animals which have a period of rut and no sex drive in-between. For example, pregnant women still have a sexual drive, even under instincto nutrition, so it must have a useful function. This cannot be pleasure only as the sexologists pretend, because an animal wasting its energy for pleasure only has less chances of survival and thus such a species would have been eliminated by natural selection.

GCB has some evidence about what this function is. He explains it in his “metasexuality” theory, which a few experts such as professionals psychoanalysts or a very knowledgeable professor of philosophy have recognized in private (to him, and to me also) that it’s a new fundamental finding fitting extremely well within our current knowledge while fillings the gaps and suppressing the incoherencies.   ;)

You can also read Metapsychoanalysis and Justice (https://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/home/qu-est-ce-que-la-metapsychanalyse/metapsychanalyse-et-justice/metapsychoanalysis-and-justice)
and Google translation of other pages on his website about it.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Dorothy on November 04, 2012, 09:02:04 pm
Thanks Iguana. That's a very interesting idea that perverse sexual relationships without love are just symptoms of disease caused by the neolithic diet! I like it. I have wondered myself about that -- how much of our sickness of mind and spirit and in our relationships is based upon sickness of the body and imbalanced hormonal systems.

Is that the core of his metapsychoanalysis?

I guess I'm not interested enough to do the work of translating and reading long treatises. Other things I have translated of his I have found difficult to read - it takes too much time and effort. That's why I was hoping for a short idea of what it is and how it might relate to the charges against him.

Was the idea that because there is love and a good diet that sex with someone of any age or any familial relationship to you, whether male or female is good? Multiple partners good as long as there is love and it is consensual?

Is there a synopsis of the broad sweeping ideas without the detail with which GCB usually writes available for me somewhere or would you please just give me a really quick idea?

Thanks. 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 04, 2012, 10:20:26 pm
Thanks Iguana. That's a very interesting idea that perverse sexual relationships without love are just symptoms of disease caused by the neolithic diet! I like it. I have wondered myself about that -- how much of our sickness of mind and spirit and in our relationships is based upon sickness of the body and imbalanced hormonal systems.

Is that the core of his metapsychoanalysis?
I would say it was the initial discovery that triggered the questioning of current beliefs and misconceptions about sexuality.

Quote
Was the idea that because there is love and a good diet that sex with someone of any age or any familial relationship to you, whether male or female is good? Multiple partners good as long as there is love and it is consensual?
He emphasize that “sexual” doesn’t necessarily mean genital, and this happen to be particularly true once the sexual obsession often focalized on genitals, and mostly due to abnormal nutrition, is over. According to his hypothesis that “what tastes good should be good for us (only as long as it is absolutely natural, of course)”, when we are in love it should therefore be good for both lovers, whatever the age, sex and social situation. He also underlines there should be no dishonesty, cheating or lies. The adult should not go to the young one, but in case the kid comes to the elder, he or she should not be repealed. Kids should be allowed to sleep in parents’ bed if they want because being repealed is known to be a huge trauma for them, the famous Oedipus complex, source of neurosis. Unfortunately, we live in a society composed of neurotic people sickly possessive and jealous. According to GCB, this sad situation arose with the Neolithic era.

In one word, yes, you've about grabbed it.

   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Dorothy on November 04, 2012, 11:21:28 pm
Interesting. Thank you so very much for taking the time to explain it!
I can see how such ideas could so easily be mis-interpreted in our society where incest and pedophilia are more taboo than eating raw meat or eating live bugs. I can see his point about how we have become obsessed about genitalia. I would describe it as sex and most human relationships (and our fears regarding them) as having become based upon the lower chakras only (pulling in language from other systems of thought).

I'm not sure that it would only be based upon diet though. As such social beings we do adapt to our society as a whole and what is taught to us and do get patterned. I'm not sure that just changing one's diet would be enough to turn the force of our entire society out of us - not that he claimed that of course. And of course, like GCB found out - it doesn't mean the society on a whole will tolerate it - even without neolithic foods.

Is there evidence that hunter-gatherer societies generally had more loving relationships I wonder? I think personally that the k'ung did - but I haven't made a broader study of other hunter gatherer societies in terms of their psychology. I'm not really convinced that it was just the food, but I bet it does have a tremendous influence.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Iguana on November 04, 2012, 11:48:30 pm
Of course there are other influences than food and he reckons that. I don't know much about hunter-gatherers but as I understand, they tend to share everything, even now that they cook food. Polynesians have been like that too.

Private possession began with agriculture since when you work to plant something, you don't like if someone else harvests the crop. Fortified cities were built to store and guard the grain, laws, police and army became necessary, dogmatic religions were created, the social structure shifted from tribal to familial, etc. 

BTW, we've got heavily off topic and we should perhaps look for a topic splitting... 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Dorothy on November 04, 2012, 11:51:30 pm
Yes off-topic - but very interesting - at least to me. ;) Thanks for being willing.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: Joy2012 on November 05, 2012, 09:24:59 am
Iguana, let me see if I understand you correctly about GCB:

(1) He does not think he has ever committed a crime against underage children through raping or seducing them.

(2) He does acknowledge he has had sex with consenting children for the maximum physical and emotional pleausre of both parties at that moment, even though that might cause dis-pleasure to his wife and his blood children and maybe even to the afore-mentioned underage children later on.

(3) Even though he emphasizes enjoying maximum pleasure on the animal level, he does use his trans-animal intellect to justify and glorify his sex with multiple children.

Am I correct?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: eveheart on November 05, 2012, 10:10:06 am
I've got to say that the tangent that this topic has taken makes little sense to me. How does any of this detract from the wisdom of eating with natural appetite-driven wisdom, as GCB wrote about in his instinctotherapie writings?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?"
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 05, 2012, 03:00:43 pm
Iguana, let me see if I understand you correctly about GCB:

(1) He does not think he has ever committed a crime against underage children through raping or seducing them.

A criminal offence defined in the 1990s may not have been criminal in the 1900s, not criminal in 33 AD and not criminal in 5,000 bc.

GCB served his jail time.

So it's a wrap.

If you ask Iguana, he can send you the sexuality theory book written by GCB.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 05, 2012, 06:16:41 pm
Iguana, let me see if I understand you correctly about GCB:
(1) He does not think he has ever committed a crime against underage children through raping or seducing them.
Correct.
Quote
(2) He does acknowledge he has had sex with consenting children for the maximum physical and emotional pleasure of both parties at that moment, even though that might cause dis-pleasure to his wife and his blood children and maybe even to the afore-mentioned underage children later on.
Incorrect because he emphasize that a love relationship must not hurt anyone. As a matter of fact, there’s no reason why it should hurt or offend anyone: on the opposite, we should be glad when a person we love is happily in love with someone else — an inversion of jealousy beneficial to all the partners. Also, “have sex” is a very broad and vague  term. Once again, according to him decoupling of sex and love is due to abnormal conditions because normally there is no “sexual” relations without love.

There can be something sexual in a gaze, in a touch of a hand or anything. It has been well established that a love relationship between a youngster and an elder isn’t bound by itself to cause any distress later on. If there happen to be any, it’s always due to a social disapproval and embarrassment.

A dilemma with conventional modern ethic is to set the exact threshold between a kid and an adult because the transition is, of course, gradual. Hence, an arbitrary line has to be set and the age of this boundary has widely varied according to epochs, countries and various legislations. This shows that something is unsound in the contemporary way of thinking.
 
Quote
(3) Even though he emphasizes enjoying maximum pleasure on the animal level, he does use his trans-animal intellect to justify and glorify his sex with multiple children.
I don’t perceive at all that he cares to specifically justify or glory his personal love relations.   

Cheers,
François
Title: Re: Metasexuality (from "Can we do without vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 06, 2012, 01:10:03 am
I've got to say that the tangent that this topic has taken makes little sense to me. How does any of this detract from the wisdom of eating with natural appetite-driven wisdom, as GCB wrote about in his instinctotherapie writings?

It seems to me Eve that GCB is implying is that if we eat instincto that we can heal on other levels including societally. It is interesting, may or may not be true, may or may not be taken completely separately from his instincto dietary ideas and may add rather than detract for some. It seems to me to be a psychological extrapolation of his physiological experiments.

It's highly controversial of course just like Freud was at his time and still is.

To me it's almost like the reverse of if the psychoanalysts were to ask what kind of diet might heal neurosis and the complexes outlined in psychoanalysis individually and societally?

It's a very interesting subject and I think you make a great point that one never has to go there to still get the benefits of the diet discoveries.

GS - I would submit that dismissing GCB and what actually happened and his ideology that led to his actions by saying he did his time would be doing him a possible disservice because in the US saying that someone did their time for pedophilia does not apply. A pedophile has to disclose their crime, report where they live and have that follow them throughout their lives in a way that no other crime comes close to. Also, doing one's time implies that he accepts guilt and that he did something that was wrong societally and morally and I don't believe according to what Iguana said that GCB believes that to be true.

I would like to ask Iguana if GCB's wife held to the same philosophy? How did she interpret and feel about all that happened? Do you know?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 06, 2012, 05:48:56 am
It seems to me Eve that GCB is implying is that if we eat instincto that we can heal on other levels including societally.
I'm under the impression that sexual obsession is immediately pretty much healed. But neurosis persists and will be transmitted from generation to generation unless we break the vicious circle. 
Quote
  It is interesting, may or may not be true, may or may not be taken completely separately from his instincto dietary ideas and may add rather than detract for some. It seems to me to be a psychological extrapolation of his physiological experiments.
That’s how I see it too. For me, it is a very fundamental addition which explains a lot of essential facts remained unexplained before, but for many it is on the contrary a detraction which has ruined the instincto movement.

Quote
It's highly controversial of course just like Freud was at his time and still is.
Yes, and GCB did build up on Freud and Jung, being able to do a synthesis of both for the first time in history.

Quote
To me it's almost like the reverse of if the psychoanalysts were to ask what kind of diet might heal neurosis and the complexes outlined in psychoanalysis individually and societally?

It's a very interesting subject and I think you make a great point that one never has to go there to still get the benefits of the diet discoveries.
The theory is a considerable and revolutionary advancement of our understanding. In practice, it’s another matter and we don’t have “to go there”: first we should have an opportunity “to go there”. For example, I never had any which materialized. Here we often run onto a social deadlock.

Quote
I would like to ask Iguana if GCB's wife held to the same philosophy?
I think so, but she disagreed with him about the importance of homosexuality. Seems she didn’t have any homosexual drive, contrary to him who can have both. I also don’t necessarily agree with him on this point: I don’t know, and I hope he’s wrong on that because I never had any homosexual drive either. 

Quote
How did she interpret and feel about all that happened? Do you know?
I never spoke privately with her on this topic and I don’t really know, but it seems she basically agreed with it.

Cheers
François
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: majormark on November 06, 2012, 11:32:26 pm
It seems to me that the instincto practice focuses mostly on fulfilling the needs of the physical body and not too much on the needs of the spirit. I think those needs can differ at times, if say the spirit may need to experience some form of physical lack/discomfort etc, but I'm not an expert on the matter so I'll leave it as an idea for now.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 06, 2012, 11:47:17 pm
Quote
I think so, but she disagreed with him about the importance of homosexuality. Seems she didn’t have any homosexual drive, contrary to him who can have both. I also don’t necessarily agree with him on this point: I don’t know, and I hope he’s wrong on that because I never had any homosexual drive either. 

