Bio - you did an experiment for just ONE day and made such sweeping conclusions.

One day could just be placebo or the mucous could be other than detox. I'm going to let you give it some time and then I would very much like to hear more. 

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.

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.

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.

I never soaked the nuts I eat, even if I told Tyler that I will try. It seems kind of artificial to me. I would be amazed if hunter-gatherers soak them. Chimps don't soak them and are not bothered by the anti-nutrients they are said to contain. I think every nutrient becomes an anti-nutrient if we eat too much of it. 

Just once I soaked some old peanuts because someone told me they become like fresh again after soaking, and it was true.

That's part of the reason why soaking is good in general - because most nuts we buy are not fresh.

When you find a seed out in the wild it is actually quite likely that it has been soaked by rain and/or dew so the hunter gatherers didn't really have to go through the trouble.

Also, hunter gatherers lived a lifestyle that is generally healthier and didn't have generations messing up their digestion eating processed foods. Soaking the nuts just feels right to me in instinctively (which I realize is different than instincto) 

The dark circles under the eyes and back pain in the center does point to possible kidney issues popping up. It's interesting that you ate just as much cooked meat before and didn't have the problem, but then when eating it raw did! Besides adding the kefir to your milk repertoire, was that the only change?

I'd like to point out something that I think many don't take into account. When you are starting a change in diet sometimes there can be coincidences. Some reactions can take a while to build up and if you are changing things over weeks time instead of many months or years the change in what is being eaten can be mistakenly taken as the cause when it is actually something that has been building from another source or is a coincidence or an infection or detox symptom.

So, I caution you to be careful with assumptions regarding causality when you have been experimenting for such a short time. That being said, your assumption atm is the most likely correct one because of the correspondence - but it is wise to keep an open mind and do your experimenting on yourself with the understanding that your experimentation is by it's nature flawed with only one test subject for such a short period of time.

I have assumptions that I have made regarding generally the superiority of raw foods to cooked ones from my own experiences and what I have heard reported here generally so if it were me, I think before trying cooked meat again what I would do first is just cut down the amount of meat being eaten as a whole especially when you don't have access to the amount of fats and organs that so many here have reported to be important when balancing the proteins. I know for myself that I need to eat an inordinate amount of fat to balance muscle meats and do well at all with them. If the nature of the cooked meats and how it interacts with your system works at a certain amount of meat, it does not necessarily mean that the same amount of raw meat will necessarily react in the same way and therefore it might be a question of amount or degree rather than returning to cooked. It might be better to eat just a small amount of raw meat with your limited fat and organs than to return to cooked meat.... but it is my guess, and it is certainly just a guess... that eating less raw meat, more fat with your butter (and maybe you can get some avocados etc. for more fats) might be all that is necessary and worth a shot. Since you are on the primal diet do you also drink fresh juices and eat one fruit a day? How about eggs? How do those seem to effect you?

.

One thing about nuts - there is a company specifically for nuts here in Austin and the owner explained to me that organic when it comes to nuts is a real waste of money for the consumer because it makes little difference with old large trees of such a crop. It's just a way for the seller to get more money from you  - so I would save your money on the organic label and just go with the plain, non-organic choice.

Being a raw paleo site Bio - I think most people here would suggest getting rid of the dairy instead and increasing your raw fat and organ intake. So many people have trouble with dairy that it seems like it would be the most likely candidate for the acne. I'm gathering that your meat is all grass-fed right? I might have missed it but I didn't catch you talking about your fat and/or organ meat intake. Just that could effect how your body handles the muscle meat I would think.

The blood type diet is one I didn't try, but I can't help why you would want to try that before trying raw paleo? 

There are couple of herbs that my adrenals seem to just love - licorice root and cinammon. Just thought I'd throw that out there for you.

Btw - real nice to see you again Joe!

I know these things listed above are not good,and I don't eat them, just know my reaction to them.

Ah ok - figured that might be the case - but thought I'd throw in my little wrap about coffee and hypoglycemia anyway just in case - ya know - for the masses.

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?

Yes off-topic - but very interesting - at least to me. Thanks for being willing.

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.