These are unedited rough comments. It would take much effort to polish them up into a post, and frankly I feel they are only for a very select elite audience, who could probably take value from them as they are:
A very related post to your comment:
It reminds us of the research that showed that shrooms increase the personality trait of openness to new experience.
That personality trait is the one that I pointed out that I probably need in order to have a proper relationship with a girl.
It’s something I hadn’t much thought of before, other than as an appreciation when I see it.
But ya, it’s basically impossible for me to be serious with someone who does not score highly on openness.
I like my blowjobs in the Taxi cab, thank you very much.
Low openness is also correlated with having ideas set in stone – something that disgusts me.
If someone is totally anti-drug, it means they are basically anti discovery.
You know, I can still enjoy their company. But a serious lifetime deep pair-bond?
Completely out of the question.
Yes, many of us do score highly in the openness category, and view those who don’t as, quite simply, zombies.
People who breathe but don’t really fully exist. They aren’t actually really here.
They are in their security. That unchanging place that they “know” about.
Zombies, who rely on people like me (and the other cultural creatives) for brains.
“Drugs are bad, Mkay”. Zombie.
I haven’t dated a girl lately who would have willingly done that ketamine trip, or who would not have totally completely freaked out during it.
They would be HUGELY frightened of it, and see absolutely no value in it at all.
1) I like small girls, and it’s not something I can diminish. If I want to be serious long term with someone, they had damn well better be my physical match, because when the going gets rough, and it always does, you need the base physical attraction as the consistent relationship glue. A girl can be perfectly sexy, and just slightly bigger than my type, and it makes a difference. I like small. A LOT. I can have an entire many year relationship based on little more than that the girl is small and has great tits, or hips, or face, or some feature that also makes me hard just to look at her. Oh, smell is also important, but it’s not something I can describe. There are a few smells that scream out to my brain that this girl is THE ONE. Two girls had that incredibly strongly. Kiki strongly. One girl smelled very wrong.
Most smell fine, but I don’t pay much attention to it. On our first date the reason I was so into N17 was exactly her smell. Drove me into a swoon. Of course physically she was also quite my type, even with her permanently adolescent firm little titties.
Physical things like that makes a huge difference to me, like it or not. It’s choiceless. They aren’t just icing on the cake of companionship.
I can’t call either the body nor the personality the cake, or the icing – but I know one thing for sure – the body is more than just icing.
Couples PHYSICALLY pair bond. There is literal chemistry involved, and even if they completly hate each other, if there is a strong physical chemistry, they can be nailed together like ardox spiral spikes into hardwood.
Great companionate pair bonding is great companionate pair bonding. Great. But a different thing.
2) openness to experience is a trait that without, I simply can’t respect a girl or take her seriously. I’ll always feel as if I’m humoring a child, with everything I say. And that no matter what I say, it will never get through the barriers of fear to actually be heard. Exactly like talking to a religious fanatic about science, or anything. No matter how “smart” they are, without strong openness to experience, I’ll consider them fundamentally broken and stupid. Caring about ALL the wrong things, for ALL the wrong reasons. Social puppets – worrying about what OTHER people think, and scared little mice, forever scurrying away from any pain or discomfort or novelty.
Openness to experience girl:
“I know it might not last forever, but I love him”
Low openness to experience girl:
“I’m afraid he’ll eventually break my heart, so I better call it off now”.
Actually, he has a good essay online about jealousy. Let me find it….
Here (jealousy in practice):
And here (jealousy in theory):
I used to read up on everything that I could get my hands on regarding non-monogamy when I first started experimenting with it back in 2004.
It’s not a new field, of course, so there was plenty of good material to learn from.
Interesting points about wanting people who already “just get it”, and how this probably means that they are already long practiced relationship geeks.
I always find myself bringing up Kiki. When people say that sluts can’t bond, I bring up Kiki – a girl who had had hundreds of cocks, but who bonded more and treated me better than any other girl before or since.
I don’t think that exceptions prove the rule. I think that exceptions disprove the rule.
A girl like Kiki forces us to totally re-write what the rules are. It’s like one small signal in a radio telescope forcing physicists to rewrite what are the underlying forces of reality.
It makes no difference how MANY signals there are.
Girls don’t lose the ability to bond based on numbers; they lose the ability to bond with people who are less attractive and compelling than the best mate that they’ve ever had in the past.
The same data can be interpreted both ways, UNLESS you include the so called “exceptions to the rule”.
Usually people who say that exceptions prove the rule are simply saying “Nothing that you could possibly say will change my fixed opinion. So there.”
I don’t think she’d ever heard of the term polyamory.
And it’s kind of true that I want a girl who already just get’s it. But that’s not quite right.