May I impose on your generosity once again Iguana and ask you to give a quick summary of what GCB thinks the importance of homosexuality is?

One of the problems with people making theories about what is important for everyone and what is natural is that they often judge it by what they deem as natural for themselves - which can complicate the matter a great deal in our society if they are attracted to the same sex and children.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 07, 2012, 06:06:07 am
 
May I impose on your generosity once again Iguana and ask you to give a quick summary of what GCB thinks the importance of homosexuality is?
LOL! No problem, I have some free time and I enjoy such discussion!

Well… I’ve recurrently been confronted to the socially unacceptable situation of being caught in triangular love relationships. As we didn’t know how to handle it, it most often terminated in failure, grief and pain. Thus, when GCB told his ascertainment  that it is the normal and almost inevitable course of events, I was immediately enthralled.  :)

Regularly, once a couple has been formed, after some time one of the partners "fall" in love with a third person. Then, there are 3 usual alternatives:

- The couple part, one of the partners forming a new couple with the newcomer while the other one is left behind alone and dejected.
- The initial couple resists and it’s the newcomer who is left behind alone and dejected.
- An adultery relation begins in secret, one of the initial partners being cheated. 

None of these 3 possibilities is honest, fair, satisfying and allowing a sustainable love, as a genuine love should be. 

But when sexual obsession is no more and neurosis absent or in control, the sentiment of possessing the partner can make place for real love, so that jealousy is inverted. Usually, for example if 2 men love the same woman, there are good chances that they could get along well because they must have a lot of similitude. This has been often verified (by myself included).

Then, a triangular love relationship between 3 persons can take place. So, there must be at least 2 of these 3 fellows being of the same sex. If there’s an homosexual relation as well between these two, it can make a strong triangular relation. I guess that a good friendship would be enough, and that was also the view of Nicole, as I’ve been told by GCB. But he says his long experience with a group shows that the homo relation is really important to reach the stability and full potentialities of the triangular love relationship. (I guess he's somewhat biased on this point.)

But sexual, physical, relations have another purpose than reproduction as well. Sexuality in humans, bonobos and it seems dolphins (at least) is permanent unlike in most other animals which have a period of rut and no sex drive in-between. For example, pregnant women still have a sexual drive, even under instincto nutrition, so it must have an useful function. This cannot be pleasure only as the sexologists pretend, because an animal wasting its energy for pleasure only has less chances of survival and thus such a species would have been eliminated by natural selection.

GCB has some evidence about what this function is…


He says, it’s the structuring of paranormal capacities, the ESP were are talking about elsewhere. It’s extremely important because it shows us there’s something else than what we usually perceive. A population deprived of paranormal capacities becomes materialist and possessive, increasing even more the trend due to neurosis and perfectly closing the vicious circle...   >D

There’s still a lot to say, but it’s getting late…
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 08, 2012, 07:24:38 am
It seems to me that the instincto practice focuses mostly on fulfilling the needs of the physical body and not too much on the needs of the spirit. I think those needs can differ at times, if say the spirit may need to experience some form of physical lack/discomfort etc, but I'm not an expert on the matter so I'll leave it as an idea for now.

Both are intrinsically linked (two faces of the same coin) and shouldn't be separated, I think. A physical loving contact transmit energy/information and that’s why it's essential. After some time, a couple has entirely shared it’s stock of energy/info and the relationship gradually looses its initial interest. A kind of routine remains but the passionate love we all long for has gone. That’s when a third person can bring in new energy/info and “recharge“ the couple like we recharge a battery. So, the third partner doesn’t come forward to destroy the initial couple, but on the contrary to save it from boredom and eventual explosion.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 08, 2012, 07:34:34 am
How does contraception fit into meta sexuality theory?

How does having children and the responsibility of growing children fit into meta sexuality theory?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 08, 2012, 07:38:02 am
I'll try to answer tomorrow because it's high time to go to sleep for me on this side of the planet!
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 08, 2012, 10:13:23 am
After some time, a couple has entirely shared it’s stock of energy/info and the relationship gradually looses its initial interest. A kind of routine remains but the passionate love we all long for has gone.

Wow, that's a pretty glum view and seems to me like a depiction of people that don't embrace life fully to begin with. I have found that when I engage fully with my Universe on all levels I'm constantly changing and quite unpredictable. If a person embraces their creativity and is intelligent how can they be bored with themselves or their partner? My husband's mind constantly fascinates me. His creativity is delightful. The only way for me to get bored is to stop my own growth in being able to more fully understand him. Slowly over the years I have learned to begin to see in my own mind the movies, jokes, skits and cartoons he makes up in his mind. If I get bored, it's only because I am incapable of learning new ways of understanding and appreciating him. I think most people get bored with others because they are bored with themselves and look for new things to titillate them from the outside to make up for their own inability to engage. As long as a person is always looking for the kind of initial romance and "passion" they will never get to explore the deeper regions of intimacy. For some, that will mean that they would have to take full responsibility and/or explore parts of themselves that they don't want to - so they look for a distraction. If one's consciousness is open, it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well - and especially someone who is creative. If you are with a boring person that is closed, well, yeah, that's boring - but I wouldn't assume that every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring just because you have not seen or experienced one that is not. The longer it goes on and the deeper it goes - actually - the more interesting it becomes.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 08, 2012, 10:44:55 am
Dorothy,

How many children and grandchildren do you have with your husband?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 08, 2012, 12:45:21 pm
I know that is very important to you GS. That was not my most important consideration for this lifetime.

Remembering my lifetimes has given me quite a unique perspective. I've had more children and grandchildren than I could ever count. But I've never had a relationship like I've had with my husband - or even one like I have with myself - before. I made my choices on new ground this time.

I do realize that the raising of children can change relationships and even the choice of a relationship. I just wanted to say that the "fact" that people will get bored with one another is not an absolute given. It depends on priorities and the individuals involved and where they make their choices from. The choices based by itself upon sex and chemistry, karma, child-rearing considerations, security, family, old habits and even to fill what is missing in ourselves is one way and valid, and yes, can (and usually does) lead to boredom - especially when the person ends up being not the fantasy you projected onto them - but when you make your choice primarily from a different sphere - boredom is simply not an issue. Btw, I am not saying that this precludes children.

If you want someone else to make you into a happy person, to give you peace and security, to fill your life with excitement, to fire up your endorphins all the time and provide for everything else that you think you want materially and always perform in ways you expect then you want someone else to do for you what you can't do for yourself and you will never be able to see them for who they are instead of your projection of what you want of them. That truly is BORING! Finding someone that is interesting/creative and then assisting them in being the most of who and what they are and delighting in them, and them doing the same with you, becoming closer and closer through that process - can't be boring. Two people projecting their own desires and wants onto each other - horribly boring - and yes - bringing in a new person to project onto will relieve that boredom - that is until that gets boring too. If you multiply that over lifetimes the perpetual cycles of boredom eventually motivates to seek an alternative. I'm putting out there that there is an alternative besides adding more and more people to the mix for quick, fleeting, novelty. Once you get really truly interested in one interesting person as themselves rather than what you want of them - that is a LOT! Just the whole you with that one real other and the infinite possibilities can be almost too much.   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 08, 2012, 03:08:33 pm
If one's consciousness is open, it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well - and especially someone who is creative. If you are with a boring person that is closed, well, yeah, that's boring - but I wouldn't assume that every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring just because you have not seen or experienced one that is not. The longer it goes on and the deeper it goes - actually - the more interesting it becomes.

My choice of the word “boring” was probably inappropriate and led you to focus on that single word… Of course, there are exceptions and you seem to be one of them. I never assumed that “every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring”, I just notice that in most cases, closed binary relationships finally end up in failure. The failure is not always apparent, as there are a lot of couples who have all the external appearance of being successful, but in which the partners experience frustration, often unconsciously. They seem to be going along perfectly well, but their love has become a kind of companionship deprived of the essential, while both are thinking it’s the normal evolution of a couple as we’ve been led to believe by our brilliant leading scholars. :P

Now let me focus on your words “open” as in your sentence “it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well”. I totally agree if "open" means open to others and open to the love, however it happens.

What would you do if someone happen to be in true, mutual love with you or with your husband? Would you reject that person, causing her and your husband or yourself an excruciating pain leading both to wish they would die?  >:
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Hanna on November 08, 2012, 03:48:28 pm
How does contraception fit into meta sexuality theory?

How does having children and the responsibility of growing children fit into meta sexuality theory?


The children are raised in a group with the women of the group loving each other and helping each other raising the children. Men and women are having loving relationships with (certain) children of the group (and with each other, of course). It isn´t important whose child it is; you can have a loving relationship with any child of the group. A paradise for pedophiles ... and therefore dangerous, I guess.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 08, 2012, 03:57:47 pm
That's a caricature of the way in Polynesia and in most hunter-gatherers tribes, Hanna. I think a small group tried to do something alike but it's almost impossible (and dangerous, as you rightly say) in our modern society with neurotic people inside and around the group.   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Hanna on November 08, 2012, 09:23:26 pm
This group may have been small, but is was the core of the whole instincto movement.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 08, 2012, 10:00:54 pm
So back to my original questions:

How does contraception fit into meta sexuality theory?

How does having children and the responsibility of growing children fit into meta sexuality theory?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 08, 2012, 10:14:38 pm
This group may have been small, but is was the core of the whole instincto movement.
I don't know what was going on in this group. I’ve never been a member of it and I only heard gossips about it. Thus I don't care, I'm not interested in judgments based on gossips and I’m not in position to judge anyone, fortunately. What’s the matter? Do you think everything is fine in our conventional society?

GS, I'll answer tonight or tomorrow, it will take me some time to write a comprehensive answer and I want to wash my car now.  ;)
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 09, 2012, 01:17:53 am
My choice of the word “boring” was probably inappropriate and led you to focus on that single word… Of course, there are exceptions and you seem to be one of them. I never assumed that “every monogamous relationship is doomed to be boring”, I just notice that in most cases, closed binary relationships finally end up in failure. The failure is not always apparent, as there are a lot of couples who have all the external appearance of being successful, but in which the partners experience frustration, often unconsciously. They seem to be going along perfectly well, but their love has become a kind of companionship deprived of the essential, while both are thinking it’s the normal evolution of a couple as we’ve been led to believe by our brilliant leading scholars. :P

Now let me focus on your words “open” as in your sentence “it's really pretty hard to be bored if you are with another person that is open as well”. I totally agree if "open" means open to others and open to the love, however it happens.

What would you do if someone happen to be in true, mutual love with you or with your husband? Would you reject that person, causing her and your husband or yourself an excruciating pain leading both to wish they would die?  >:


What I am saying is that the "inevitable" feeling of insufficiency, lack, boredom, restlessness, lack of vibrancy, frustration, lack of passion, being in what many consider the loss of the early romantic hormones that are so desired - whatever you want to call it - is NOT necessarily because in this society is monogamous, heterosexual, or doesn't condone sexuality with children - but it is because in our society we make our decisions about our partners based upon desires that are bound to lead to such experiences.

You ask what being in love means? I ask what does choosing your partner mean? I have loved many people and some have loved me, but I choose to open certain chakras only to my husband because he is the one that I choose to have that kind of relationship with. My opening my lower chakras to someone else could be entertaining as it would be entertaining to him to do so with others - but unless we BOTH wanted to open that same energy to a third person in equal degree it would cause a riff in our energies together which we both hold as the most valuable thing our lives.

