Users describe the Soylent experience in their own words. [soylent is basically a powder mixed with water that is a meal substitute]
Shannon and Jonathan: We are located in Silicon Valley, California, executives in our 40s, busy cat parents running a digital marketing & software development company. Soylent fills the role in our lives that we want it to fill. It’s fantastic and hits all the most important points — convenience, taste, nutrition, and cost. Basically, everyone who has a busy life knows what it’s like to work really intensely on something and suddenly realize, “Oh crap, I haven’t eaten anything in way too long.”
Since we don’t have to spend time preparing food we actually get more free time to talk or interact in any way we want. We still go out to eat any time we feel like it, and thoroughly enjoy those times because they are completely optional. We never find ourselves saying, “I’m starving and don’t feel like I can deal with cooking anything, let’s just go out to eat.” Instead we go out to eat because we just want a particular thing, and want to spend some time together away from the house. Soylent has put food entirely on our terms, and our relationship is definitely benefiting from that. So as you can see, it’s not so obvious as “When I drink Soylent our sex life is so much better!” or anything like that. It’s a ripple effect that Soylent starts, but that sends waves out into every aspect of our lives.
1) that is the EXACT framework i use to describe food. there are 4 dimensions - cost, convenience, taste, nutrition. it’s possible to get 2 out of the 4, 3 out of 4 is hard, 4 out of 4 is almost impossible.
2) this totally jibes with my life philosophy of reducing things you want to do and doing more things you want to do and how you should actively manage that instead of just repeating the process mindlessly. (i.e., do less cleaning/cooking/commuting/chores) ALSO why kids will DESTROY relationships.
for the record, soylent costs about $4/serving. soylent also seems really intriguing to me.
i am all for keeping an open mind about nontraditional relationships. this is obviously prefaced the caveat that everyone is different and i generally have the guiding principle that i want everyone to be happy both in the short term and in the long term, however that may be. single, gay, poly, open, monogamous, very sexually active, totally asexual, whatever.
i’m also a huge believer in being honest in relationships, talking about emotions especially about problems in the relationship, and developing compromises and not being too proud or stubborn to make solutions so that everyone is happy. via mason!
Those of us who are in monogamous relationships will probably never stop being jealous—and that’s healthy. What’s not healthy is the way some monogamous people manipulate their partners’ jealousy and devotion. According to Shackelford, women in monogamous relationships “are more likely to use sexual assets to induce jealousy in their partner,” while “men will manipulate access to resources.”
People in plural relationships get jealous, too, of course. But the way polys get jealous is unique—and possibly even adaptive. Rather than blame the partner for their feelings, the polys view the jealousy an irrational symptom of their own self-doubt.
i actually think jealousy is a very unhealthy emotion in relationships and i am always working on controlling it. it’s inherently incredibly selfish and tends to amplify other emotions. don’t get me wrong, i TOTALLY understand how people can be upset and hurt by their partner, and i find those emotions “healthy”, but being jealous on TOP of all of that will amplify those feelings to really unnecessary proportions. both daniel and i have totally overreacted to things that any rational person would know is NOT A BIG DEAL. (not to say that there aren’t also things that ARE a big deal)
i think it also belies a sense of distrust and insecurity, which i don’t think you should feel in a serious, committed relationship.
but yes, i think that is one of the main reasons why i couldn’t necessarily be in a poly relationship. that and potential lowered stability.
“I think everyone feels jealous,” Josh said. “Us and the people we’ve dated and most of the people I know feel jealous. But when I think of jealousy, I think of it more as it’s another emotion we express as jealousy. You’re not actually jealous; you’re feeling loss.”
“I had revelations about jealousy back when I was trying to be monogamous,” said Jonica, the 27-year-old living in the triad in Virginia. She realized “it’s kinda silly. It produces the opposite effect that you supposedly want. If I was jealous of my lover, and I start acting out on that emotion, it’s going to drive that person away from me.”
For example, his main partner, M, was recently feeling jealous that he was spending so much time with B, his girlfriend, and feared that Stew would eventually want to leave M for B. M “knows in her logical brain that this isn’t the case, but thoughts like these are worries, like ‘Did I leave the stove on?’” Stew said. “You can’t logic them away.”
So on top of reassuring M that he would never leave her, in times like these, Stew tries to lighten the mood “with a nice walk around the block, or making dinner with her, or being silly, or watching Netflix.”
“We’re in a place where, for the most part, we both are able to see feelings of envy and insecurity for what they are, and we have a deep bond of trust that is most often very easily accessible, which we can reach out to and touch when we need to remind ourselves that it’s there,” he said.
In the course of her research, Sheff met one couple in which the man was as “as kinky as a cheap garden hose.” “It didn’t do it for [his wife], the whole kink thing,” Sheff told me. “So he started going to local [BDSM] dungeons and playing with other women. She was not that into that, either. She loved the theater, but she stopped going as much because he thought it was boring and stupid and expensive.”
