social psychology

Isn't It Ironic? . Don't you think? 

A little toooo ironic. 

I really do think. 

This site where we are upping trust lets users post under a pseudonym. 

Every time I see a post or comment from a pseudonym, screen name, handle, what have you, after first wondering if it's another godforsaken AI bot stealing my eyeballs away from human creations, I remember a line from the Tao Te Ching; 

To give no trust

is to get no trust. 

v.17, Lao Tzu x Ursula LeGuin 

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, probably via use of the word "optics" ;) . I've been reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged*, of course, at least to start with!). New to the topic, and I’ve never identified as a history buff, but I’m really loving it. I wanted to write a short post about it, but couldn’t quickly figure out how to say what I wanted briefly, so here’s a long one!

It feels like a bird's-eye view of modern politics, in many ways, but especially regarding "The American Experiment." I'm sure this comparison isn't new--it's probably a huge part of what makes Decline and Fall popular today, despite being published in 1776. Since there's a whole trope about Rome buffs, I imagine many of you have hashed over all this a ton previously.

The early part of Decline and Fall starts with how amazing Rome was. Of course, it built on other civilizations and governments that came before it, but I think we these days have a hard time imagining just how surprisingly modern it would seem to us, if we were transplanted to the Roman Empire in its heyday. Of course we have tons of hard tech they didn't. But on the social level, I think a lot of it would feel spookily familiar. (I’m sure the author and I are both missing or leaving out huge ways it’s different. But I think there’s still a lot we can learn from it.)

Widespread assumption of and dedication to: rule of law, trial by peers, market-based economy. And somehow the start of the Roman Empire manifested a deep dedication among citizens and leaders to a Republic as the form of government. No nepotism, no monarchy, no might makes right. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, at least in spirit--my sense is people and government and military were all aligned in their dedication to that spirit. 

And peace! Peace, for centuries, throughout a huge swath of the known world, where that hadn’t happened before. There was a kind of national religion they inherited from the Greeks, but they seem to have been even more dedicated to religious tolerance than to their religion (prior to Constantine and the Christians taking over). Sure, there was kind of constant fighting on the edges of the empire, including always against the pesky Gauls and German barbarians, who really hated the idea of being part of the big empire. But mostly, and especially compared to times before in much of Europe, you could live safe in your home with your family, for generations even, protected by law-abiding and law-enforcing local authorities, backed up by the Roman army when needed, truly answerable to the people through the representation of the Senate, such as it was, and it was pretty great as far as I can tell. 

Now, the bird's-eye view of the modern USA comes in when, generation after generation, leader after leader, eventually monarch after monarch, the common-knowledge shared dedication to being a Republic and to all the ideas above, faded over time. First, one or two leaders came along who had enough sway over the army and enough popularity with the people that they were able to, against the grain of all Republic dedication, declare themselves effective leaders of the empire. First humbly, as first-among-many. Then with time, openly and pompously. Then with more time, it became obvious to everyone that the Republic was only a Republic in name, that it was just obviously "the way things worked" that the army effectively got to decide who became emperor, and that as soon as the army switched loyalties, you'd better be ready for a change, including probably a bunch of people getting killed for being on the wrong side. 

The thing about Decline and Fall, wrt this kind of degradation, is you get to read real human stories of this happening, again, and again, and again, and again. The same patterns, the different humans with unique circumstances playing them out. 

Why did the dedication to the original ideals degrade with time? I think the same natural processes, and lack of opposing processes, have led the US and myriad other democracies down similar paths over time. People and groups learn to subvert the system to get more of what they want in the short term, sacrificing the common-knowledge dedications and ideals that support the good things they have in the world. They pay less attention to the whole than is needed to maintain it. 

I'll name what I see today as one instance of roughly this kind of degradation, and I hope it's a little spicy. I have been part of many, many conversations in organizations where, when discussing some strategic question for the organization, the word "optics" comes up. For the uninitiated, the word "optics" in this context means: people could see what we're doing and have interpretations of it. We don't want those interpretations to have bad consequences for us. So let's be sure to include in our strategizing some component of consideration for trying to get people's impressions (the public, journalists, stakeholders, or etc) to be at least neutral. I can understand that. But I want to live in a world where we're creating the whole we want, not mostly attempting to persuade or convince or if nothing else not be noticed by parts of society that IMO we ought to relate to as peers. If we all practice distrusting our peers' sense-making processes in this way of strategizing about "optics", we'll all end up with a society with worse and less sense-making. So what do I want instead? I want us to take actions with integrity. Yes to being aware of our reputation (individually, organizationally, etc) and acting with integrity.