The guy who wrote the articles you referenced says that communication is essential to good relationships.
In my relationship with V I absolutely refused all relationship talk. “I want to HAVE a relationship, not talk about one.”
I had to do that, because talking with her was completely counter productive. “Talking about insecurity only makes it WORSE. Not better. Worse!”
Because for her, it did.
You’d need not only a well developed rationality, but also an INTEGRATED rationality.
Very few people have a well developed rationality. V’s rationality is middling.
Usually what happens is that people can be rational exactly up to the boundary where their emotions start. Then rationality COMPLETELY and UTTERLY breaks down. And is not sought for, as if it’s a rock in stormy seas, but very actively sought against, as if it’s the stormy seas bashing against a rock.
With such people, it’s completely backwards to say that open discussion is essential to a healthy relationship. Open discussion will DESTROY the relationship!
But for Openness people, it’s not even a matter of trying to re-arrange their memes, or to get their memes and emotions to be able to speak nicely without shouting at each other.
Kiki already had emotions that took delight in her partners delight, and she felt extremely fulfilled and extremely bonded. Safely and securely so.
No discussion or training was required, not because she was a poly expert. Not any sort of relationship geek.
She was just extremely open to new experiences, extremely sexual, extremely romantic, etc. Her emotions were already there – no long journey of intellectual and self exploration or training required.
And if she had required some explorations, from what I could see, she’d not have had huge earthquake upheavals of memes vs emotions, rationality vs primal instincts. She’d lean in with her heart – then find security using that organ of perception.
V couldn’t do that, because her fear and her heart never got distinguished from each other. She thinks that they are the same thing.
Kiki was simply less afraid, and so didn’t have to tease apart what was merely fear, and what was an accurate perception of her heart.
Which I suppose is why I recently commented that being very high on Openness is crucial, for me, to have a healthy bonded relationship with someone.
It doesn’t really matter how smart or relationship geeky someone is, if they don’t score high in openness, because their fear will always over-whelm their rationality.
I think that guy was WAY WAY WAY too optimistic about peoples ability to change.
Fix the fridge? Really? In what universe is THAT ever going to happen! People don’t actually do any sort of psychological change – even with very expensive therapy and very hard trying. Not really. A VERY VERY VERY few, very motivated people do. But not people people.
HE could change. That’s extremely unusual, and yes, relationship geeky.
Not everyone needs or can do that integration of rationality with instinct. Some people can work using the emotions themselves, and get to a better place.
Doing that requires, and is perhaps even the definition of, the personality trait of openness to new experiences.
It’s exploring, with curiosity, as a purpose in and of itself. Deliberate groundlessness, as an essence of what is important, as if it were Truth, or Love, or Beauty itself.
It is that personality trait, not an intellectual and rigorous personality restructuring, that is pragmatic and actually happens, realistically.
I think his viewpoint is really just a diary and wishful thinking.
It’s like saying, “Enlightenment is possible, and this is how I got Enlightened, and you can too”.
Cha, right! Gigantic Buddhist communities, thousands and thousands of people every year doing their damned best, learning by example, reading, meditating. What percentage actually reach the same level, or anything nearly remotely close to the same level, as the authentic teachers?
Yes, it’s nearly trivial to point out that jealousy is insecurity. Big fat woop-ti-do deal. Twelve insights like that still won’t buy a cup of coffee. Won’t change a flat tire. Won’t DO anything.
Not very far off from getting stoned and being all wowed out that we might very well be living inside a simulation. Wow! Far out! Nothing changes.
In fact that type of self help advice can be dangerous, because it’s all totally true, and seems so attainable. Ya, for yourself, maybe it could be. But for OTHERS? Fat chance. Very fat.
And his articles read like couples counseling, to one half of the couple. There is an unspoken expectation that both in the couple will want to and be able to do this; because if not then of course the advice is nothing other than accurate. Uselessly accurate. Big deal.
When I was a teenager, I used to very regularly try to get lost. Very deliberately ignore every fence.
I considered it a very important meditation – a way to restructure my personality.
I didn’t know exactly why I felt so strongly that this was an important thing to do – but I instinctually realized that this was a completely crucial action in order to develop and mature into a proper human.
When V once got a little bit lost driving her car back from a distant beach, she was in a gigantic full body panic.
I, of course, quite enjoyed it.
I love being lost. So much so that I don’t even think that there even really is such a thing as being lost. There is just temporarily being disoriented, which is quite a fun adventure.
My whole personality really WAS properly changed, by those teenage walks. It really WAS crucial personal self development.
I had that as a core, instinctual, fundamental personal value. I didn’t know why I had it. Same like I don’t know why I value Truth more than others do.
I just do.
I need people who just get THAT.