So the couple went poly: “He started dating kinky women. She ended up hooking up with her old high school friend she found on Facebook, and they enjoyed the theater together. And she ended up enjoying time with her husband but not feeling so much pressure about the kinky sex.”
I asked the logical, mono-normative question: Why didn’t the wife just ditch the garden hose for the theater man? “She gets stuff from the garden-hose guy that she doesn’t get from the intellectual guy,” Sheff explained. “They do fun things together, and the theater guy is too needy for her. She doesn’t want him all to herself, because he would be too much work.”
One of the Baltimore couples, Josh and Cassie, represents a typical approach to polyamory: They met a decade ago through a mutual friend, and they dated monogamously for several years before Cassie, who is bisexual, raised the idea of adding another woman to the relationship. They’ve since had several committed triad relationships lasting from a few months to several years. The “other woman” becomes a full partner in the relationship, and ideally, she complements them both in some way. Cassie always hopes that it’ll be a fellow horror-movie lover, while Josh keeps his fingers crossed for an anime fanatic.
OMG IT SOUNDS SO LOGICAL
Bill says watching his wife have sex with another man is anything but unsettling. Instead, it sometimes induces compersion—the poly principle of basking in the joy of a partner’s success in romance, just as you would with his or her success in work or sports.
lol this is like every secret ever.
the other bits about the benefits of poly are a little bit of a stretch for me. obviously one size does not fit all in this respect.
A teenager whose father passed away when he was just six had pulled out an old Xbox game that he and his dad used to play together, only to discover a part of his father lived on in the game.
Well, when i was 4, my dad bought a trusty XBox. you know, the first, ruggedy, blocky one from 2001. we had tons and tons and tons of fun playing all kinds of games together - until he died, when i was just 6.
i couldnt touch that console for 10 years.
but once i did, i noticed something.
we used to play a racing game, Rally Sports Challenge. actually pretty awesome for the time it came.
and once i started meddling around… i found a GHOST.
you know, when a time race happens, that the fastest lap so far gets recorded as a ghost driver? yep, you guessed it - his ghost still rolls around the track today.
and so i played and played, and played, untill i was almost able to beat the ghost. until one day i got ahead of it, i surpassed it, and…
i stopped right in front of the finish line, just to ensure i wouldnt delete it.
SMBC has been on a roll lately! they are the best. hat tip MASON for reminding me!!!! ;)
the only thing i could imagine seeing octavia spencer in snowpiercer
man 30 rock had a great final season
love stuff like this. some are probably more applicable than others to different people/different experiences, but my two favorites are below. via sun on fb!
basically 1) the idea that it’s incredibly difficult to know ourselves well and we should constantly be trying to better understand ourselves and be critical of ourselves and improve ourselves. 2) make sure you ask the right questions, make sure you really focus on what’s important and not what other people tell you is important.
Anyone we could marry would, of course, be a little wrong for us. It is wise to be appropriately pessimistic here. Perfection is not on the cards. Unhappiness is a constant. Nevertheless, one encounters some couples of such primal, grinding mismatch, such deep-seated incompatibility, that one has to conclude that something else is at play beyond the normal disappointments and tensions of every long-term relationship: some people simply shouldn’t be together.
How do the errors happen? With appalling ease and regularity. Given that marrying the wrong person is about the single easiest and also costliest mistake any of us can make (and one which places an enormous burden on the state, employers and the next generation), it is extraordinary, and almost criminal, that the issue of marrying intelligently is not more systematically addressed at a national and personal level, as road safety or smoking are.
It’s all the sadder because in truth, the reasons why people make the wrong choices are easy to lay out and unsurprising in their structure. They tend to fall into some of the following basic categories.
One: We don’t understand ourselves
When first looking out for a partner, the requirements we come up with are coloured by a beautiful non-specific sentimental vagueness: we’ll say we really want to find someone who is ‘kind’ or ‘fun to be with’, ‘attractive’ or ‘up for adventure…’
It isn’t that such desires are wrong, they are just not remotely precise enough in their understanding of what we in particular are going to require in order to stand a chance of being happy – or, more accurately, not consistently miserable.
All of us are crazy in very particular ways. We’re distinctively neurotic, unbalanced and immature, but don’t know quite the details because no one ever encourages us too hard to find them out. An urgent, primary task of any lover is therefore to get a handle on the specific ways in which they are mad. They have to get up to speed on their individual neuroses. They have to grasp where these have come from, what they make them do – and most importantly, what sort of people either provoke or assuage them. A good partnership is not so much one between two healthy people (there aren’t many of these on the planet), it’s one between two demented people who have had the skill or luck to find a non-threatening conscious accommodation between their relative insanities.