(*The abridged version I landed on, after some back and forth about versions with Claude, is the Womersly version. I love it. You get 100-200 pages of the above, which was just right for this first-timer.)

#DeepTakes

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, probably via use of the word "optics" ;) . I've been reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged*, of course, at least to start with!). New to the topic, and I’ve never identified as a history buff, but I’m really loving it. I wanted to write a short post about it, but couldn’t quickly figure out how to say what I wanted briefly, so here’s a long one!

It feels like a bird's-eye view of modern politics, in many ways, but especially regarding "The American Experiment." I'm sure this comparison isn't new--it's probably a huge part of what makes Decline and Fall popular today, despite being published in 1776. Since there's a whole trope about Rome buffs, I imagine many of you have hashed over all this a ton previously.

The early part of Decline and Fall starts with how amazing Rome was. Of course, it built on other civilizations and governments that came before it, but I think we these days have a hard time imagining just how surprisingly modern it would seem to us, if we were transplanted to the Roman Empire in its heyday. Of course we have tons of hard tech they didn't. But on the social level, I think a lot of it would feel spookily familiar. (I’m sure the author and I are both missing or leaving out huge ways it’s different. But I think there’s still a lot we can learn from it.)

Widespread assumption of and dedication to: rule of law, trial by peers, market-based economy. And somehow the start of the Roman Empire manifested a deep dedication among citizens and leaders to a Republic as the form of government. No nepotism, no monarchy, no might makes right. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, at least in spirit--my sense is people and government and military were all aligned in their dedication to that spirit. 

And peace! Peace, for centuries, throughout a huge swath of the known world, where that hadn’t happened before. There was a kind of national religion they inherited from the Greeks, but they seem to have been even more dedicated to religious tolerance than to their religion (prior to Constantine and the Christians taking over). Sure, there was kind of constant fighting on the edges of the empire, including always against the pesky Gauls and German barbarians, who really hated the idea of being part of the big empire. But mostly, and especially compared to times before in much of Europe, you could live safe in your home with your family, for generations even, protected by law-abiding and law-enforcing local authorities, backed up by the Roman army when needed, truly answerable to the people through the representation of the Senate, such as it was, and it was pretty great as far as I can tell. 

Now, the bird's-eye view of the modern USA comes in when, generation after generation, leader after leader, eventually monarch after monarch, the common-knowledge shared dedication to being a Republic and to all the ideas above, faded over time. First, one or two leaders came along who had enough sway over the army and enough popularity with the people that they were able to, against the grain of all Republic dedication, declare themselves effective leaders of the empire. First humbly, as first-among-many. Then with time, openly and pompously. Then with more time, it became obvious to everyone that the Republic was only a Republic in name, that it was just obviously "the way things worked" that the army effectively got to decide who became emperor, and that as soon as the army switched loyalties, you'd better be ready for a change, including probably a bunch of people getting killed for being on the wrong side. 

The thing about Decline and Fall, wrt this kind of degradation, is you get to read real human stories of this happening, again, and again, and again, and again. The same patterns, the different humans with unique circumstances playing them out. 

Why did the dedication to the original ideals degrade with time? I think the same natural processes, and lack of opposing processes, have led the US and myriad other democracies down similar paths over time. People and groups learn to subvert the system to get more of what they want in the short term, sacrificing the common-knowledge dedications and ideals that support the good things they have in the world. They pay less attention to the whole than is needed to maintain it. 

