Metasexuality (split from "Can we do w/o vegetables/greens?")

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

 

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...   

There’s still a lot to say, but it’s getting late…

[Iguana]

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.

[goodsamaritan]

How does contraception fit into meta sexuality theory?

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

[Iguana]

I'll try to answer tomorrow because it's high time to go to sleep for me on this side of the planet!

[Dorothy]

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.

[goodsamaritan]

Dorothy,

How many children and grandchildren do you have with your husband?

[Dorothy]

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.   

[Iguana]

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.

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? 

[Hanna]

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.

[Iguana]

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.   

[Hanna]

This group may have been small, but is was the core of the whole instincto movement.

[goodsamaritan]

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?

[Iguana]

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. 

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Iguana]

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.

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. 

[Dorothy]

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.

[goodsamaritan]

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.

[Iguana]

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

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

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. 

[Dorothy]

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. 

[Iguana]

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.

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.     

[Dorothy]

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.