My husband has never been jealous of me showing love from my heart and upper chakras towards others, including men, because he knows that I have chosen him knowing that he is the BEST for me and he trusts my ability to gauge my own energies. I have had close male friends who I loved very much and who wished they could have a sexual relationship with me if I were available, but I wasn't. They didn't turn down the love of friendship I offered because I wouldn't have sex with them.

It sounds like what you are talking about is truly a fixation on genitalia - not on love. I hold myself free and my husband free to open up to others with tremendous love. I however hold certain energies for him alone as he does with me which allows us to have a deepening of relationship which opens up a certain kind of experience based upon a level of trust and undispersed energies that would be diluted and confused if opened up generally with others.

The only way I could "fall in love" (I am thinking you mean with sexual desire) with another person is if I allowed that person into relationship with me in a particular way. If I were to do that, then I would be giving up the very sacred and deep intimacy that I have with my husband to allow someone else in. If someone else chooses to "fall in love" with me in a way that they need/want sexual interaction with me and would not accept just my heart centered love then they would be trying to force their way in a place that is not welcome and be acting from in my view an aggressive and hostile place. I would not have to turn away their love however - just the "genitalia" and the holding of the primary place my husband has in my life.

I think it is our societies fixation with the lower chakras, the genitalia, chemistry, hormones, physical attractiveness and other lower chakra concerns that makes us choose our mates based upon those and therefore makes us get bored, frustrated - whatever you want to call it.

When I say open I meant open hearts, open minds, open psychically, open spiritually, open creatively. If all that is open is the lower chakras then we think we have to get everything from our partners, including all the love, all the feelings of belonging, oneness, losing oneself as an individual - all those things that we like to get from others when we first meet them and "fall in love" that tend to fade. When inviting a partner based upon higher chakra criteria, you don't have to worry about closing off your heart to others and you don't have to worry about getting bored or frustrated.

I think few if any people in our society make the choice of partner in this way Iguana - let alone more than one. I'm just saying that perhaps the thing to change isn't just involving more and more people with genitalia and continuing to look further and further outside oneself for lower chakra satisfaction.

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 09, 2012, 03:31:47 am
You ask what being in love means?
No, I ask you:
What would you do if someone happen to be in true, mutual love with you or with your husband? Would you reject that person, causing her and your husband or yourself an excruciating pain leading both to wish they would die?  >:
Otherwise, I wish we keep in mind that what we discuss here is not meant on a personal  level (because everyone is different) but in general and that there are always outstanding exceptions.

I’m not sure what you mean by “lower chakras” and ‘upper chakras’ and I thought I had clarified that “sexual” doesn’t necessarily mean genital.

Quote
It sounds like what you are talking about is truly a fixation on genitalia - not on love.
Absolutely not, and to remain on personal level, I never cared much about genitalia.

Quote
I hold myself free and my husband free to open up to others with tremendous love.
Fine and that’s could be one of the main reasons why your relationship is lasting.

Quote
I however hold certain energies for him alone as he does with me which allows us to have a deepening of relationship which opens up a certain kind of experience based upon a level of trust and undispersed energies that would be diluted and confused if opened up generally with others.
If it’s fine for both of you and for everyone else you have known, then it’s fine for me too!

Quote
The only way I could "fall in love" (I am thinking you mean with sexual desire) with another person is if I allowed that person into relationship with me in a particular way. If I were to do that, then I would be giving up the very sacred and deep intimacy that I have with my husband to allow someone else in. If someone else chooses to "fall in love" with me in a way that they need/want sexual interaction with me and would not accept just my heart centered love then they would be trying to force their way in a place that is not welcome and be acting from in my view an aggressive and hostile place. I would not have to turn away their love however - just the "genitalia" and the holding of the primary place my husband has in my life.
Does it mean you could have a secondary romance with someone else as long as it remains free of genital relations?

Quote
I think it is our societies fixation with the lower chakras, the genitalia, chemistry, hormones, physical attractiveness and other lower chakra concerns that makes us choose our mates based upon those and therefore makes us get bored, frustrated - whatever you want to call it.
When you get in love, you don’t choose: it just happens without your will.

Quote
When I say open I meant open hearts, open minds, open psychically, open spiritually, open creatively. If all that is open is the lower chakras then we think we have to get everything from our partners, including all the love, all the feelings of belonging, oneness, losing oneself as an individual - all those things that we like to get from others when we first meet them and "fall in love" that tend to fade. When inviting a partner based upon higher chakra criteria, you don't have to worry about closing off your heart to others and you don't have to worry about getting bored or frustrated.
Not sure I understand about these “lower” and “higher” things.

Quote
I think few if any people in our society make the choice of partner in this way Iguana - let alone more than one. I'm just saying that perhaps the thing to change isn't just involving more and more people with genitalia and continuing to look further and further outside oneself for lower chakra satisfaction.
Metasexuality is not at all about involving more and more people with genitalia. It looks like we don’t understand each other.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 09, 2012, 04:18:47 am
How does contraception fit into meta sexuality theory?
Taking into account Malinowski’s account of the Trobriand Islanders' ideas and practice of sexuality, GCB hypothesized the existence of a natural contraceptive system. When there’s metasexual love between two partners, there would be no undesirable procreation, whatever they do at the condition that they  do not think about it. That’s what he calls the metasexual instinctive program or MIP, which seems to be exclusive to humans, bonobos, perhaps dolphins and some whales and whose main purpose is not procreation, but structuring of the metapsychic capacities (ESP). This is rather distinct of the reproductive instinctive program (RIP) which can work without love (perhaps as a backup program).

Plato already knew about it, he called these Pandemian Eros (RIP) and Uranian Eros (MIP). An essential difference is that Plato considered the MIP being exclusive to men, women having no access to it!

According to GCB, reproduction should normally be a part of the MIP, a pregnancy being announced by a premonition such as a dream or a vision in which the name of the future kid is given.

Unfortunately, this seems not to be a safe method of contraception, at least for us who know too much to believe it is safe as the Trobrianders believe! I think GCB has recognized that fact.

So, the problem of natural contraception is not solved and more research should be done, I think. We should probably look on the side of the last hunther-gatherers or traditional Polynesians who seem to know better than us about it. But perhaps I’m wrong.

Quote
How does having children and the responsibility of growing children fit into meta sexuality theory?
It says that an open couple is stable because there would be no reason to part or divorce, so the parents would much more likely to remain together to take care of their offspring till they are fully grown up. Of course, if living in a tribe or in group, it would be much easier for the parents and in case one of or both of the parents must leave a few days for whatever duty or have an accident, the other members of the group would happily help and care of the kids.

It can also be very convenient to have a third adult at home, it provides at lot more freedom. 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 09, 2012, 04:42:03 am
Ok - I think one of the things is that we are not understanding is each other's terminology. There is a difference between sexuality and love. One can love deeply without having sexual energy. Sexual energies are generated from the first chakra and second chakras located in the lower part of the body according to some forms of thought that have more of a history of talking about energies than do our Western languages. Higher and lower chakras don't necessarily mean better or worse - just generate from lower and higher parts of the body generally.

You asked me what love means - I asked you what partnership means. You did ask me a very personal question  - what I would do if someone was in true mutual love with me or my husband and I answered it personally.

You seem to be addressing more than general love, but sexual energies and therefore the term "in love with". I tried to answer. I realize what I'm talking about is a radically different way of looking at things so I'm sorry if I'm not doing a good job in expressing myself. There aren't really terms in our culture for what I am referring to so go outside of my culture for words.

I'm going to try to answer your question again in a way that you might understand better. If you choose your partner(s) that you are going to focus your sexual energies on not just on your transient sexual desires and energies radiating from the sexual centers (to most in this culture associated with genitalia) and also the power and materialism associated with those centers but primarily upon desires generally associated with the upper chakras (I will try to find you a description on line of that terminology) the same problems that you mentioned above do not occur.

Love is a general term for deep appreciation, connection, caring etc. to me in English that does not necessarily include sexuality. Sexuality has to do with lower chakra energies whereas love can exist with energies that permeate generally from the upper energetic spheres of the body/mind.

People who are awake in certain ways can choose how they respond sexually without shutting down love. Many of us have choices. The term "falling" in love in a way my culture's way of describing how out of control we are over our sexual energies - both giving and taking.  One can choose not to engage with sexual energies with people that you love and to focus sexual energies on only certain people. I'm not saying that it has to be one, but even one is a lot to handle and fairly miraculous for someone raised in our limited society as it is.

We all make choices in our modern world and give up certain things in order to have others as mature beings. For instance you might decide not to eat sweets in order to have the less immediate satisfaction of having improved health and strength. You might decide that even though each moment is not thrilling and some even very difficult if not painful to embark on a course of study that in the long run you know could give you deeper rewards.

Falling into who you engage your sexuality with versus choosing consciously from different criteria than most cultures deem as valuable can by-pass the fleetingness and boredom and frustration that GCB was referring to.

Nobody is just going to pop into either mine or my husband's life. We create our worlds and our relationships. Inviting love is one thing, inviting sexuality is another.

I'm agreeing with GCB about the problem, I'm just not sure that his solution is really a solution. It's could so easily just become more of the same problem as the solution seems to me to be generated from within the same paradigm as the problem.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 09, 2012, 07:30:01 am
Taking into account Malinowski’s account of the Trobriand Islanders' ideas and practice of sexuality, GCB hypothesized the existence of a natural contraceptive system. When there’s metasexual love between two partners, there would be no undesirable procreation, whatever they do at the condition that they  do not think about it. That’s what he calls the metasexual instinctive program or MIP, which seems to be exclusive to humans, bonobos, perhaps dolphins and some whales and whose main purpose is not procreation, but structuring of the metapsychic capacities (ESP). This is rather distinct of the reproductive instinctive program (RIP) which can work without love (perhaps as a backup program).

Plato already knew about it, he called these Pandemian Eros (RIP) and Uranian Eros (MIP). An essential difference is that Plato considered the MIP being exclusive to men, women having no access to it!

According to GCB, reproduction should normally be a part of the MIP, a pregnancy being announced by a premonition such as a dream or a vision in which the name of the future kid is given.

Unfortunately, this seems not to be a safe method of contraception, at least for us who know too much to believe it is safe as the Trobrianders believe! I think GCB has recognized that fact.

So, the problem of natural contraception is not solved and more research should be done, I think. We should probably look on the side of the last hunther-gatherers or traditional Polynesians who seem to know better than us about it. But perhaps I’m wrong.
It says that an open couple is stable because there would be no reason to part or divorce, so the parents would much more likely to remain together to take care of their offspring till they are fully grown up. Of course, if living in a tribe or in group, it would be much easier for the parents and in case one of or both of the parents must leave a few days for whatever duty or have an accident, the other members of the group would happily help and care of the kids.

It can also be very convenient to have a third adult at home, it provides at lot more freedom. 


Thank you for spending time to explain.

This is all new to me and will explore interesting new things.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 10, 2012, 03:30:49 am
You’re welcome, GS.

Dorothy, I don’t pretend that nobody can have a lasting wonderful and happy life within an exclusive binary love relation. You’re an outstanding example of it, especially since you seem to have excellent paranormal capabilities (ESP). Some exceptional persons such as priests or monks can even be totally satisfied with a life long celibacy. It’s just that in the long run it’s not fully satisfying for most people, who, probably in part because of love missing its main purpose, never experience any ESP phenomenon and become thus materialists. While women get a material satisfaction by giving birth to children, men search a matching satisfaction in powerful cars, for example — amongst other possessions.