I'll name what I see today as one instance of roughly this kind of degradation, and I hope it's a little spicy. I have been part of many, many conversations in organizations where, when discussing some strategic question for the organization, the word "optics" comes up. For the uninitiated, the word "optics" in this context means: people could see what we're doing and have interpretations of it. We don't want those interpretations to have bad consequences for us. So let's be sure to include in our strategizing some component of consideration for trying to get people's impressions (the public, journalists, stakeholders, or etc) to be at least neutral. I can understand that. But I want to live in a world where we're creating the whole we want, not mostly attempting to persuade or convince or if nothing else not be noticed by parts of society that IMO we ought to relate to as peers. If we all practice distrusting our peers' sense-making processes in this way of strategizing about "optics", we'll all end up with a society with worse and less sense-making. So what do I want instead? I want us to take actions with integrity. Yes to being aware of our reputation (individually, organizationally, etc) and acting with integrity.

(*The abridged version I landed on, after some back and forth about versions with Claude, is the Womersly version. I love it. You get 100-200 pages of the above, which was just right for this first-timer.)

#DeepTakes

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, probably via use of the word "optics" ;) . I've been reading the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (abridged*, of course, at least to start with!). New to the topic, and I’ve never identified as a history buff, but I’m really loving it. I wanted to write a short post about it, but couldn’t quickly figure out how to say what I wanted briefly, so here’s a long one!

It feels like a bird's-eye view of modern politics, in many ways, but especially regarding "The American Experiment." I'm sure this comparison isn't new--it's probably a huge part of what makes Decline and Fall popular today, despite being published in 1776. Since there's a whole trope about Rome buffs, I imagine many of you have hashed over all this a ton previously.

The early part of Decline and Fall starts with how amazing Rome was. Of course, it built on other civilizations and governments that came before it, but I think we these days have a hard time imagining just how surprisingly modern it would seem to us, if we were transplanted to the Roman Empire in its heyday. Of course we have tons of hard tech they didn't. But on the social level, I think a lot of it would feel spookily familiar. (I’m sure the author and I are both missing or leaving out huge ways it’s different. But I think there’s still a lot we can learn from it.)

Widespread assumption of and dedication to: rule of law, trial by peers, market-based economy. And somehow the start of the Roman Empire manifested a deep dedication among citizens and leaders to a Republic as the form of government. No nepotism, no monarchy, no might makes right. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, at least in spirit--my sense is people and government and military were all aligned in their dedication to that spirit. 

And peace! Peace, for centuries, throughout a huge swath of the known world, where that hadn’t happened before. There was a kind of national religion they inherited from the Greeks, but they seem to have been even more dedicated to religious tolerance than to their religion (prior to Constantine and the Christians taking over). Sure, there was kind of constant fighting on the edges of the empire, including always against the pesky Gauls and German barbarians, who really hated the idea of being part of the big empire. But mostly, and especially compared to times before in much of Europe, you could live safe in your home with your family, for generations even, protected by law-abiding and law-enforcing local authorities, backed up by the Roman army when needed, truly answerable to the people through the representation of the Senate, such as it was, and it was pretty great as far as I can tell. 

Now, the bird's-eye view of the modern USA comes in when, generation after generation, leader after leader, eventually monarch after monarch, the common-knowledge shared dedication to being a Republic and to all the ideas above, faded over time. First, one or two leaders came along who had enough sway over the army and enough popularity with the people that they were able to, against the grain of all Republic dedication, declare themselves effective leaders of the empire. First humbly, as first-among-many. Then with time, openly and pompously. Then with more time, it became obvious to everyone that the Republic was only a Republic in name, that it was just obviously "the way things worked" that the army effectively got to decide who became emperor, and that as soon as the army switched loyalties, you'd better be ready for a change, including probably a bunch of people getting killed for being on the wrong side. 

The thing about Decline and Fall, wrt this kind of degradation, is you get to read real human stories of this happening, again, and again, and again, and again. The same patterns, the different humans with unique circumstances playing them out. 

Why did the dedication to the original ideals degrade with time? I think the same natural processes, and lack of opposing processes, have led the US and myriad other democracies down similar paths over time. People and groups learn to subvert the system to get more of what they want in the short term, sacrificing the common-knowledge dedications and ideals that support the good things they have in the world. They pay less attention to the whole than is needed to maintain it. 

