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

[Dorothy]

?? 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.

[Dorothy]

.... 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.

[cherimoya_kid]

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.

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

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:

CIA Director David Petraeus resigns, cites extramarital affair
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!

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

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.
 

BODY PLEASURE AND THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
By James W. Prescott
From "The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists", November 1975, pp. 10-20 
(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.

[Dorothy]

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.

[Alive]

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.

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!

[Iguana]

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.

[Iguana]

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. 

[Dorothy]

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

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.

[Iguana]

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.

[van]

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. 

[Dorothy]

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?

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

If there's a 'wrong' in affairs, it's the inability of the one to be honest.

Sure.

He or she has made a promise.

Not necessarily.

The 'right' thing is to speak about the want before it's undertaken.

Exactly.

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…!    

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.

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.

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?


Picture from http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html

Cheers
François

[goodsamaritan]

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?

[Dorothy]

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!

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?

[Iguana]

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 ? :
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.

[Iguana]

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.

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.

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.   

[TylerDurden]

Err, sorry, but there is known to be rape among  dolphins etc.:-

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.

[Iguana]

Thanks, I read it.

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!   

[Dorothy]

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 ? :
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.

[TylerDurden]

"Homosexual necrophilia among the mallard ducks":-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research

[Dorothy]

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.

[Iguana]

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.

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