You can tell them all you want about chakras, sublimation, spirituality and such abstractions, it won’t ever work. It never worked for me either. Everyone is different, everyone has different needs (both in food and in sexuality/love) and we should respect everyone's specificities.
 
Did you notice that “meta” in metasexuality means beyond sexuality? In this “meta” context, sexuality is always associated with love and reunited with it. Such a transcendent love should be regarded as sacred, as it was often the case for the ancients.

Cheers
François
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 03:44:35 am
I think we are agreeing completely here Iguana. When I talk about making decisions from upper chakras it is pretty much the esp psi perceptions that I'm talking about. My husband also has these avenues open to him. It's not that he doesn't like cars, possessions, money (hell - I like money too!) it's just that the upper chakra concerns dictate, supersede, manage the lower ones. We saw each other with our third eyes first.

When GCB talks about knowing one's childrens' names before they are born and using esp in that way, why not use it to choose partners as well - to see the really big picture?

I agree that the vast majority of people won't have these options open to them at this point. I'm just throwing it out as a radical idea - kind of like GCB's ideas are pretty radical. At least some of us have the choice of stepping out of the dictates of our more animal natures and choosing our mates based upon old patterning. The thing is that I also don't see many people being able to be successful with GCB's approach either - even fewer actually. Going from desire to desire, wanting more and more of the primal urges with more and more diversity and more and more satisfaction, just like wanting more and more money and things, rarely leads to real abiding happiness and satisfaction.

I saw a TED talk on how more options actually lead to less happiness. Now I have to find that and post it here.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 10, 2012, 04:13:07 am
The thing is that I also don't see many people being able to be successful with GCB's approach either - even fewer actually. Going from desire to desire, wanting more and more of the primal urges with more and more diversity and more and more satisfaction, just like wanting more and more money and things, rarely leads to real abiding happiness and satisfaction.

Where have you got the idea that GCB's "meta" approach is as you write?? I don't understand, sorry.  -\
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 05:00:19 am
Well, you talked about there being no sexuality without love, but not about love while with-holding sexual energy.

I'll try to explain - I know I'm talking about things that are not talked about or even thought about in Western culture generally - so I'm sorry about having to use so many words and at times perhaps not being clear enough.

People get bored, frustrated, want to be "in love". In my culture people often get together because of chemisty, karma, money, social status, intellectual compatability and when their heart chakras are stimulated along with the sexual chakras and often it is first their sexual attraction that then is supported by other factors or that creates the feelings of love - stimulating the heart chakra. Often the setup is because of expectations and what one person thinks the other person is rather than what they really are. How many couples have you known that got married only to discover that they didn't actually like each other? We project our fantasies onto another person. Eventually though, we start to learn who and what the other person really is and the intense feelings of newness and idealization die down. That feeling of I know you therefore you don't hold as much interest as someone else. How did you put it? Something about not having more energy and experiences to share or something like that. When the decision about a mate is derived from the first chakras then the sexual attraction and material considerations is what drives the choice of a mate and without the other chakras above the heart chakra in gear that will wear off and the person will want another mate to keep their interest alive and to fulfill their desire for love - whereas, if the mating first occurs with the upper chakras, then the sexual desire is what follows the more intense and long-lived connections and has an infinite supply of energy and creativity from which to draw. GCB's idea that we need to attract new people or to have different partners is one based upon choosing lovers and mates first by the lower chakras. His lower chakras liked children and other men as well as women so he needed a diversity of people for his lower chakras to choose from. Having a whole tribe sharing sexual energies in order to be able to go from person to person never to be sexually bored, frustrated - never to be without sexual energies merged with the love of the heart. It's doomed really because the lower chakras are the seat of jealousies, the desire to control the need to hold on and of animosity for not being loved the way you wish from another. When there is a true psychic connection then you can relax and worry less about the sexual energies always having an outlet because the energies on the top of your head can be more satisfying, more the feeling of oneness, a deeper broader love than one could ever get with the first and second chakra-based sexual energies. With GCB's solution you are forced to go from person to person if you want that kind of energy to continue because it burns out. The connected energies of the upper chakras doesn't burn out. 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 10, 2012, 05:26:38 am
GCB's idea that we need to attract new people or to have different partners is one based upon choosing lovers and mates first by the lower chakras.

There’s a misunderstanding again. In his view (which I share) we don’t "need" to attract new people: it happens that there are attractions between people. We don’t choose lovers (I already wrote it in an above post), love happen sometimes between some people.

Quote
His lower chakras liked children and other men as well as women so he needed a diversity of people for his lower chakras to choose from.

?? No Dorothy, that’s a complete invention of yours. You asked me to explain about metasexuality, but now you are explaining me what you think GCB needed!!

What you wrote next also shows that I totally failed to explain what you asked me to explain.  >:   :'(
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 06:06:23 am
There’s a misunderstanding again. In his view (which I share) we don’t "need" to attract new people: it happens that there are attractions between people. We don’t choose lovers (I already wrote it in an above post), love happen sometimes between some people.
 

I understood you Iguana - you are not understanding ME! I know you are saying that you "just fall in love" that sexual attractions just happen and that there is no control over sexuality based upon what happens in the first chakras or general love from the heart. I got it.

You are not understanding me that when one is functioning from the psychic centers there is a GREAT deal of control over who you invite, who you are attracted to and who you allow to attach to your sexual energy. When you are not functioning from the psychic centers and above then you will of course be drawn here and there, not finding stability. One person will attract you and be attracted to you one day or one year or one decade and another the next. That's why the assumed need for multiple partners. Nothing wrong with mutiple partners, I'm just saying that as long as your first and second chakras are running the show there will no longer be any real abiding satisfaction or ability to really go to the depths.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 06:10:15 am

?? No Dorothy, that’s a complete invention of yours. You asked me to explain about metasexuality, but now you are explaining me what you think GCB needed!!

What you wrote next also shows that I totally failed to explain what you asked me to explain.  >:   :'(


Oh - I'm sorry - I gathered that he liked men and children in a romantic way because of what was said about him saying that homosexuality was an important aspect of his theories and the charges with the children would imply that there was some form of sexual/romantic/love energy present with children. I wasn't making a negative judgment. It was indeed an assumption from all that was written here before. I don't judge people for what their first and second chakra preferences are - just what they do with them - same as with adult heterosexual preferences - depends on what people do - if they hurt others.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 06:12:26 am
.... and I thank you very much for explaining metasexuality to me. I do find it fascinating and I apologize if I side-tracked the discussion with my own ideas.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: cherimoya_kid on November 10, 2012, 01:14:03 pm
Oh - I'm sorry - I gathered that he liked men and children in a romantic way because of what was said about him saying that homosexuality was an important aspect of his theories and the charges with the children would imply that there was some form of sexual/romantic/love energy present with children. I wasn't making a negative judgment. It was indeed an assumption from all that was written here before. I don't judge people for what their first and second chakra preferences are - just what they do with them - same as with adult heterosexual preferences - depends on what people do - if they hurt others.

So you believe in judging pthers?

i personally am far too aware of my own flaws to really believe in judging others.  That's not to say I don't catch myself doing it, but it's an old habit that is slowly disappearing in me.

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 10, 2012, 02:12:22 pm
So you believe in judging pthers?

I personally am far too aware of my own flaws to really believe in judging others.  That's not to say I don't catch myself doing it, but it's an old habit that is slowly disappearing in me.



How did you get that I said I was judging others when I said specifically that I was not? 

I do admit that when people get badly hurt by others I judge their actions but it is in a more general way than I think most would understand. I can judge say murder or rape for instance in certain ways. I do make value judgments in terms of ideas regarding how to structure society.

I specifically said that I was not judging someone's desires or feelings - anyone's. If they use those feelings to do a horrendous act - then I admit that I may judge the act. Even then, I can judge the act and understand why and how someone would commit it with compassion. When viewing acts from multiple lifetimes they also often take on very different meanings than the standard. I can make a value judgment - societally especially - while taking into consideration for instance karma and a soul's path.

My world view is different than most. Sometimes when I say things like I judge what someone does it isn't clear that I'm not actually judging the person. I guess that's what happened there?

That all might be hard to understand and I still might not be explaining it very well. I'm not used to talking about this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 11, 2012, 12:48:17 am
Dorothy, I also felt that you seemed to judge, but you apologized and somehow clarified your stance, so it’s OK for me. We aren't going to start a fight, are we?  ;)

On the news headlines today:
Quote

CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, cites extramarital affair  (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/09/15054517-cia-director-david-petraeus-resigns-cites-extramarital-affair?lite)
WASHINGTON -- CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and "extremely poor judgment."

As first reported by NBC News, Petraeus disclosed the affair in a letter released to the CIA work force on Friday afternoon, writing: "Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours."

Petraeus told President Barack Obama of his affair and offered his resignation during a meeting Thursday, a senior official told NBC News.

In a statement, Obama said he accepted Petraeus’s resignation on Friday
.

He should be stoned to death!

Quote
Deuteronomy 22
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

That’s utterly ridiculous. Are the United States of America still in Biblical pre-christian times? Even Jesus is said to have been forgiving for the adulteress. If all the ones who ever had an extraconjugal  relation were to quit their job, there would be few people still working. Obama should have said : “no, man, what the hell your private life has got to do with your work? I don’t want you to resign, the country needs you to go on with with your job. We live in the 21th Century, don’t you know?”

Most hunter-gatherers as well as traditional Inuit and Pacific Islanders would have a good laugh at the USA.
Inuit on Wikipedia  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit#Gender_roles.2C_marriage.2C_birth.2C_and_community)
Quote
The marital customs among the Inuit were not strictly monogamous: many Inuit relationships were implicitly or explicitly sexual. Open marriages, polygamy, divorce, and remarriage were known.
Searching for data about hunter-gatherers’ social and sexual ways, I found an remarkable article exposing views astonishingly close to GCB’s. There might be some divergences  but I didn’t see really fundamental ones  on a quick reading.
 
Quote
BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
By James W. Prescott
From "The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists", November 1975, pp. 10-20   (http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html)
(chosen excerpts)
I also examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence. The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.

These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship.

Premarital sexual freedom for young people can help reduce violence in a society, and the physical pleasure that youth obtains from sex can offset a lack of physical affection during infancy. Other research also indicates that societies which punish premarital sex are likely to engage in wife purchasing, to worship a high god in human morality, and to practice slavery. Other results are shown in the table below.

These findings overwhelmingly support the thesis that deprivation of body pleasure throughout life—but particularly during the formative periods of infancy, childhood, and adolescence—are very closely related to the amount of warfare and interpersonal violence. These insights should be applied to large and complicated industrial and postindustrial societies.

Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence.

About 25 percent of marriages in the United States now end in divorce, and an even higher percentage of couples have experienced extramarital affairs. This suggests that something is basically wrong with the traditional concept of universal monogamy. When viewed in connection with the cross-cultural evidence of the physical deprivations, violence, and warfare associated with monogamy, the need to create a more pluralistic system of marriage becomes clear. Contemporary experiments with communal living and group marriage are attempting to meet basic needs that remain unfulfilled in the isolation of a nuclear marriage. We must seriously consider new options, such as extended families comprised of two or three couples who share values and lifestyles. By sharing the benefits and responsibilities of child rearing, such families could provide an affectionate and varied environment for children as well as adults, and thereby reduce the incidence of child abuse and runaways.