I'll name what I see today as one instance of roughly this kind of degradation, and I hope it's a little spicy. I have been part of many, many conversations in organizations where, when discussing some strategic question for the organization, the word "optics" comes up. For the uninitiated, the word "optics" in this context means: people could see what we're doing and have interpretations of it. We don't want those interpretations to have bad consequences for us. So let's be sure to include in our strategizing some component of consideration for trying to get people's impressions (the public, journalists, stakeholders, or etc) to be at least neutral. I can understand that. But I want to live in a world where we're creating the whole we want, not mostly attempting to persuade or convince or if nothing else not be noticed by parts of society that IMO we ought to relate to as peers. If we all practice distrusting our peers' sense-making processes in this way of strategizing about "optics", we'll all end up with a society with worse and less sense-making. So what do I want instead? I want us to take actions with integrity. Yes to being aware of our reputation (individually, organizationally, etc) and acting with integrity.

(*The abridged version I landed on, after some back and forth about versions with Claude, is the Womersly version. I love it. You get 100-200 pages of the above, which was just right for this first-timer.)

#DeepTakes

The Relateful Company should embrace more job titles. We’re under-appreciating orange.

We’ve included the green critiques, like the classic:

What gets measured gets managed — even when it’s pointless to measure and manage it, and even if it harms the purpose of the organisation to do so - V. F. Ridgway, 1956

But we need to embrace more healthy competition, striving for excellence, even rankings.

one way we can do this is to make more liberal use of titles, and brag on people. @Valerie Daniel is the MANAGING DIRECTOR, and we should have her listed as such in emails and things

What else is healthy orange and how can we transclude it?
What do we already do that is already healthy orange?

New structures for family-friends? Chatting with a friend recently and came up with this novel idea.

Historically, many people would end up married, having kids, and having responsibilities to their family and local community and groups.

These days, we have less family and civic integrity, less people are having kids. More people are creating their family of choice with friends.

I think there’s a general love and aliveness everyone wants to express and be in connection with.

But without the usual routes of kids/religion/local community, it doesn’t get routed well anymore.

We need more structures/ideas/understanding to support new kinds of families and community structures.

Examples:
How about an app that makes it easier to crowd source among trusted local friends to babysit?

Most housing is built around one nuclear family 1-4 bedrooms. But what about community homes with larger kitchens and living rooms and smaller but more bedrooms?

I’m gesturing at this general area at the idea that modern, industrial civilization is built around nuclear families but we have a lot more forms being generated now but still lagging behind in the idea/social practice/phys infrastructure to match.

Why you should post more: Everything is a mirror of everything.

We’re all censoring most of our awareness.

Uptrust is a currently curated community where we can actually practice thinking.

The more I post the more direct I’m being with everyone in my life. (I have an embedded belief that if I do anything anywhere then I should that anything in more everywheres…but I still curate).

Post about why you’re not posting.

Post about questions you’re asking yourself.

Post about your anxiety.

Post to express art.

This shit won’t last, this fun safe newborn ward. Use this time now to try something. Create a fake name or another account so you can try it from anonymity.

Huge opportunity to bust out of our norms.

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Like is different than trust. I think Jordan said at an uptrust session that he misses the like button. I’m having the same feeling lately, there are posts I like that I wouldn’t necessarily say I trust. Or I want to give it some sort of that was cool but I don’t want that statement in my trust algorithm.

But maybe that’s all for the best? Surely some not-insignificant portion of my trust isn’t in my conscious awareness, maybe feeling a sense of yes to something is functionally the same as trust.

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Can we handle the truth? If UpTrust works the way it’s intended, it will make truth more accessible. But what percentage of the population currently has the capacity to face truth?

Perhaps alongside truth, the tech will make the skills for being with the truth more accessible too. And avoidance will come in for the assist when needed?

The pressure to be thoughtful. It’s an interesting thing - this feeling that I need to post something thoughtful here. I’m feeling tension emerge in my abdomen. There’s a belief that there’s a right and a wrong way to engage in this community with no clarity on what is right or wrong. Noticing that and letting that be.

Racism through a developmental lens. unfinished draft…
note: I’m totally uninformed here…

• Red: Does this benefit me?

• Amber: My race is simply better (or worse) than yours. We perpetuate it because that’s good.

• Orange: Racism is a thing we transcend by being worldcentric and meritocratic; we perpetuate it by constantly looking at everything through the racism lens.

