aurum

He makes a good point about fiber mainly being about compensation. It's not clear to me how much additive benefit fiber gives you if your diet is already clean enough. It might be marginal.

I agree that you are God, imagining you have a body and sense-perception based on biology. All of what you call perception is pure consciousness without a perceiver. What I call "embodiment work" is just becoming conscious of this more and more, on a moment to moment basis, as apposed to peak state experiences. Yes, I agree there is a difference between actuality versus just intellectual belief in this regard. If someone is genuinely conscious of the ontology of what I said, they are awake. If not, they are asleep. Simple as that.

Look, I get it. I am also not such a savage that I can just chase endless ONS. Usually I will have a few casual encounters in between longer relationships for the sake of fun, novelty, adventure. But inevitably, the part of me that wants a deeper connection with women will rebel. And it becomes obviously how unsustainable what I'm doing is. Eventually, I meet a woman I am just not willing to let go of. But this DECREASES my body count. It does not increase it. If you want quantity, the way you do that is by being a detached player who doesn't give a fuck and who can just run through woman after woman without catching feelings. This idea that you will get more women (quantity) by focusing on quality is mostly nonsense. Focusing on quality gets you quality. Focusing on quantity gets you quantity. So just take your pick. Each comes with upside and downside. Lol, are you positive she "accidentally" messaged you? Girls will do that as an excuse to talk to you. Regardless, everything you're saying does not invalidate my perspective. Yes, you can be friendly with women you have had a ONS with. I'd recommend it for decency sake. But that does NOT mean you built a serious bond with them. The fact that you're talking about casual encounters while traveling is proof of this. It's extremely difficult to build a serious bond that fast. Real bonds take months or even years to build. And you will NOT be so casual about breaking them. Breaking a serious bond is soul-crushing. You will probably think about it for months or years after. So really, you are building quite superficial bonds. And this works for you because traveling automatically disqualifies you from a deeper emotional / romantic commitment. Here's an uncomfortable truth: a significant percentage of women interested in a ONS are already in a romantic relationship. They have no interest in a deeper romantic bond, and will actively rebuke you if you try. They just want dick from an attractive guy. The majority of the rest of women are single, but interested in meeting someone long-term. They will fold extremely quickly if they meet a guy they like. A ONS is problematic because they are going to quickly want a deeper commitment. That leaves just a small, sliver of women in the Venn diagram who are both single and genuinely just interested in a casual encounter. They might be traveling, recently broken up or just young and experimental. Which is why if you want a high quantity of hookups, you need to keep distance. You need to very specifically screen for these women by explicitly or implicitly broadcasting that you're not available for romantic connection. Which is what traveling helps you do.

Yes I get that sense about you. It comes through in your posts.

I'd say it depends on how hard you push. If you handle logistics elegantly, it actually doesn't feel like force. It just feels effortless. Like when a husband perfectly plans out a vacation and handles all the details so the wife can just relax. If you broadcast fuck boy vibes and push for sex too soon, then yeah that might turn off mature women looking for something long-term. Even mature women will appreciate some convenience and leading. They may just not need as much.

That sounds somewhat exaggerated. Phytic acid barely even binds to heme-iron as far as I know. It's mostly about plant-sources. You might be right overall though, it could be superior to just eat the white rice if you feel like meat already gives you everything you need.

Actually this is pretty similar to what it's like in a fraternity. One of the best things for getting laid if you're in a fraternity is to live in the house, ideally with a single room.

You do want to be careful about "buyer's remorse". Sometimes it's better to slow things down.

I don't follow that part. Phytic acid is an anti-nutrient, but I would think you're still likely going to end up with more minerals overall compared to eating white rice.

Apparently "fibermaxxing" is a trend:

You can take that approach, but you will get laid less. If you don't care, that's your choice. You are not doing deep bonding during a ONS. This is nonsense. Serious bonding comes afterwards, if at all. Maybe if you're a woman. Most of the time you do not explicitly talk about it at all. It's all implicit. Because it's too much bonding. The whole point of a ONS is that you don't get attached. You have a superficial, fun experience and then release each other. If you get too attached, it will either ruin the ONS, escalate to a long-term relationship or end up with someone getting their feelings crushed. The idea that you're going to form some super-deep bond, then have a ONS and happily release each other is nonsense. That's not how it happens.

It's not a joke at all. One night stands pretty much always hang by a thread and are mostly about conveinence. You're riding a good wave of energy. Too many logistical problems tend to ruin things. 20 or 30 minutes is certainly still possible, but it does make it more complicated. Try it your way if you disagree. If you've known the girl for a while, that does change the dynamic. Then it's less about convenience because you're already bonded. The problem with a ONS is there is still very little bond or investment between you. No, because you're driving. You can talk and that's about it. Connecting too much at that point is awkward because you're not a couple. You need to keep some distance.

@ImagineEverything solid work! Sounds like you got it.

@RendHeaven more carbs than I thought, especially since you're obvious not going for micronutrients. What's the rationale?

Guys like Bezos usually have a wife. They're not the biggest playboys because they're too serious for that. Being a playboy means you need to party a lot. Partying is how you get laid, not serious business meetings.

Some women will interpret lack of jealousy as lack of containment. Are you really taking ownership of the relationship if you're so flippant over who she sleeps with? Not saying it has to be that way, just pointing out a potential trap.

I’ve never had a problem with “stability” in meditation. I don’t think that’s a serious concern for most people. I’ve done 1000+ hours of meditation just sitting crossed legged. I usually just use one or two pillows, maybe a cushion. If I’m feeling lazy, I might also lean against a wall. That’s plenty of stability. I’ve not tried sitting in a chair, so I can’t verify its effectiveness. But I imagine that if you have an ergonomically designed chair, that could be beneficial. I may try that in the future. All the time you’re going to spend stretching to be able to sit in full lotus comfortably, you could have spent just meditating. And for what? Basically just to ruin your hips and knees in the end. You don’t need a special pose for meditation. This is a distraction. Just be physically comfortable. You could even meditate lying down, although that does increase liability for falling asleep.

The point I'm trying to make is that 2 cannot exist. There never was 2 of anything or a relative plane.

The contradiction is if you're thinking it can occur between two beings. Or that it even requires two beings at all. You don't need two supremely conscious beings, just one. Which is you.

You're just not considering how deep truth can go. Truth is way beyond some honest communication in a relationship.

It might be pure by human standards. But it's not unconditional, and it's not existential love.

"Existential love" "2 beings". A contradiction in terms.

The prioritization of truth is still very limited. Mostly you are talking about basic, relative truths that are needed for the relationship. And your relationship is a vehicle for your survival needs, not existential truth. Which is fine, but just admit what it is and what it isn't. How much truth do you want? There is a huge spectrum.

Seeking personal glory is the entire problem.

No this is false. Relationships ARE conditions. They are not about truth in any existential sense at all. Being more authentic is generally good, but that will only make your conditions more authentic. It does not remove them.