The communal family—like the extended family group—can provide a more stimulating and supportive environment for both children and adults than can the average nuclear family. Communal living should not, of course, be equated with group sex, which is not a sharing, but more often an escape from intimacy and emotional vulnerability.

Above all, male sexuality must recognize the equality of female sexuality. The traditional right of men to multiple sexual relationships must be extended to women. The great barrier between man and woman is man's fear of the depth and intensity of female sensuality. Because power and aggression are neutralized through sensual pleasure, man's primary defense against a loss of dominance has been the historic denial, repression, and control of the sensual pleasure of women. The use of sex to provide mere release from physiological tension (apparent pleasure) should not be confused with a state of sensual pleasure which is incompatible with dominance, power, aggression, violence, and pain. It is through the mutual sharing of sensual pleasure that sexual equality between women and men will be realized.

For many people, a fundamental moral principle is the rejection of creeds, policies, and behaviors that inflict pain, suffering and deprivation upon our fellow humans. This principle needs to be extended: We should seek not just an absence of pain and suffering, but also the enhancement of pleasure, the promotion of affectionate human relationships, and the enrichment of human experience.

If we strive to increase the pleasure in our lives this will also affect the ways we express aggression and hostility. The reciprocal relationship between pleasure and violence is such that one inhibits the other; when physical pleasure is high, physical violence is low. When violence is high, pleasure is low. This basic premise of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory provides us with the tools necessary to fashion a world of peaceful, affectionate, cooperative individuals.

The world, however, has limited time to correct the conditions that propel us to violent confrontations. Modern technologies of warfare have made it possible for an individual or nation to bring total destruction to large segments of our population. And the greatest threat comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality. We will have the most to fear when these nations acquire the weapons of modern warfare. Tragically, this has already begun
.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 11, 2012, 02:35:54 am
I look back and try to see how judgment got seen when there was none and what I noticed is that I made a statement about someone's seeming sexual preference of men and children as well as women and made the point that with such sexual preferences when making choices of partners from lower chakras that such a preference by it's nature would demand multiple partners.

Just my saying that someone might prefer their own sex or children sexually that was enough to be branded as judgmental because generally, in our culture, such people often do get judged. That's really sad. I wrote about a whole new way of approaching the entire subject and there is close to no response and yet there is jump to protectionism based upon one mention of sexual preferences that some people judge in our society.

I'm starting to wonder if there is any hope here that someone will respond to what I am talking about instead of what a few words do in their own heads.

I shouldn't get involved in any subject that has words in it that someone can take and run with and ignore the point I'm trying to make.

I hope that finally I have learned my lesson. This isn't the proper venue for me to discuss my ideas - because in such a venue people don't tend to read but to scan taking things out of context and if they have been judged by such words themselves they will take it personally.

For those that have been scanning and are quick to jump and think based upon the reactions that I judge people that have different sexual preferences in terms of kind of number I better write this out in clear and bold face letters so that it stands out:

I DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAVE DIFFERENT SEXUAL PREFERENCES IN KIND OR NUMBER

I hope that handles it. Time to go and find something more productive to do now.

Thanks Iguana for letting me know GCB's ideas on metasexuality. I was planning on going back and re-reading my Freud and Jung next year as it's been decades since I studied them and when I do I will add in GCB's treatise. I find it very interesting as it does incorporate aspects of my own thoughts.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Alive on November 11, 2012, 03:42:29 am

Quote
These findings overwhelmingly support the thesis that deprivation of body pleasure throughout life—but particularly during the formative periods of infancy, childhood, and adolescence—are very closely related to the amount of warfare and interpersonal violence. These insights should be applied to large and complicated industrial and postindustrial societies.

Violence may well be the point of religious sexual suppression - to bond one group more tightly and provide them with violent tendencies with which to dominate another group and take control of more land. Also a 'benefit' of war is that you can kill all the 'bad-guys' and then rape and control their women.

Quote
CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, cites extramarital affair
WASHINGTON -- CIA Director David Petraeus resigned Friday, citing an extramarital affair and "extremely poor judgment."

Its so sick how you have to resign for such natural and loving behavior, but its fine to carry on all sorts of devious behaviors against the so called enemies of the state, such as being involved with immoral corporatist and military schemes in other countries!
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 11, 2012, 04:04:15 am
I thank you too, Dorothy for your interest in this topic. You exposed your views and if I didn’t really respond to what you were talking about, it’s because I know almost nothing about the chakras concept, except that it is an ancient Hindu systems of beliefs. Thus I’m just unable to respond when you refer to abstract ideas I know nothing about.

You can tell them all you want about chakras, sublimation, spirituality and such abstractions, it won’t ever work. It never worked for me either.

I’m sorry too if tend to be easily irritated when the discussion, which I would like to remain about the theory, which is nothing more than a theory (which means a provisional approximate model to be questioned, completed and if necessary modified or swapped in the future for another one explaining the known facts more accurately or in a simpler way) is drifting into personal considerations, especially about its author personal preferences. He’s been so much unduly attacked and judged that I became very sensitive about it since it has usually led to an impossibility to discuss calmly and objectively about the theory. 

Otherwise, I wish we keep in mind that what we discuss here is not meant on a personal  level (because everyone is different) but in general and that there are always outstanding exceptions.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 11, 2012, 04:29:06 am
Violence may well be the point of religious sexual suppression - to bond one group more tightly and provide them with violent tendencies with which to dominate another group and take control of more land. Also a 'benefit' of war is that you can kill all the 'bad-guys' and then rape and control their women

Yes, and all this havoc seem to have been triggered by disruptions in sexual behavior and social system induced by agriculture, consumption of grain, dairy and cooked food. 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 11, 2012, 06:01:54 am
Iguana - I never did go and get a link that describes the chakras did I?  -[  That was an oversight.

This is a pretty good basic description:
http://www.mysticfamiliar.com/library/l_chakras.htm (http://www.mysticfamiliar.com/library/l_chakras.htm)

I thought we were doing a pretty good job of keeping the discussion theoretical generally for the most part. I mean - you did ask me a very personal question which kind of got it a bit personal there. As far as GCB being judged, yeah, I can imagine how it has become a sensitivity.

GCB and his own situation do come into it however just like Jung and Freud liking to have sex with their patients came into it. You can see Jung, Freud and their societies in their theories. When a particular person is putting forth a theory that places homosexuality in the center of it to be considered an important aspect in the balance it just makes sense that he thinks that it is essential at least partly because of his own perceptions and experiences. It's common when someone is making a theoretical decision about a more perfect society that their own preferences will come into play at least a little here and there. It's always been that way - even going back to Plato! ;) It's the same with me. Because I place so much stress on the use of the upper chakras in my own decision-making I see his theories through my own experiences. I would not come up with a theory that stresses homosexuality for instance as a part of making it work well because I have zip sexual interest in females or in being around two males that are sexually intimate. It isn't that I can't see that those are preferences that others have and have to be accounted for, as does being attracted to very young people (I was always attracted to older people sexually, never younger people) but it wouldn't even occur to me to put that in as a determinant factor in creating a theory on how to cure the ills of our society.

Just because I have touched upon GCB personally, does not mean that I am judging him personally - I am still speaking theoretically. If there are people (GCB or anyone else - but GCB obviously had multiple preferences based upon what was said so was used as an example in his own theory) that are making the choices of their mates based foremost on lower chakra considerations then it most definitely would necessitate multiple sexual mates and would involve switching mates when novelty, accommodation, interest wears off. GCB's theories correspond to the need to fulfill sexual preferences as they would be dictated by the second chakra.

What I put forth was a radical idea of making the choice for mates not on the lower chakras primarily, but making the choices based upon the upper chakra abilities in order to support and fulfill the lower chakra desires in a way that is sustainable - no matter how many or what kind of relationships those end up being. If that were the case it would necessitate honesty and love as those are the nature of the fifth and fourth chakras.

Ok - I did it again. I got involved in talking about my own thoughts again. Hopefully that will be enough. ;)

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 11, 2012, 03:19:22 pm
I had a quick look at your link. I saw the third chakra is the solar plexus which GCB was often referring to. Is that an "upper" or a "lower" chakra?

Of course, I don't deny that his personal case somehow influenced his views, we more or less agree about that. But AFAIK he build the theory on generally observed and known facts.

On the other hand I disagree with your repeated insistence that we choose mates. It seems to me that love happen between two persons without being a conscious choice. Something superior seems to be at work here. When a relation is build upon a conscious choice, it can't be a real love, because a choice necessarily implies material and practical considerations.  A choice is unfortunately too often there to evade and destroy a love that could lead to a socially or practically difficult situation.   

I put this thread in the “off topic” section for lack of a better suited section. But I don’t think it’s really the appropriate place, this being an extremely important issue as I underlined in the last paragraphs of the above quote of James W. Prescott, and nutrition has a major influence on sexual behavior.  I wish we would get more members involved.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: van on November 11, 2012, 11:53:01 pm
If there's a 'wrong' in affairs, it's the inability of the one to be honest.  He or she has made a promise.  The 'right' thing is to speak about the want before it's undertaken.  But for most that would mean the possibility of abandonment, and most are so afraid of being alone, that they lie instead.  Human nature has us excusing ourselves for our own convenience at the harm of another. 
     Involving children in any sort of sexual experiences assumes that 'we' know best what is in there best interest.  Once again,  how selfish.  For how many times in life have each of us changed our opinions about very important things.   Children have no option but to look up to those who raise them, to elders, for guidance.  It's that way with every specie.  To assume that to deny a child physical sexual attention is wrong because the child will feel rejected and unloved is in my opinion simply a way of excusing one's selfish desires.  There are a myriad of ways to affirm love with a child without becoming sexual.   Does a parent or elder give excess sugar or allow a child to come in harms way just because it may think it wants it?      I have No experience with what GCB writes about,, I'm simply noticing how weak his argument reads in the light of human nature. 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 12, 2012, 12:28:26 am
I had a quick look at your link. I saw the third chakra is the solar plexus which GCB was often referring to. Is that an "upper" or a "lower" chakra?

Of course, I don't deny that his personal case somehow influenced his views, we more or less agree about that. But AFAIK he build the theory on generally observed and known facts.

On the other hand I disagree with your repeated insistence that we choose mates. It seems to me that love happen between two persons without being a conscious choice. Something superior seems to be at work here. When a relation is build upon a conscious choice, it can't be a real love, because a choice necessarily implies material and practical considerations.  A choice is unfortunately too often there to evade and destroy a love that could lead to a socially or practically difficult situation.   

I put this thread in the “off topic” section for lack of a better suited section. But I don’t think it’s really the appropriate place, this being an extremely important issue as I outlined in the last paragraphs of the above quote of James W. Prescott, and nutrition has a major influence on sexual behavior.  I wish we would get more members involved.


You still don't understand me it seems Iguana. Choice doesn't mean we make it from the intellect. Every person we invite into our lives whether we know we are doing it or not is a choice. Even that person I invited to mug me was a choice. You are right, most people don't have a clue that they are choosing, why they choose or the consequences of their choices because so few have their 5th, 6th and 7th chakra information available to them. That's what makes for so very much suffering and so little joy or sustained love generally - from my perspective.

