Stephen C

I smell you, dawg.

I'm pretty disappointed about a lot of things, yes. Out of all the things in the world you are disappointed in, what is most disappointing to you?You're welcome.

I would like to hear your answers to these questions if you don't mind.

What comes to mind is this quote:"Dissociation mimics enlightenmentDissociation - being split - off from part or all of our emotions, inner truth, or history - is lauded in our troubled world as health. Families love children who do not cry or whine, but achieve or feign happiness in spite of their misery. People who are dissociated are often confident, strong, and sure of themselves, because they lean on a totally false self, and lack the conscious feelings which invariably block this falsity. These people often look like the healthiest of all, and in the sickest social environments they rise to the top.- and become leaders. They are often praised for their skill, power, and enlightenment, though in reality they are just mimicking a truly healed person. The truly healed person has earned his connection with his true self, and thus his enlightenment is not false, his confidence not built on sand, his leadership not built on corruption, and his motives conscious and pure-to his depths."From Trauma To Enlightenment: Self Therapy In Twelve Steps by Daniel Mackler and Frederick TimmPeep the knowledge...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yFxIjhdSlE

A thought comes to mind and it might be complete nonsense, but I'll toss it out anyway.People that are the most judgmental of others seem to be the most fearful of having judgement passed on them. When they are in a position where judgement is going to be or is being passed on them they desire to flee or defend out of an...irrational? fear they have. At the same time they will boast about the importance of judgement. These people might work very hard to present themselves in a way that would make it very difficult for others to have negative judgement of them, they want to present themselves as a perfect person. They do not do wrong, they do not harm others, they just make mistakes. Politicians come to mind.What do you think, Marc? Does any of this ring true or untrue?"In my opinion rational action is which is logically supposed to create desired result." I agree with this.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but I'll say it anyway at the risk of sounding like a wacko. If I am cooking food on the stove top and it is beginning to burn, it would be kind of ridiculous for me to fight the fire to stop my food from burning when I can just turn the knob to shut the gas off.Also, if someone is walking around my house setting things on fire, it's one thing to follow them around with a fire extinguisher putting out the things they set fire to. It's another thing to approach them like "Yo, dawg. I heard you like to set fires. Gimme the lighter."

Thanks for your input, Selene. I've recently been getting some Mary Daly quotes tossed my way and it's difficult for me to understand them, not because they don't make sense or anything like that, but my mind isn't geared to process this type of material. I've noticed reading some of these quotes I become defensive, not that I shouldn't, but it's interesting to explore. Nahmsayin'?

I shoulda seen that comin'

Dude! I was totally thinking about linking a Peter Gerlach video on your "Porn and Honesty" thread, but I decided against it. I'm glad you're finding his channel useful. You're welcome.

I think I understand, MM. Thank you for taking the time to explain your experience and decision.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute your thoughts, Aeonicentity. I'm soaking in what you've said. Right now I'm wondering specifically about your last paragraph "To remove men's rights from the choices surrounding a fetus is entirely immoral...". Who / what gives men these rights? How does this fall into the category of morality? Why did you go to an analogy / metaphor about the situation instead of talking about the bare facts of the situation? I'm not saying you are wrong, I just don't understand this fully. Again, I do very much appreciate you taking the time to go over this and share your thoughts.

I would ask this person "what would happen if you went to talk to your parents about your feelings?"

Inner Critic said in the video that this will be my most watched video and will get the most thumbs down. So far it's my most watched video and has the most thumbs up.

