MMX2010

I'll add some information to this post when I have time. I'll say in advance, though, that the answers you get depend on how you ask the questions. And I'll stay true to that when I post next time.

Agree with you 100%. I've two simple tests to separate mimics from non-mimics. (1) Can people discuss the evolutionary biological, (meaning "objectively, scientifically true"), discoveries regarding the duplicitous nature of female sexuality without calling people "misogynistic" or downvoting? (2) Can people discuss political issues like: (a) whether women are really equal to men, and (b) whether women's inequality to men implies that they shouldn't participate in politics? (The second question is very interesting, highly emotionally charged, and excellent arguments can be made for either case.) Most people simply cannot pass both tests, especially not the first one. That first test illustrates my highest pet peeve, "supporting scientific exploration except when it threatens their most sacred beliefs". It's what Creationists do, and we rightfully ridicule them for it.

I meant that most women would say that they're interested in having short-term sex and exploring the possibility of a long-term relationship within that context. I'll provide links to relevant posts from Rollo Tomassi's blog after my post. Women engage in two types of sex: acquisitive and transactional. When a woman isn't sure of a man's commitment, but wants to make him stick around, that's acquisitive sex. But once a woman is secure of a man's commitment, (usually because he married her and/or had a child with her in a modern American culture that punishes men who stray), she switches to transactional sex. When you say you're not interested in casual sex but want to explore being monogamous and committed, I translate that to, "I never engage in acquisitive sex, but I believe there's a specific aspect of either my personality or essence that is absent from other women and would be to your extreme benefit to acquire through monogamous commitment." So in my mental note of you, I would write in big neon-letters, all the way at the top of my list, "Thinks extremely highly of herself. Genuine or pretentious?" From there, I would Frame my interactions in terms of answering that question. ------------------------ More crucially, the older a woman is when she says she's not interested in casual sex, the more I wonder whether the "Alpha Widow" phenomenon is happening. So I would also Frame my interactions in terms of answering this second question. -------------------------- First link: Rollo explains the difference between acquisitive and transactional sex. http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/ Second link: Heartiste explains the "alpha widow" concept. https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/five-minutes-of-alpha-fifty-years-of-pining/

In my opinion, you're trying to engage in deep philosophical thought with someone who has just abused their child. This is like reading poetry to an angry bear. If you were surrounded by a large contingent of thoughtful philosophers, then this line of thought would galvanize the crowd against the abusive parent. But you are never surrounded by such a crowd. (In fact, the woman who agreed with you just watched your performance without helping; expect this at all times.) Instead, I advocate short sound-bytes, especially well-practiced barbs that you've prepared beforehand. (You're a writer, right?)

Yes. There's also a concept in Game called "qualifying", which establishes the dominant/submissive aspect of the relationship. For example, if a man makes the first move by hitting on a woman, he is "qualifying" himself to her by chasing her, and giving her the power. Whereas if a man is minding his own business and the same woman openly flirts with him, and then he hits on her, then she has "qualified" herself for his attention - which gives him the power. Asking, "Do you have children?", is an attempt to make you "qualify" yourself to the abusive parent. So the proper attitude is an absolute refusal to qualify yourself to an abuser. And this is where practicing your posture, body language, voice tone, and 100% conviction is so important. (If you deliver the correct message with even a hint of submission, you've subconsciously qualified yourself for the abusive parents' approval. But no abusive parent is ever your equal. She's your inferior, because she's behaving inferiorly.)

I like that, but I'd go stronger and more personal, "Everyone knows that a good mother wouldn't do what you just did." The question, "Do you have children?" is a shit-test. If you say, "No", then they say you don't know what you're talking about. If you say, "Yes", then they say you should already know to mind your own business. Shit tests are naturally designed to shake your confidence, and they indicate that the questioner isn't interested in seriously discussing their own parenting. During a shit test, if you stalemate, you lose. (The Gracies explained fighting this way, "If a huge guy and a small guy get into a fight, and it ends in a draw with no one getting seriously hurt, then who won the fight?" The same logic applies to shit-testing, but, unfortunately, the child abuser intervener is the "huge guy", while the child abuser is the "little guy". So if you stalemate, you lose.)