The third chakra is one of the lower chakras btw. How did GCB refer to it?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 12, 2012, 12:45:55 am
If there's a 'wrong' in affairs, it's the inability of the one to be honest.  He or she has made a promise.  The 'right' thing is to speak about the want before it's undertaken.  But for most that would mean the possibility of abandonment, and most are so afraid of being alone, that they lie instead.  Human nature has us excusing ourselves for our own convenience at the harm of another. 
     Involving children in any sort of sexual experiences assumes that 'we' know best what is in there best interest.  Once again,  how selfish.  For how many times in life have each of us changed our opinions about very important things.   Children have no option but to look up to those who raise them, to elders, for guidance.  It's that way with every specie.  To assume that to deny a child physical sexual attention is wrong because the child will feel rejected and unloved is in my opinion simply a way of excusing one's selfish desires.  There are a myriad of ways to affirm love with a child without becoming sexual.   Does a parent or elder give excess sugar or allow a child to come in harms way just because it may think it wants it?      I have No experience with what GCB writes about,, I'm simply noticing how weak his argument reads in the light of human nature. 

Van - you are expressing some of my points better than I can! I spoke of honesty earlier as being something that flows naturally when the 5th chakra is open. Lying and cheating does not happen when those higher energies are accessed. It just feels too uncomfortable, wrong, out of place in one's life.

Your point about having sexual energy (not even necessarily sexual contact) with children is also what I am getting at from a different angle. Even if your second chakra and that part of your consciousness has been programmed to be attracted to children sexually, the 6th chakra would not allow action on it because of exactly what you say - most children are not yet developed enough to exercise they own will properly and are still too influenced by elders to make such a choice. Touching, hugging, loving deeply does not necessarily have to contain any sexual energy from the second chakra. It would naturally have a parenting, protecting energy from that chakra instead which is what creates humans that feel secure and deeply loved. Sexual energy towards a child can so easily get mixed up with that parenting, nurturing second chakra energy and the child is unable to discern the difference and it can become extremely confusing. If you are open you psychically will see the consequences of that sexual energy going to that other person and choose against it, just like seeing what lying to a partner would do to them and your relationship, so you choose against it. 

I think GCB from what Iguana said before was trying to get to that place where children could feel that energy of connectedness, love and physical connection, but perhaps just didn't understand that there are different kinds of energies that can and do emanate from the second and third chakras that are not sexual at all that would give the same kind of positive results.

Also, what GS has said about the arbitrariness of numbers when it comes to sexual maturity is correct. Individuals and individual cultures will progress towards the place of maturity at different rates and judging by a number can get awful messy. I was still basically a child until I hit almost 20 and yet I see other "children" at 15 that are ready to get going in that department with more maturity that I had at 19 or even into my 20's. Numbers and laws just can't handle the subtleties, but there has to be something in place to guard children against those that can not see the harm and can not or will not control their second and third chakra tendencies.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 12, 2012, 04:49:10 pm
If there's a 'wrong' in affairs, it's the inability of the one to be honest.
Sure.
Quote
He or she has made a promise.
Not necessarily.
Quote
The 'right' thing is to speak about the want before it's undertaken.
Exactly.
Quote
Involving children in any sort of sexual experiences assumes that 'we' know best what is in there best interest.  Once again,  how selfish.
It depends what we mean by “sexual experience”.  Sure, children shouldn’t be involved in pornography, prostitution or any loveless genital relations. Such things appeared with agricultural civilizations based on cooking and grain; they were certainly unknown amongst pre-fire hunter-gatherers.

It’s been well established by Freud and others that young children do have “sexual experiences”,  a striking example is when breast fed: I don’t think anyone denies that breasts are a sexual  differentiation. I remember very well that I had a sexual experience with a neighbor girl of my age when I was about 5 or 6 years old: she sat an the floor, her back against the wall with her legs apart and I massaged her thighs. We had spontaneously discovered a sexual pleasure and we felt it was a secret of ours, something marvelous nobody else had ever experienced!  :)  My room was on the ground floor and the window was open as it must have been in summer. My mother passed by, looked inside and saw what we were doing, somewhat intimidating me. She said “ah, you play the doctor!”. And I truthfully replied “ no, no!”. I thought she could never have known anything about the secret pleasant feeling we shared, there was no way I could ever explain it to her…!   ;D 

Quote
For how many times in life have each of us changed our opinions about very important things.   Children have no option but to look up to those who raise them, to elders, for guidance.  It's that way with every specie.
Sure, and no species except ours had ever established a threshold between young ones and adults. What the hell is wrong or bad with sex? We are a sexed species, it’s a natural thing we shouldn’t be ashamed of. Sex is an intrinsic part of anyone, everyone of us has a sex, either female or male. As I said, there can be something sexual in a kiss, a look, a touch of a hand, a tone of the voice. 

Things got out of control with the Neolithic nutrition and social organization. Sexual obsession appeared and thus loveless genital relations, prostitution and even rape became widespread. Laws and judgments were needed to avoid endless problems, a distinction and separation had to be set between young ones and adults, closed marriage became mandatory and adultery was severely punished. This had closed the vicious circle we are still in.

Quote
To assume that to deny a child physical sexual attention is wrong because the child will feel rejected and unloved is in my opinion simply a way of excusing one's selfish desires.
Why that? One has to be really sick to have a selfish genital desire for a young child. This is a perversion neurotic people feeding on cooked grain and other garbage may have, but it’s totally unnatural.

Quote
There are a myriad of ways to affirm love with a child without becoming sexual.   Does a parent or elder give excess sugar or allow a child to come in harms way just because it may think it wants it? I have No experience with what GCB writes about,, I'm simply noticing how weak his argument reads in the light of human nature. 
Children are not at all complete fools, but giving them any amount of refined white sugar or processed food will of course override their instinct. In the same register, they can’t stand loveless genital relations.

On the contrary, they do very well with fruits, raw meat… and love.

Isn’t the human nature you refer to the perverted one induced by the Neolithic ways of life and nutrition?

(http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/prescott1.jpg)
Picture from http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html (http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html)

Cheers
François


Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: goodsamaritan on November 12, 2012, 09:21:56 pm
Any grand children or children borne out of the metasexual experiments?

How did these children grow up to be like today?

Any interviews or testimonies from these children themselves who are adults today?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 13, 2012, 02:14:13 am
Quote
It’s been well established by Freud and others that young children do have “sexual experiences”,  a striking example is when breast fed: I don’t think anyone denies that breasts are a sexual  differentiation. I remember very well that I had a sexual experience with a neighbor girl of my age when I was about 5 or 6 years old: she sat an the floor, her back against the wall with her legs apart and I massaged her thighs. We had spontaneously discovered a sexual pleasure and we felt it was a secret of ours, something marvelous nobody else had ever experienced!    My room was on the ground floor and the window was open as it must have been in summer. My mother passed by, looked inside and saw what we were doing, somewhat intimidating me. She said “ah, you play the doctor!”. And I truthfully replied “ no, no!”. I thought she could never have known anything about the secret pleasant feeling we shared, there was no way I could ever explain it to her…!   


Of course young children have their own unfolding sexual responses. You and your friend were both children. Now, how different it would be if your friend's father or uncle did that same thing to her!

Quote
there can be something sexual in a kiss, a look, a touch of a hand, a tone of the voice. 

Things got out of control with the Neolithic nutrition and social organization. Sexual obsession appeared and thus loveless genital relations, prostitution and even rape became widespread.

Absolutely Iguana there can be something sexual in just about anything if the lower chakras are activated in that particular way - it's a particular energy. The thing is that many people have never experienced deep love and physical contact without sexual energy so think that love always goes hand-in-hand with sexual energy.

Whether or not negative sexual experiences are new just because of the neolithic revolution I'm still not convinced of yet. I would like to know how you know that there was no loveless sex or rape before the neolithic period?

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 13, 2012, 03:23:50 am
You still don't understand me it seems Iguana. Choice doesn't mean we make it from the intellect. Every person we invite into our lives whether we know we are doing it or not is a choice. Even that person I invited to mug me was a choice. You are right, most people don't have a clue that they are choosing, why they choose or the consequences of their choices because so few have their 5th, 6th and 7th chakra information available to them. That's what makes for so very much suffering and so little joy or sustained love generally - from my perspective.

The third chakra is one of the lower chakras btw. How did GCB refer to it?

It seems to me that such “invitation” should be mutual, so it’s not a “choice” we would have by ourselves only, because it involves at least both ones to be partners (and even often three persons) plus something called love which we can’t choose to have or not have.

As I never studied chakras, I’m unable to understand — just like if you were speaking ancient Hindu to me.
I don’t give much credit to the beliefs’ systems of ancient civilizations because they emerged from the minds of people disturbed physically and mentally by agriculture and cooked grain, thus having lost the intimate true contact with nature and spiritual world that hunters-gatherers have.

Such systems, like Ayurveda, were intended to counter the troubles induced by those practices and are no better than modern medical and psychoanalytic practices which treats symptoms instead of the root cause of troubles. I feel this chakras thing is fragmenting the real human, which is one and continuous. I maybe wrong, though. 

GCB says this about the solar plexus in Pourquoi parler d'énergie métapsychique ?  (https://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/pourquoi-parler-dnergie-mtapsychique):
The place where is felt the reserve (or lack thereof) of energy is the solar plexus (presumably related by the ancients with the source of all energies).
And:
The protagonist feels first a fullness at the sexual level, which commute gradually in a plenitude at the solar plexus level simultaneously powering psychic abilities, creativity, perception of the present-eternity, and other signs of psychic functioning.



Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 13, 2012, 04:22:00 am
Any grand children or children borne out of the metasexual experiments?
How did these children grow up to be like today?
Any interviews or testimonies from these children themselves who are adults today?
The only ones I know are GCB’s children. They are fine, three of them are still on 100 % raw - paleo – instincto – nutrition. His son of which some photos have been posted here is married (or something alike) and he’s is living with his family in Thailand: they have some children but I don’t know exactly how many and how they do with them. One of his daughters is a MD, on 100 % instincto for herself, she has three children — not sure either how she proceeds with them. The children of GCB I know personally are very friendly and nice people.

There may be some others in our Western countries, but GCB is the only one who dared to tell about it. It did cost him what we know, so if there are some other parents doing it the same way in Europe or in North America, they better not tell anyone for fear of the ongoing witch hunt.   
 
Of course young children have their own unfolding sexual responses. You and your friend were both children. Now, how different it would be if your friend's father or uncle did that same thing to her!
It depends if she would have come to her father from herself and somehow asking from some loving caresses from him or if the man came to her and imposes his will. GCB told us that an adult must never go to a kid, never imposes his will on a kid in this matter. For myself, I would respond negatively and kindly send the girl away (even more so if he's a boy) because I'm not interested in having any kind of physical relation with a child.

Quote
Absolutely Iguana there can be something sexual in just about anything if the lower chakras are activated in that particular way - it's a particular energy. The thing is that many people have never experienced deep love and physical contact without sexual energy so think that love always goes hand-in-hand with sexual energy.
I feel difficult to distinguish and separate exactly what is sexual from what is not and anyway I fail to see any need of a clear separation because “sexual” has no negative or perverse meaning to me. On the contrary, I feel that a satisfied sexual drive coupled with love brings a lot of energy, happiness, creativity... and sometimes ESP phenomenons as well.

Quote
Whether or not negative sexual experiences are new just because of the neolithic revolution I'm still not convinced of yet. I would like to know how you know that there was no loveless sex or rape before the neolithic period?
I don’t know, and there might have been some ever since our far ancestors used the fire to cook, which is long before the Neolithic. But it’s a logical inference from our observed fact that sexual obsession disappears with an instinctive raw paleo diet. Another observed fact is that there’s no rape within most wild animal species, and certainly not amongst our genetically nearest species, the bonobo. AFAIK, there’s no such thing either amongst other apes such as chimps, gorillas, orangutans, etc.   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: TylerDurden on November 13, 2012, 04:59:17 am
Err, sorry, but there is known to be rape among  dolphins etc.:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour#Rape)

I once read in a manual about sex about a sexual technique involving a couple having sex with their baby. I think the baby was meant to suckle the breast during the act, that's all. Just mentioned it, given the above.


Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 13, 2012, 05:10:02 am
Thanks, I read it.
Quote
although what happens once the males have herded in a female, and whether she goes for one or all of them, is not yet known: the researchers have yet to witness a dolphin copulation.'
All this is not very clear and involves species such as insects or some birds (ducks) which are quite different from primates.

I never had a chance to observe it, but my male duck has probably "raped" each one of my 4 females duck, they nevertheless still get along very well...  :)  My cock is regularly seen "raping" one of my hens but they are all still good friends too!  ;D 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 13, 2012, 06:24:13 am
It seems to me that such “invitation” should be mutual, so it’s not a “choice” we would have by ourselves only, because it involves at least both ones to be partners (and even often three persons) plus something called love which we can’t choose to have or not have.

As I never studied chakras, I’m unable to understand — just like if you were speaking ancient Hindu to me.
I don’t give much credit to the beliefs’ systems of ancient civilizations because they emerged from the minds of people disturbed physically and mentally by agriculture and cooked grain, thus having lost the intimate true contact with nature and spiritual world that hunters-gatherers have.

Such systems, like Ayurveda, were intended to counter the troubles induced by those practices and are no better than modern medical and psychoanalytic practices which treats symptoms instead of the root cause of troubles. I feel this chakras thing is fragmenting the real human, which is one and continuous. I maybe wrong, though. 

GCB says this about the solar plexus in Pourquoi parler d'énergie métapsychique ?  (https://sites.google.com/site/metapsychanalyse/pourquoi-parler-dnergie-mtapsychique):
The place where is felt the reserve (or lack thereof) of energy is the solar plexus (presumably related by the ancients with the source of all energies).
And:
The protagonist feels first a fullness at the sexual level, which commute gradually in a plenitude at the solar plexus level simultaneously powering psychic abilities, creativity, perception of the present-eternity, and other signs of psychic functioning.





Old systems of talking about energies are just based upon what people have perceived and those that can see do see - like me. I see these things so they aren't abstract to me nor are they based on "disturbed" people or cultures imho. Whenever you want to talk about things you have to take them a part a bit and give them names in order to have a conversation. When you talk about the circulatory system and the nervous system you aren't saying that those alone are the person or that those ideas, observations are the totality. In our culture there are no words to refer to what I myself perceive. If you don't want to take the time to learn my language - that is understandable, but please to not dismiss or degrade it because you do not understand it.

You say that invitation has to be mutual but that is not choice? What is an invitation but a choice? Why would anyone want to not choose or not allow love? Again, love does not by necessity mean acting upon one's sexual energies. Is that so hard to understand - that one can choose or not choose to be sexual with another person for reasons beyond the impulse yet there can be tremendous love?

It does sound to me that GCB got a bit stuck at the third of fourth chakras. The solar plexus is not the seat of psychic awareness. No ancient culture or any person that can see such energies that I have had access to would say that and certainly not what I perceive. But, it is generally where most people do get stuck in many modern cultures. When the third and fourth chakras start to open there does begin a longing to reach to more psychic openings of the energy centers that are above - which looks like where he was at from what you have said so far. It all makes sense. But there is no sense in really discussing this more with you Iguana since you do not understand me. I say it generally for others in case they might understand my language.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: TylerDurden on November 13, 2012, 06:24:35 am
"Homosexual necrophilia among the mallard ducks":-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research)
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 13, 2012, 06:38:32 am
Oh - and I have seen many animals have negative sexual experiences so I think it's a pretty big jump to say that before the neolithic that all sex was integrated with love. It is also hard for me to believe that just by going instincto that all "negative" sexual desires that might have to do from social programming just went away and that is the basis of saying that it was the neolithic actions that produced the problems around sexuality that we see today.

I can see differences in certain kinds of sexual energies that might be sent by the adult even if it is the child that ends up approaching. Like I said, there is not only one kind of energy from the second and third chakra and it can get very confusing. to a child. But I gotcha that you do not understand me Iguana - and I am going to accept that you have no desire to - I'm going to stop trying to explain my perceptions and how they might relate to the theories presented. I understand that you would prefer to present and not to discuss. That's fine. It will be sort of like reading Freud and discussing his theories from his own perspective and learning it rather than discussing and questioning it based upon one's own thoughts, experiences or experiments. I'm cool with that.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 13, 2012, 05:03:14 pm
Oh - and I have seen many animals have negative sexual experiences so I think it's a pretty big jump to say that before the neolithic that all sex was integrated with love. It is also hard for me to believe that just by going instincto that all "negative" sexual desires that might have to do from social programming just went away and that is the basis of saying that it was the neolithic actions that produced the problems around sexuality that we see today.
I’m in no way sure that it’s perfectly and exactly so. This is an open question, but there are very strong clues that there is a direct connection between nutrition and abnormal sexual behavior. It’s even been proved by a lot of experiments with various animals; such experiments can easily be reproduced.

Quote
I understand that you would prefer to present and not to discuss. That's fine. It will be sort of like reading Freud and discussing his theories from his own perspective and learning it rather than discussing and questioning it based upon one's own thoughts, experiences or experiments. I'm cool with that.
I tried to present what I consider some of the most interesting points in GCB’s theory. Questioning is welcome: he never pretended to detain the ultimate and definitive truth. You’re free to present your own point of view, and you largely did.

Cheers
François
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 14, 2012, 01:17:22 am

I tried to present what I consider some of the most interesting points in GCB’s theory. Questioning is welcome: he never pretended to detain the ultimate and definitive truth. You’re free to present your own point of view, and you largely did.

Cheers
François


Interesting that you have determined that I have largely presented my point of view Iguana. How could you know the parameters of my point of view - especially when you don't seem to understand even the most rudimentary of things I have tried to discuss?

I've been trying to get through just a couple of tiny points but have not been able to, but that's ok. You have gotten through to me some of the basics of what GCB put forth and I can read his treatise later for more details if I think it will add anything to my understanding of psychology. I have increased my knowledge of the Instincto movement and some expansion of the tenants of psychoanalytic theory and generally my sense of the man and his experiences that put forth those theories. I'm afraid I wasn't able to add much at all even though my thoughts are pretty vast on the subject after studying it myself in such detail for so long. A basic desire to want to understand each other is necessary for a conversation to work. I don't have a need to be understood here or a desire to continue to attempt to get my most basic points across with more time and words. Better not to use more of your time with something you are not interested in or waste my time either putting forth something with no interest to you or likely others since no one else has commented.

Again - thanks for the education. If anyone wants to discuss any of this further with me - pm me - as I'm going to bow out of this conversation now. 

Another ancient Hindu word that I love is Namaste. It has similarities to a Hawaiian word that also has great meaning to me -- Aloha. I send the essence of the meaning of these two words to you Iguana. Sometimes the English language just doesn't express well enough even with all it's masses of words. ;)

Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: cherimoya_kid on November 14, 2012, 12:38:50 pm
... my thoughts are pretty vast on the subject...

What if noone is interested in them?  Will you attempt to inflict them upon us anyway?

Maybe this isn't the best moment to have this discussion, but I've been wanting to ask anyway--is it your intention to just inflict your philosophies and beliefs upon the forum, whether anyone cares what you think on non-nutritional subjects or not?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Dorothy on November 15, 2012, 09:48:06 am


What if noone is interested in them?  Will you attempt to inflict them upon us anyway?

Maybe this isn't the best moment to have this discussion, but I've been wanting to ask anyway--is it your intention to just inflict your philosophies and beliefs upon the forum, whether anyone cares what you think on non-nutritional subjects or not?

Is it your intention to be nasty Cheri?

I said above since no one had responded and it didn't seem like Iguana was interested that I would not waste any more of anyone's time - I think that was pretty clear. I also think it's telling that you wanted to make sure that you spoke for everyone and to put in some abuse while you were at it. If you weren't interested - why read it? Do you feel like you have to like everything that is said on the forum even in the Hot Topics and similar sections? I did not start this subject - I just participated.

Where does all that hostility come from? 

Are you trying to tell me not to post any more Cheri because you think I "inflict" by responding? Are you trying to intimidate me into leaving? Congratulations, your bullying will make me stop posting. Now the forum can be quieter and more in agreement with you.

So little kindness and so much aggression here.

Perhaps I inflict by posting ideas that you and perhaps others aren't interested in or don't like - but in my opinion you inflict cruelty. I'd rather not be wanted than to carry such things as it seems you do in your heart Cheri.

I've been wondering if it's the Paleo diet that makes for so much hostility or if it's just certain people's aggressive natures that make it so that others are afraid of posting so that an aggressive impression is left by default. Well, the bullying will make me not post any more and I have met at least a few very compassionate and loving people here - so I bet like me others are intimidated. I would rather avoid being bullied and spoken to cruelly - so you get your wish.

I leave you with namaste as well.









 
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: van on November 15, 2012, 10:27:36 am
Yeah, I have to stand up for Dorothy.    Cherimoya, what's with your words to her?  Why the seeming harsh attitude?  She basically was having a discussion with Iguana.  May I suggest you reconsider what you said and see if you wish you hadn't said that.  Just a suggestion.  Attacks like  yours will squelch the free nature of this forum, and it will eventually turn out like so many others,,,  chasing people away.   Doesn't speak well for what and  who we believe we are;  healthy and open.   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Inger on November 15, 2012, 11:14:00 pm
Dorothy.. I just wanted to say that I am seeing you in this discussion about Metasexuality.
I have the papers (and have read them years ago) from Burger about Metasexuality, and they have lots of deep insight but there is something very dangerous with them in my view too... and that something makes it to a lie.. sadly. I also do not personally like/believe in the "animalistic approach" that is surrounding it.. I am thinking we are, even if we are mammals for sure, but at the same time something very different. I did not wanted to chime in in the discussion before because IMHO the instinctos have kind of "their religion" what they will not discuss other than explaining their believes what they say are scientific. And I never discuss religion. It just makes zero sense. I am sorry for outing my opinion now because I am not meaning it to be an attack. I just need to tell.. it just does not work that way how they preach at least often not. Many true and good things but also stuff that is doing harm because it is leaving things out. very important things.. This is just my own opinion and experiences and what I have seen personally.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Eric on November 16, 2012, 01:40:22 am
Cherimoya-kid, I have to say you're the most abusive moderator I've ever experienced on an internet forum. How did you get your moderator privileges in the first place? And even more, why do the other moderators let you keep them?

I think it's past your bed time.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 16, 2012, 02:07:28 am
I hope Dorothy will stay with us. We had some disagreements, but if everyone agrees on everything there would be no reason to have forums.