I'm interested to hear what you intelligent people here on the boards think/feel about this section of the book Gyn/ecology. I'm not the best at determining what is logical and what is not, so if anyone can shine some light on this is terms of logic I'd love to hear. "A few years ago one Robert Byrn, a 40-year-old professor of criminal law at Fordham University, took it upon himself to represent all human fetuses between the fourth and twenty-fourth week of gestation scheduled to be aborted in New York City municipal hospitals. Byrn was himself represented by attorney Thomas Ford, who made the following statement: "The fetus might well be described as an astronaut in a uterine spaceship." As Ellen Frankfort aptly comments: It takes a certain kind of imagination to assume guardianship for something lodged within another's body - a rather acquisitive proprietary imagination that fits right in with the conception of a woman as a spaceship and the contents of her womb as an astronaut. The astonishing Byrn incident and the analogy made by his attorney merit some attention for the light they throw upon the deceptions of male myth. Since the astronaut is perceived as the captain of a "vessel," there is a desire to see the fetus as controlling the woman. Moreover, the image of the astronaut in a spaceship is interesting also because in this image the "captain" is very much controlled by other males outside the spaceship (for example, politicians, economists, scientists, flight surgeons, engineers). This makes the analogy particularly "appropriate" in its perverse way, for the fetus is maintained in control of the woman by males outside (for example, politicians, legislators, priests, doctors, social workers, counselors, husbands, "lovers"). Moreover, the analogy involves deceptively circular reasoning, making it doubly appropriate in this doublethink context. For here, a biological event - the presence of the fetus in the uterus - is imaged as "like," that is, imitative of, a technological event - the presence of an astronaut in a a spaceship. This elicits an obvious question: *Is* the astronaut in the spaceship an attempt to imitate the situation of the fetus in a uterus? Elsewhere I have shown that there is (unacknowledged) evidence in ethical writings on abortion of a widespread male tendency to identify with fetuses. This merits further analysis. There are clues about the source of this fetal identification syndrome (which is frequently fatal for women unable to obtain needed abortions) in Frankfort's description of Byrn as "a childless man who seeks to guard unwanted fetal tissue." Males do indeed deeply identify with "unwanted fetal tissue," for they sense as their own condition the role of controller, possessor, inhabitor of women. Draining the female energy, they *feel* "fetal." Since this perpetual fetal state is fatal to the Self of the eternal mother (Hostess), males fear women's recognition of this *real* condition, which would render them infinitely "unwanted." For the attraction/need of males for female energy, seen for what is is, is *necrophilia* - not in the sense of love for actual corpses, but of love for those victimized into a state of living death. Frankfort's description of Byrn as "childless" also merits scrutiny. For it is the condition of *all* males to be childless, and there is evidence that this condition is experienced as disturbing to those who are obsessed with the reproduction of the male self (which should not be confused with any genuine desire to care for and energize another being). Indeed there are male authors who are very willing (perhaps too willing) to attest to the anxiety of males over their childless state. Philip Slater, for example, writes of "this vulnerability of the male in the sphere of worldly immortality which gives rise to the concept of the 'external soul,' so prominent in magic and mythology." According to his view, a woman need not guess whether something of herself continues on in a new organism, for she can see the child emerge from her own body: Thus if one translates "soul" in these stories as "that part of me which will live on after I die," the woman initially holds her "soul" within herself. It is only man whose "soul" always resides outside of himself. Thus "as men have been lamenting for centuries, his immortality is out of his own control." According to this view, then, males identify the "immortal" soul with biological offspring, and women should feel fortunate in their role as incubators, shells, hotels, youth hostels, homes, hatcheries for human souls. I have already suggested that it is dangerous for women to accept reductionist theories about the male propensity for "womb envy." Thus it should arouse suspicion that Karen Horney's "womb envy" theory (with which she countered Freud's proposition of "penis envy") has been eagerly adopted by some liberal males (for example, Philip Slater). The problem with such a theory is that the implied criticism stops short of being a genuine feminist analysis. Hags must learn to double-double unthink (Andrea Dworkin's phrase) - that is, to go past the obvious level of male-made reversals and find the underlying Lie. Thus it is a pitfall simply to reverse "penis envy" into "womb envy," for such theories trick women into fixating upon womb, female genitalia, and breasts as our ultimately most valuable endowments. Not only disparagement, but also glorification of women's procreative organs are expressions of male fixation and fetishism. These disproportionate attitudes are also demonically deceptive, inviting women to re-act with mere derivative fetishism, instead of deriding these fixations and focusing upon the real "object" of male envy, which is female creative energy in *all* of its dimensions. Male hatred of women expressed in such fetishized forms hides the deeper dimensions of envy, which remain unacknowledged. Thus we hear one male say of another's "project" or invention, "That's his baby." We also hear men describe the books, papers, articles of other men as "pregnant" with meaning. Such deceptive expressions provide clues to the deeper levels of deception. They suggest that the procreative power which is really envied does in fact belong primarily to the realm of mind/spirit/creativity. Yet this envy is not necessarily a desire to *be* creative, but rather to draw - like fetuses - upon another's (the mother's) energy as a source. Thus men who identify as mothers (that is, supermothers controlling biological mothers) are really protecting their fetal selves. They wish to be the fetuses/astronauts and the supermothers/ground commanders, but not the biological vessels/spaceships which they relegate to the role of controlled containers, and later discard as trash." - Mary Daly

Heh, gotcha.I noticed you got some negative reputation on your posts here. None of them are from me. I wonder why you were given negative reputation.Would the people that gave Ster negative reputation here please explain why?

How much drug have you smoked today, Ster?

That's a bannable offense, Ster.

Inner Critic: I don't get physical, I just talk. You're just looking for an excuse to take off your shirt, aren't you, pretty boy?

Or anyone about any issue

Uh oh, the patriarchy got'chu.

I admire her ability to write. I don't write as well as she does.What does your resentment say?

You've said a lot here, Kevin. Would you be down to have a voice chat on the topic with me? Inner Critic says "I don't need to be so loud when I feel I'm being listened to," Inner Critic: All these questions are answered in the video. You need a Q Tip or something, pretty boy?

The road?! The road??!! Lemme tell you something about the road!! If it weren't for the government there would be no road to go on!! I'm not sayin' not. I'm makin' videos and my channel is under my name so...I think I've got a show. I have a list of video ideas and I'm sure more will brew up. One of my video ideas is "LovePrevails is a sex machine"

Do you see any problem analysis in this article or in the REBT method in general?

You're welcome. In what way is it a helpful post?I worked with a therapist that utilized the CBT approach from 12-14. I was a child, the focus was on me.