I don't agree. A bad streak would be if multiple people found negative things to say about my posts and explained them. Instead, it's the same two (or three) people who are downvoting me, because I disagreed with them in other threads. Here are my maxims on intervening during child abuse situations. (1) Intervening in child abuse situations isn't a hobby; it's a lifestyle. You must dramatically improve (if necessary) your body language, body shape, personal hygiene, tone-of-voice, emotional control, diet, and exercise patterns if you want to succeed. If this is too demanding for you, don't bother. (2) There is only one standard by which you should evaluate your performance: the empirical evidence indicating how much your helped the kid. There are no bonus points for trying. You either helped the kid or you didn't. (3) If you're not sure whether you helped the kid, presume that you didn't help the kid. You want to be 100% goddamn sure that you helped. (4) If you enter the intervention expecting empathy from the abusive parent, cheers from the crowd, help from society, or praise from either the mother, child, or onlookers, THEN DON'T INTERVENE. Abusive parents are non-empathetic and stupid; society either looks away from or condones child abuse; and the child is just going to side with his/her mother. So entering the intervention expecting kind words, a long Stef-inspired discussion, and a hug is a guaranteed way to lose. (5) EVERYTHING the abusive parent says is designed to make you doubt yourself and your message. Because RJ left the conversation shaken, and wondering whether it was right of him to lie, he lost. It's wonderful that philosophy gives us the truth, but that doesn't matter when we deliver the message poorly or when the message itself doesn't resonate. (6) Tell this to yourself 100 times until you accept this: "There is neither a moral law, nor a FDR mandate, that you must intervene in child abuse situations." It's be wonderful if you were strong and confident enough to do this effectively, but if you're not....you're not. And if you're not, then it's 95% NOT YOUR FAULT for this. Almost all of the fault rests with your parents and society-as-a-whole. You don't become "less devoted to philosophy" just because you can't effectively intervene. Instead, you show your devotion to philosophy by NOT intervening until you're ready. Anyone who downvotes this ought to explain why.

Thank you. I know who downvoted me in my most recent post. I'm not surprised at who it was.

I don't think you get it, RJ. I've recently become a member of the RooshVForum, and am trying to formulate a series of uniquely helpful articles for the Return Of Kings website. Roosh, if you don't know, is famous for sleeping with hundreds of women from multiple countries, and he has written many travel / pick up artist books. If you asked the RooshVForum whether it's better to be "natural" or "contrived", you'd get three responses: (1) Your warning level would increase by at least 25% because that topic has been beaten to death and you should've used the search function. (2) Most of the men would insult you through memes. (3) Some of the kinder men would warn that you'll never get better at hitting on, and sleeping with, women if you let that meaningless question interfere with your self-improvement. Again, that's the reaction you'd get from men who are trying to get better at sleeping with women. Sleeping with women is far less important than preventing child abuse, but their devotion to learning is unassailable. ----------------------- Meanwhile, in this thread about preventing child abuse, I got one downvote for pointing out the inconsistency between noticing predictable behaviors in abusive parents and refusing to practice your behaviors hundreds of times beforehand. (Seriously, WTF?) I also got three downvotes for asking Nathan Diehl whether he has tried a specific technique, and how often it works as he described. (Again, WTF?) And I also got three downvotes for advocating a very aggressive body language and voice tone when delivering a specific message. (No explanation, mind you, of what is wrong with my idea. Just downvoted.) Do I need to remind you all that we're discussing preventing child abuse, a topic so fucking important that we are morally obliged to either: (A) Learn how to do it right, or (B) Not do it at all, for fear of our inexpert meddling making this worse for children? So, in that spirit, who downvoted me, and why? ------------------------------- One: You don't know whether it's a great idea, because Nathan Diehl hasn't explained how often he has tried this, and how often it has succeeded. If he's speculating, but hasn't tried it, then everyone deserves to know this. Two: You don't know whether a smile, as he described, will disarm or piss off an abusive parent. Either reactions are possible. Three: If you write out every possible parental response and practice your replies a hundred times before you intervene, then it won't matter whether your smile disarms or angers. You'll be prepared either way. Four: You don't have to intervene! If you don't know how, don't! If you wrongfully think you know how, you'll make it worse for the child. Lastly, the fact that you downvoted me provides clear evidence that YOU'RE NOT READY. Downvoting me for brining up a valid point strongly suggests that you're putting your own emotional needs before those of abused children. So get your emotional health intact FIRST, and THEN try preventing child abuse.

Let me make sure I hear you properly. You're saying that you would rather NOT PRACTICE your voice tones, body language, utterances, and responses-to-predictable-responses because you don't want to be "fake" or "contrived"? Am I getting that right?