When I was that teenager, hopping over fences into restricted industrial and private areas, going for very long walks by myself, all of my friends and aquaintances thought that I was nuts. Even the more adventurous among them could not tune into the notion that this was a type of full bodied meditation. In fact I don’t think any of my friends really had any understanding of what meditation was about at all.
So in terms of openness, I was a top, deliberately spinning itself faster.
I was ALREADY a spinning top, in a world of blocks and rectangles and triangles.
On top of that I was doing self hypnosis by age 12, daily meditation by age 16, LSD and mushrooms by age 17. And every lsd trip was a mystical experience.
Then by age 21 I was living full time in a Buddhist monastery, when not on long 8 or 11 week unsupervised solitary meditation retreats deep in forests where no human came close. I have first hand experience of Enlightenments detailed explicitly in Buddhist texts, and not for the span of a Samadhi, but for spans of days, weeks, and once months. Then by my mid twenties I’d started up a strong Chi-Kung practice, to develop on the spontaneous kundalini and kundalini sex that started at age 22, that had my spine constantly ablaze.
They say that shrooms increases the openness trait, but ONLY to those who have mystical experiences with them.
Every time I’ve done LSD or Shrooms in a group I’ve always been completely astounded at the fucking buffoonery.
Why aren’t these people even REMOTELY like me? Where are their mystical experiences?
I had a group of interns out here a few years ago, all in my villa in Bali one night, and I went out and risked the danger of purchasing loads of shrooms, drove back carrying, and treated them all. I took twice as high a dose as anyone else.
They wound up all screaming like lunatics, at the amazing things crawling around in the bushes. At how their toothbrush was moving. Screaming at the top of their lungs all night long. A total waste of a trip, and it disturbed the neighbors.
I just left them alone, went to my room and had quiet time with my girlfriend. Played piano a bit. Enjoyed her company. To her I was not acting at all strange. Occasionally I’d go out and say hi to my buddies, and they were amazed that I was acting all normal and hi-how-do-you-do.
I haven’t done shrooms in years, so I doubt it was a tolerance thing, exactly. I think I just have a tolerance for being in mentally and physically different universes.
When I see people screaming at the bushes, bonding as bros over shared hallucinations, and saying WOW over and over and over, I think to myself “You fools. That’s not what shrooms are FOR!”
Trips like that, according to the literature, won’t have the hugely valuable effect of increasing their trait of Openness.
They just totally wasted it. And shrooms, I believe, are damaging. You don’t want to do them often. Use each trip well – it’s not free.
Back to Kiki – the outlier girl with the incredibly high openness to experience.
Probably a huge reason why she fell so hard in love with me is because I’m also an extreme outlier, and she could go through several lifetimes without meeting anyone else like me.
After the literal hundreds of cocks, she found one cock in a haystack different than the rest. That made me REALLY special. Way more special than if she had been a virgin bonding for the first time. I was more than her first; I was her last. She wanted to die with me and have every possible eternity with me. I was it ; she’d found IT.
At 16 or so I was walking alone through forests at midnight and oil refineries at 5am, but at 13 she was at airports picking up tricks.
Talk about openness to experience! Can you imagine!
Most people would think both of us totally off of our rockers. I’ve got to give the girl credit though. When I was 13 through 15 my libido was off the charts – I had to masturbate in the changing rooms when clothes shopping – and at every possible opportunity. I had to take whole days off of school to masturbate all day long.
Kiki was a match for that, and she went trolling for adults at airports. Genius. And the BALLS it must have taken! I mean, who does that?
I haven’t seen any 13 year old girls trolling the airport lately.
Those years are very formative, and she was a spinning top, spinning herself faster.
By the time we’d met, she was 26 and had a good well paying full time career, advancing on her merits. She was bright and very sociable. I put her to work on my own tasks, and she was very capable – more so than any girl I’ve dated since, especially in that she took joy in her work – in OUR work.
She quit that career the day of meeting me. She simply visited me for one date, and never left my apartment.
Why would she? Of course she stayed. She’d found her cock in a haystack. I was a HUGE difference than the others. And she simply fit me like a glove. All easy peasy natural, no effort.
Two spinning tops, spinning each other now. The antics we used to get up to! Hillarious.
Blow jobs in every taxi ride, kinky sex on the roof, her titties hanging over the balcony for the security guards to see (and gossip about), fingerings at all food joints. A favorite game was the wide swing Hollywood slap to her face in crowded restaurants. We were a menace to polite society, as if it was our duty to that society.
And it WAS our duty. Shake up all the squares.
Spin the blocks. See if anyone could come close, just for 5 seconds, to enter the world of one of the spinning tops.
hahaha. Almost never.
We were the only tops out there.