I know it's difficult to clearly separate subjects because there are always something connecting them and it's necessary to have some leeway. But anyway, it would perhaps have been  better to open a new topic with a title like « A theory about love and chakras" or "Dorothy's  theory about love and chakras"  since this one is dedicated to GCB's metasexuality. Then we could have selectively moved  the concerning posts over there.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 16, 2012, 05:23:39 am
Dorothy.. I just wanted to say that I am seeing you in this discussion about Metasexuality.
I have the papers (and have read them years ago) from Burger about Metasexuality, and they have lots of deep insight but there is something very dangerous with them in my view too... and that something makes it to a lie.. sadly.
What papers do you have? We took some notes during the seminars, he gave us a few photocopies of papers published in scientific publications such as “Nature” or psychoanalytic specialized magazines on connected subjects. There was also fascicules with photocopies of pages of Freud, Jung, Reich and Plato annotated by himself. But AFAIK there was no papers explaining synthetically and globally the whole theory. You had to follow the seminars and discuss it in group along with him to understand the whole thing and question it.

What is a lie, please? What is dangerous? In analogy, is eating raw food more dangerous than cooked food? Are the conventional dogmas about love and sexuality safe? How may people suicide because love fails? How many love dramas end in murder? How many live alone and sad, divorce in anger, start to drink or take drugs, etc, etc? 

Quote
I also do not personally like/believe in the "animalistic approach" that is surrounding it.. I am thinking we are, even if we are mammals for sure, but at the same time something very different.
It’s funny, because it’s exactly what he says! Your above paragraph makes me casts a serious doubt whether you properly understood or remember  what you read. No wonder because of what I mention above: one could hardly understand the whole thing without the explanation,  discussions and questioning that filled one week of intense brainstorming along with some well learned  participants. I followed twice the stage 1 seminar and never went further: there was more than enough to assimilate and following it twice was not even enough.

Quote
I did not wanted to chime in in the discussion before because IMHO the instinctos have kind of "their religion" what they will not discuss other than explaining their believes what they say are scientific. And I never discuss religion. It just makes zero sense.
Neither do I. ;D
 
There’s no such species as “instinctos”. But there are various individuals who more or less practice a kind of instinctonutrition or instinctotherapy. Some are clever, some are complete morons, most vehemently disagree which GCB about his metasexuality theory (without properly knowing what it is) and are furious with him because he doesn’t drop it.

Most of the first day of his “meta 1” seminar was bestowed to make clear that a theory is never the ultimate truth, but nothing more than a provisional, approximate and imperfect model which has to be relentlessly questioned and will be completed, modified or abandoned in the future if and when a new theory better explaining the known facts or newly known facts will be provided. So, his position is exactly opposed to a religious one, which is in another indication that you know what you talk about only by heavily distorted hearsay.  :(

Do you thing the text BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE by James W. Prescott from "The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists" of November 1975 (http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html) which I  linked here (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/re-can-we-do-without-vegetablesgreens/msg102010/#msg102010) is religious? J.W.Prescott is “a neuropsychologist, health scientist administrator at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Maryland. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the American Humanist Association.” Didn’t you notice this guy is saying almost exactly what GCB says in his “meta” theory? Is such a man a religious moron like you seem to imply I am? Are atomic scientists interested in religious thinking, heh?  ;)

Cheers
François
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Inger on November 17, 2012, 01:03:50 am
You know Francois.. it seems to me that at some points one can claim we are so not animals but in another issue then that we are, in a way that just do not fit together.. in my world. ;) This must read very confusing.. I am so sorry. I just do not have the skills to explain it better and I know I failed already to make anyone get it.. probably. But it is also not what I am after right now.. I do not try to convince anyone about my view. I have so much others issues I have to use my energies on right now. My own healing.
I never questioned raw is better! Now the thing about eating what smells and tastes the best.. that this is the best for us.. that I disagree with from own experience. For me it just did not worked that way. I would never have tried fishheads or rotten meat if I would have thought that way. Maybe that is a way to do it when we are totally healed but I know no one that is. So then comes the issues.. do you see what I am trying to say Francois?
I would actually love to debate with you on this issues in depth when I have the time for it. :)

Oh.. and the papers I have.. I got them from a instincto in Germany per mail. I printed them out. I do not remember exactly what the name was but I think it was just Metasexuality? It was a bunch of papers.. not only a few papers. He told me to keep it secret.
I could dig in my stuff to look for it but I have no idea where they are after all these moving back and forth.. huh.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: TylerDurden on November 17, 2012, 01:20:36 am
The idea behind Instincto is that exposure to cooked, processed foods make one loathe the taste of healthy, rawpalaeo foods. I'm a classic case in point. When I went rawpalaeo and before that, the taste of raw wild game was foul to me, and raw wild organ-meats tasted the most disgusting. However, after being mostly rawpalaeo for a a couple of years, I found that the taste of raw wild organ-meats became far richer and tastier than anything else, barring raw wild seafood.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: cherimoya_kid on November 17, 2012, 11:11:49 pm


I've been wondering if it's the Paleo diet that makes for so much hostility or if it's just certain people's aggressive natures that make it so that others are afraid of posting so that an aggressive impression is left by default. Well, the bullying will make me not post any more and I have met at least a few very compassionate and loving people here - so I bet like me others are intimidated. I would rather avoid being bullied and spoken to cruelly - so you get your wish.

I leave you with namaste as well.

 

I personally feel that Hinduism is unduly influenced by cooking and grain-eating, and therefore needs to be approached with a skeptical attitude, to avoid the tainted aspects of it.  Certainly there are valuable practices in yoga, acupuncture, Ayurveda herbology and nutrition, energy work, etc..  However, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as do all Neolithic spiritual systems...and indeed, all spirituality period.

Hinduism, as an example, doesn't even recognize the existence of the "multiple-soul" theory, which is common to nearly all Paleo spiritual systems.  Even the Chinese, Neolithic as they are, recognize the reality/possiblity of having multiple souls in one person.

For that matter, I don't really think this should become a spirituality forum, and I have, as you'll remember, from the very beginning of your time here, resisted your efforts to turn it into one.  You are not ready to be a spiritual teacher, in my humble opinion, and I don't think it's appropriate for you to try to turn us into your unwilling disciples.

And as for your comments above, about Paleo making people aggressive....did you really think that would go over well?  I'm honestly curious.  I mean, feel free to engage in honest speculation and inquiry, but...questioning the very basis of a forum is rarely the way to convince it's membership and moderation, maybe, don't you think?  ROFL

Also, GCB is just theorizing.  He's not trying to use the weight of a 5,000-plus year-old spiritual system to give extra support to his statements, unlike you.  It's apples and oranges, and it's not entirely fair to try to compare the two, again, IMHO.

However, never mind all that.  This isn't a spirituality forum, and I don't think it should become one. 

I'm not trying to be nasty.  Nasty would be threatening to reban you.  I didn't do that, and wasn't even threatening that in a veiled way.  However, I'm not open to this becoming a spirituality forum, especially NEOLITHIC spirituality.  Healing practices are one thing, feel free to share those.  Sexual mores, though, should have to prove themselves, if they're going to be accepted unconditionally. Don't you think that's fair?  We force nutritional systems to prove themselves.  Why not moral and spiritual ones?
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Iguana on November 18, 2012, 07:56:16 am
I never questioned raw is better! Now the thing about eating what smells and tastes the best.. that this is the best for us.. that I disagree with from own experience. For me it just did not worked that way. I would never have tried fishheads or rotten meat if I would have thought that way. Maybe that is a way to do it when we are totally healed but I know no one that is. So then comes the issues.. do you see what I am trying to say Francois?
I would actually love to debate with you on this issues in depth when I have the time for it. :)
Ok, we can talk more about it later because anyway I will be without Internet connection next week.

The theory about smell and taste is just a rough draft not to be taken for the only and sufficient thing. The training with experienced others is essential to discover new foods, get used to it bit by bit, overcome cultural and psychological blockings by perhaps closing our eyes and carefully test a bit of something which doesn’t smell good initially, even if we have to spit if its taste is bad. That seems to be what you did and you’ve well done. Not everybody is able to discover that alone and I was unable myself. We would do it in nature when sufficiently hungry, and in our civilized world we never have a chance to be really hungry.
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: van on November 18, 2012, 09:54:01 am
hostility, aggression, something other than peaceful and kind.   I had that when I really started eating meat more than a couple of times a week.  Hard to tell exactly why.  My guesses;  in line with instincto,,  the raw protein molecules were aggressive cleansers and I started to eliminate cooked protein molecules from who knows how old,,, probably nasty little molecules.   Just as likely I might have been eating animals that hadn't been humanely killed.  I can remember eating elk that had to be tracked for many hours and then reshot again, when found.  That meat definitely caused me emotional instability.  So much so I called the hunter, suspicious, and asked about that elk.  He then told me how the animal had suffered for so many hours before dying.  Another reason is that it's easy to overeat in the beginning, and many simply don't have the stomach acids to digest large portions,,, as well as improper food combining,,, leading to undigested protein which will then rot, with associated organisms as aftermath.  I also suspect that those who complain that they faired poorly when trying low carb, also may be eating too much protein as a substitute for carbs, not completely trusting that there desire and ability to digest and use fat for fuel will increase with time.  I do believe that there is an adjustment period to shift to fat burning.   Just a hunch.  But more and more I am lessening my protein intakes and increasing my fat percentages.  And finally eating when not hungry, or eating to fill the time.  Again leading to toxic amounts of protein.   
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Inger on November 19, 2012, 02:56:21 am
Ok, we can talk more about it later because anyway I will be without Internet connection next week.

The theory about smell and taste is just a rough draft not to be taken for the only and sufficient thing. The training with experienced others is essential to discover new foods, get used to it bit by bit, overcome cultural and psychological blockings by perhaps closing our eyes and carefully test a bit of something which doesn’t smell good initially, even if we have to spit if its taste is bad. That seems to be what you did and you’ve well done. Not everybody is able to discover that alone and I was unable myself. We would do it in nature when sufficiently hungry, and in our civilized world we never have a chance to be really hungry.


Ok Francois, nice! I just have some real heavy stuff to solve in my private  life right now so I need my energy there..

About the taste and conditioning.. yes.. I see it as very important, the cultural and psychological blockings. They are almost impossible to come over or it will take years. That is why I believe one have to force oneself to get stuff down, or find a way to make it more plesurable, meanwhile.
I do this with my fishheadsmoothies, I close my nose.. so non instincto..lol and I also make delish dishes with some spices and raw onion and such. I am on my way. If I did not this I would still be addicted to sweet stuff like non local fruits that did me no good.
Maybe it is just psychological, to treat oneself and what tastes one is used to. My life certainly was stressful.
I am not sure either if it is any wrong to make delish dishes from raw foods if they are clever made without any negative effects (I do not mean  raw food cakes and stuff!).
It might be because we are human. It might be because we like to create. It might not be a bad thing at all as long as we use our brain and choose things that are good for us... I am just thinking out loud here..
Title: Re: Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")
Post by: Inger on November 19, 2012, 03:01:42 am
The idea behind Instincto is that exposure to cooked, processed foods make one loathe the taste of healthy, rawpalaeo foods. I'm a classic case in point. When I went rawpalaeo and before that, the taste of raw wild game was foul to me, and raw wild organ-meats tasted the most disgusting. However, after being mostly rawpalaeo for a a couple of years, I found that the taste of raw wild organ-meats became far richer and tastier than anything else, barring raw wild seafood.

Tyler I must be weird then because it does not work that way on me at all. If I have had something (healthy) cooked I start to crave raw foods a lot! I never ever had the problem I started to eat more and more cooked and got away from raw. I just like raw better. It is juicier, crispier.. tastier.. I also have no ill effects so far if I eat some cooked mussels or fish. From meat I do feel some not so good effects. But I eat more fish anyways. I feel so good from it. It soothes my nerves. It calms me down.