• Green: Systemic racism is everywhere (and at the root of many of our social problems); we transcend it by balancing the scales with education and programs to help the victims and stop the perpetrators; we perpetuate it by taking advantage of our privileges, ignoring it, and doing nothing.

• Teal: Systemic racism is real, but it’s mostly an unconscious self-organizing system that’s perpetuated because of the incentives that keep things how they are. We transcend by owning our projection, and by setting up systems that reward non-racism for each level of development in the currency that level values.

• Turquoise: We never transcend racism, it’s a construct we enact through conscious embracing and boundarying/channeling or we enact through ignorance.

All these are frames that enact world-experiences that overlap, and they’re all us; these frames keep us from being in awareness and seeing awareness as the stuff the frames are made of-which is the way out of the self-referential self refuting trap of this frame into unity of experience…

note: This doesnt mean everyone who’s using the surface language of systemic racism or whatever is actually at that level—for example there’s a red green alliance that uses Green language because it benefits them directly; there’s an amber-green alliance that uses green language to make their in-group good/better and make others wrong/bad.

Why you should post more: Everything is a mirror of everything.

We’re all censoring most of our awareness.

Uptrust is a currently curated community where we can actually practice thinking.

The more I post the more direct I’m being with everyone in my life. (I have an embedded belief that if I do anything anywhere then I should that anything in more everywheres…but I still curate).

Post about why you’re not posting.

Post about questions you’re asking yourself.

Post about your anxiety.

Post to express art.

This shit won’t last, this fun safe newborn ward. Use this time now to try something. Create a fake name or another account so you can try it from anonymity.

Huge opportunity to bust out of our norms.

Premature Ejaculator? Try edging! I’ve gotten into some conversations lately with heterosexuals and How do I not prematurely ejaculate? has come up a lot.

I never really thought about this how because from a young age I used the when you get close to cumming and it’s too early, use the grandma visualization. Grandma meaning: someone/something I don’t want to have sex with. Pick a different word if you want to boink your nana.

This kinda got me over the hump and I never had problems but recently I filmed a scene with a tantra teacher who gave me a crash course in edging. Edging is a masturbation practice where a scale of 1-10 is used. 10 means I’m going to blow no matter what. 9 is I’m going to blow if the status quo remains. 8 is I can sense myself getting close. 1 is I’m not really horny.

This tantra teacher ejaculated multiple times in the span of 90 minutes (5 or so?). He also had a few orgasms where he didn’t ejaculate. He said it was the result of edging training. Those further heights stimulated my interest.

Key points:
1. Jerk off as much as you want.
2. Decide whether you’re going to shoot before you start.
3. Imagine the possibility that all the energy generated somehow stores in your sexiness when you don’t cum (the teacher edges to get ready for things like social events or even sex.)
4. Get as close to 9.5 as you can get without shooting.
5. The practice of building it up is equally important to the practice of not hitting 10.

I spent about a week on it and it was really clicking and enjoyable, porn or no porn.

Then I had the idea of trying it during sex instead of masturbation.

Key point:

I told my boyfriend.

I told him because he REALLY likes when I cum inside of him and our healthy codependency on that was it was a sign of connection for me to nut in him.

I said, I’m practicing this thing. I hope you like it. You can support me in it by staying completely still when I say, hold still.

If he wiggles or flexes his anal muscles it can take my 9 to 10.

The first time we did it, as I got to 9, my cock was kinda dry heaving but not shooting, maybe just a drop or two came out AND he actually thought the sensation of my cock pulsating inside him was hotter. Now I probably hit 9.5 a few times each session. We still always finish with a 10 but because of all the cardio that last build up is crazy vigorous so he gets a really intense ride out of it.

I think straight guys who tell their ladies they’re trying this are in for a treat. Sex has co-vulnerabilities. For the receiver, at least when I’m receiving, I want to be simultaneously objectified and subjectified. I want to be a hot person who’s loved. For the penetrator, at least for me, if I’m not high enough on the scale, say 5 or 6, I’ll lose my erection. If I go too high too fast I’ll blow my load too soon.

It seems REALLY hard to hold these vulnerabilities in consciousness. I think edging while fucking addresses all these issues in a very collaborative and fun way.

The first time I described it to a couple and asked the woman if she was ok if he tried it, she responded with a sly joy and said, Sounds fun to me. <3

Happy fucking!