Did you either role play these situations out multiple times beforehand OR write out a flow chart of multiple conversational options beforehand? Tell me more. Have you tried this before, and how often does it succeed?

So don't give one. Take a masculine stance, add an eye-roll and a dismissive chuckle. Then say, "What a funny thing to ask. If I say no, you'll say I'm ignorant. If I say yes, you'll say that I should handle my own kids and leave you alone. By asking that question, you just want to win even though you're wrong." (You might have to drag this out to make the point.) Dragging looks like this: (1) Stance, eyeroll, chuckle. (2) She asks WTF. (3) You say, "What a funny thing to say." (4) Wait. (5) "If I say no, you'll say I'm ignorant. If I say yes, you'll say that I should handle my own kids and leave you alone. By asking that question, you just want to win even though you're wrong." (You might have to drag out Point #5.)

That depends on what you mean by a "valid" emotional reaction. If a person has a very consistent moral framework and is always spontaneous and non-calculating in their emotions, then I would call their emotional reactions valid. However, if a person lives by two completely opposite moral frameworks, then it doesn't matter whether they claim their emotions are valid. Women live by two opposite moral frameworks: (1) Have short term affairs with sexy (and often violent) men, suspiciously while they're ovulating. (2) Seek long term stable relationships with unsexy, non-violent men, suspiciously when their ability to attract sexy men diminishes. So, in my opinion, women lose the right to complain about most male behavior - with the obvious exception being male violence. Heartiste and I agree on these points: (1) There are two reasons that women have sex: to keep you around OR to reward you for behaving in a certain way. (2) In the beginnings of a relationship, when a woman is unsure of your commitment level to her, she'll have sex for the first reason. But when she feels secure in your commitment, she'll only have sex for the second reason. (In clichéd terms, this is called, "Women withhold sex in committed relationships, in order to make you behave in her best interest.) (3) Dread Games work because they stimulate female insecurity, which causes her to have the first kind of sex with you. (4) It doesn't really "count" when a woman matures and becomes immune to Dread Games at age 33 or older, but it's impressive when a woman matures and becomes immune to Dread Games at 23 or younger. Heartiste and I disagree on the following: (1) He insists that it's fundamentally impossible (or damn near unlikely) for women to change this aspect about themselves, because women are trying to reverse a deep biological instinct in a culture that protects them from the negative consequences of following that instinct. (2) I insist that it's quite easy for women to change this aspect of themselves, but this requires them to face the world alone, without either male protection or societal protection. So I don't expect many women to change this way.