The very idea that we might not be too difficult as people should set off alarm bells in any prospective partner. The question is just where the problems will lie: perhaps we have a latent tendency to get furious when someone disagrees with us, or we can only relax when we are working, or we’re a bit tricky around intimacy after sex, or we’ve never been so good at explaining what’s going on when we’re worried. It’s these sort of issues that – over decades – create catastrophes and that we therefore need to know about way ahead of time, in order to look out for people who are optimally designed to withstand them. A standard question on any early dinner date should be quite simply: ‘And how are you mad?’
The problem is that knowledge of our own neuroses is not at all easy to come by. It can take years and situations we have had no experience of. Prior to marriage, we’re rarely involved in dynamics that properly hold up a mirror to our disturbances. Whenever more casual relationships threaten to reveal the ‘difficult’ side of our natures, we tend to blame the partner – and call it a day. As for our friends, they predictably don’t care enough about us to have any motive to probe our real selves. They only want a nice evening out. Therefore, we end up blind to the awkward sides of our natures. On our own, when we’re furious, we don’t shout, as there’s no one there to listen – and therefore we overlook the true, worrying strength of our capacity for fury. Or we work all the time without grasping, because there’s no one calling us to come for dinner, how we manically use work to gain a sense of control over life – and how we might cause hell if anyone tried to stop us. At night, all we’re aware of is how sweet it would be to cuddle with someone, but we have no opportunity to face up to the intimacy-avoiding side of us that would start to make us cold and strange if ever it felt we were too deeply committed to someone. One of the greatest privileges of being on one’s own is the flattering illusion that one is, in truth, really quite an easy person to live with.
Six: We don’t go to Schools of Love
The time has come for a third kind of marriage. The marriage of psychology. One where one doesn’t marry for land, or for ‘the feeling’ alone, but only when ‘the feeling’ has been properly submitted to examination and brought under the aegis of a mature awareness of one’s own and the other’s psychology.
Presently, we marry without any information. We almost never read books specifically on the subject, we never spend more than a short time with children, we don’t rigorously interrogate other married couples or speak with any sincerity to divorced ones. We go into it without any insightful reasons as to why marriages fail – beyond what we presume to be the idiocy or lack of imagination of their protagonists.
In the age of the marriage of reason, one might have considered the following criteria when marrying:
- who are their parents
- how much land do they have
- how culturally similar are they
In the Romantic age, one might have looked out for the following signs to determine rightness:
- one can’t stop thinking of a lover
- one is sexually obsessed
- one thinks they are amazing
- one longs to talk to them all the time
We need a new set of criteria. We should wonder:
- how are they mad
- how can one raise children with them
- how can one develop together
- how can one remain friends
sort of similar to this other article: http://www.ozy.com/resolved/is-it-time-to-lower-your-standards/32500.article
Almost 9 in 10 Americans believe they have a soul mate, says Tashiro, but only 3 in 10 find enduring partnerships that do not end in divorce, separation or chronic unhappiness. Clearly something is going wrong — and it starts with our expectations.
For example, say a bachelorette enters a room of 100 male bachelors who represent the broader U.S population. If she prefers a partner who’s tall (at least 6-foot), then her pool of possible prospects immediately shrinks to 20. If she would like him to be fairly attractive and earn a comfortable income (over $87,000 annually), then she’s down to a single prospect out of 100.
If you choose to specify further traits, such as kindness, intelligence or a particular religious or political affiliation, well, let’s just say we’re going to need a much bigger room. And then, of course, there’s the small matter of whether he actually likes you back.
Such long odds are the product of misplaced priorities, says Tashiro, but it’s not strictly our fault. Our mate preferences have been shaped by natural selection’s obsession with physical attractiveness and resources as well as the messages our friends, families and favorite shows transmit about sweethearts and soul mates. And it is at the start of relationships, when we need to make smart long-term decisions, that we are least likely to do so because we’re in the throes of lust, passion and romance.
Which is why Tashiro advocates a new approach to dating, one that is not so much about lowering standards as giving yourself better ones. Call it “Moneyballing” relationships (Tashiro does); it’s all about finding undervalued traits and assets in the dating market. And, just like with baseball, it starts with trying to ignore the superficial indices of value — attractiveness, wealth — in favor of hidden attributes with a stronger correlation to long-term relationship success.
Citing research that finds no reliable link between income level or physical attractiveness and relationship satisfaction, Tashiro steers his readers towards traits such as agreeableness. With married couples, he points out, “liking declines at a rate of 3 percent a year, whereas lust declines at a rate of 8 percent per year,” so the smarter long-term investment is finding someone you genuinely like. Plus, he adds, studies also suggest that agreeable partners are in fact “better in bed” and less likely to cheat over the long haul.
CONAN Highlight: Conan & Dave are on a mission to meet beautiful women, with the help of the dating app Tinder and a sweet set of wheels.
so…. conan pulls about 90% of the comedic load in this very funny video, but man if i don’t love dave franco’s laugh and everything else about him.