Premature Ejaculator? Try edging! I’ve gotten into some conversations lately with heterosexuals and How do I not prematurely ejaculate? has come up a lot.

I never really thought about this how because from a young age I used the when you get close to cumming and it’s too early, use the grandma visualization. Grandma meaning: someone/something I don’t want to have sex with. Pick a different word if you want to boink your nana.

This kinda got me over the hump and I never had problems but recently I filmed a scene with a tantra teacher who gave me a crash course in edging. Edging is a masturbation practice where a scale of 1-10 is used. 10 means I’m going to blow no matter what. 9 is I’m going to blow if the status quo remains. 8 is I can sense myself getting close. 1 is I’m not really horny.

This tantra teacher ejaculated multiple times in the span of 90 minutes (5 or so?). He also had a few orgasms where he didn’t ejaculate. He said it was the result of edging training. Those further heights stimulated my interest.

Key points:
1. Jerk off as much as you want.
2. Decide whether you’re going to shoot before you start.
3. Imagine the possibility that all the energy generated somehow stores in your sexiness when you don’t cum (the teacher edges to get ready for things like social events or even sex.)
4. Get as close to 9.5 as you can get without shooting.
5. The practice of building it up is equally important to the practice of not hitting 10.

I spent about a week on it and it was really clicking and enjoyable, porn or no porn.

Then I had the idea of trying it during sex instead of masturbation.

Key point:

I told my boyfriend.

I told him because he REALLY likes when I cum inside of him and our healthy codependency on that was it was a sign of connection for me to nut in him.

I said, I’m practicing this thing. I hope you like it. You can support me in it by staying completely still when I say, hold still.

If he wiggles or flexes his anal muscles it can take my 9 to 10.

The first time we did it, as I got to 9, my cock was kinda dry heaving but not shooting, maybe just a drop or two came out AND he actually thought the sensation of my cock pulsating inside him was hotter. Now I probably hit 9.5 a few times each session. We still always finish with a 10 but because of all the cardio that last build up is crazy vigorous so he gets a really intense ride out of it.

I think straight guys who tell their ladies they’re trying this are in for a treat. Sex has co-vulnerabilities. For the receiver, at least when I’m receiving, I want to be simultaneously objectified and subjectified. I want to be a hot person who’s loved. For the penetrator, at least for me, if I’m not high enough on the scale, say 5 or 6, I’ll lose my erection. If I go too high too fast I’ll blow my load too soon.

It seems REALLY hard to hold these vulnerabilities in consciousness. I think edging while fucking addresses all these issues in a very collaborative and fun way.

The first time I described it to a couple and asked the woman if she was ok if he tried it, she responded with a sly joy and said, Sounds fun to me. <3

Happy fucking!

More People Should Die. Elderly people should be able to legally choose to end their life when they’re ready. In fact, any adult should be legally allowed to choose to die. They should be able to invite people, be present for their memorial service, and have a medical professional end their life.

And we should be more present with death in society. People should be able to attend their loved ones’ cremations. Embalming should be illegal.

Telling people that I upvoted/downvoted their comment when I do and telling them why. (Triggered)(Feel super activated about the hiddenness and anonymity of the downvoting)

I want to see what happens when it’s ok to be explicit about affecting someone’s status.

(Fear that I’ll be avoided and ultimately alone. Anger at everything.)

(Longing to be the next me that’s social-cue numb to my own abrasiveness).

Not sure if this is triggered or not but I want the consequences of being known.

Cities and Ambition. I recently reread this Paul Graham essay [ https://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html ]. It’s about what messages individual places send their inhabitants vis-a-vis which ambitions are good. It mentions Berkeley (where I live) as a place that wants people to live comfortably/well, which seems right. So I’m curious: what city do you live in and what does its vibe want you to do?

I need a new word. I’ve been using the word autistic as a description of a state experience where, when one is in such a state, they don’t recognize subtle passive cues from others. One example is when someone’s feeling a lot of unity they often fail to see bids for connection from someone who’s more codependently minded. I think it’s kinda lazy of me because I don’t think that factor speaks to the experience of an autistic person. Any ideas?

If I switch to neurodivergent is it better?