If you're noticing this, then you're Framing these conversations in terms of friendship, agreement, and taking turns. My two simple rules for interjecting in conversations with female groups are: (1) Nobody cares whether I agree, because agreement is boring. (2) Always reflect my disagreement with loud, potentially over-the-top emotional laughter. Whether warm condescension, cold disagreement, or mild disgust, I always have a long loud laugh to express these. That makes the conversation stop as everyone looks to you. Then you can argue your point. (There's a big difference between waiting for the conversation to stop - (submissive) - and making the conversation stop - (dominance).) Did you neg her for saying this? Something like, "That's so cute. I'll bet your sister lays out your clothes before you go to bed at night, and wakes you up the next morning." (Not saying that you should have, but hat you could have. Breaking the dominant woman's hold over her submissives is always an option.) The fourth question is most important, and reminds me of "Do you prefer coffee or scotch?" Turns out that's a very complicated question, because it depends on time of day and what mood I wish to create. Generally speaking, I prefer the company of men, because they're smarter and more direct. As I bask longer and longer in the company of men, I begin to see women solely in terms of prettiness and happiness. So I only prefer the company of women when I'm tired / bored of thinking about something deep, (or just want to let those ideas simmer in my head for a while). Then I just want to hang out with women, say ridiculous things in response to the more ridiculous things they say, and just make them make intense facial expressions - (whether anger or happiness, doesn't matter). Chateau Heartiste, respected and controversial Manosphere writer, on "Dread". DreadMarch 27, 2008 by CH There are two ways to guarantee a healthy relationship. By healthy, I mean the girl is in love with you and there is no threat of her leaving; you have all the leverage you need to assure yourself peace of mind and a steady sexual outlet. Meet your soulmateIf you are extremely lucky enough to cross paths with your soulmate this is the easiest way to live the kind of romantic bliss that Hollywood movies exalt. A soulmate connection is the Golden Ticket to happiness and a dreamlike existence. But it is rare. Don’t live as if it will happen to you. I estimate 1% of all men and 2% of all women meet their soulmates. The reason for the discrepancy is that male soulmates are in shorter supply than female soulmates. Male soulmates are shared amongst the women like a community hookah. Instill dreadWomen respond viscerally in their vagina area to unpredictability, mixed signals, danger, and drama in spite of their best efforts to convince themselves otherwise. Managing your relationship in such a way that she is left with a constant, gnawing feeling of impending doom will do more for your cause than all the Valentine’s Day cards and expertly performed tongue love in the world. Like it or not, the threat of a looming breakup, whether the facts justify it or not, will spin her into a paranoid estrogen-fueled tizzy, and she’ll spend every waking second thinking about you, thinking about the relationship, thinking about how to fix it. Her love for you will blossom under these conditions. Result: she works harder to please you. The key for the man is to adopt a posture of blase emotional distance alternated with loving tenderness. Too much of either and she’ll run off. Examples of effective doom inducement: Turn off your cell phone twice a week. Alternate days. Don’t do this on a Friday or Saturday night unless the relationship is shaky and needs a high voltage jolt of dread. Make a blatant but plausibly deniable move on one of her friends when she’s not around. The news will get back to her. Milk it. Call her from a very busy place so that she can hear women’s voices laughing and shrieking in the background. Don’t tell her where you are when she asks. Just say you’ll see her soon. Mention how skilled your Russian ex was at giving head. Bring it up again a few days later, pretending not to remember the first time you mentioned it. Bonus: Russians are very good at giving head, so this will have the ring of truth. Be seen by your girlfriend flirting with other women in a social venue. Extra points if the women are attractive. Double extra points if you flirt without looking back at your girlfriend once to check her reaction. Cook her a romantic candlelight dinner at home. Make it a memorable experience, complete with jazz, chocolate, and rose petals. Then, do not talk with her for four days afterwards. Ignore her calls for a week. When you eventually answer and she reads you the riot act, act as if nothing was wrong and accuse her of sabotaging a perfectly good relationship, “just like all the other women in this stupid city. I thought you were different”. Hang up on her angrily. When her best friend tells you how cute you and your girlfriend look together, shrug, put your hand to the back of your neck as if to scratch an itch there, look down slightly and with a mildly annoyed expression blandly sigh “Yeeeeah…”. Triple bonus points if your girlfriend is standing right there. When she attempts the jealousy maneuver by flirting with another guy, act unfazed. Give her pickup tips. Gaze longingly into her eyes, say how hot she looks, then immediately glance sidelong at the bosom of any strange woman in the vicinity. Have a threesome. Spend an inordinate amount of time admiring the labia of the other woman. Be sure to moan louder with her. WARNING: If you cum on the other woman you will have to spend weeks consoling your girlfriend. Say things like “I really value my independence and freedom” relevant to nothing in particular. It’s just a thought that popped in your head. Thermonuclear Option: Have an affair and make sure she finds out about it. Arrange the confrontation so that it does not happen at your place. When she confronts you, don’t get defensive. Don’t speak at all. Let her vent. Let her punch you in the chest and scream obscenities. When she takes a breather, tell her she’s never looked more beautiful and you will never stop loving her. Then without waiting for her response calmly walk out the door and break off all contact for two weeks. When she comes back to you… and she will… you will have a love slave for life.

Courtesy of the Onion. Female Friends Spend Raucous Night Validating The Living Shit Out Of Each Other AKRON, OH—According to witnesses, a tight-knit group of five female friends spent a wild night on the town Saturday, overindulging in emotionally supportive behavior and generally validating the living shit out of each other. Confirming the women get together at least once a month for an all-out, anything-goes session of nonjudgmental reassurances, 28-year-old Sarah Dotson said the evening quickly turned into "a total rager," with the friends sharing excessive amounts of admiration, empathy, and encouragement for one another. "The entire night we just went balls out with the confidence-boosting," Dotson said of the gathering, adding that by 10 p.m. she had already partaken in seven or eight mutual expressions of positive regard. "It was completely insane. We bolstered the shit out of Kelly's self-esteem, and by the time the check came, we had her shouting that her boss was a huge asshole for not recognizing all her hard work and giving her that promotion." "We just kept telling her how fucking talented and beautiful she was until eventually the restaurant had to ask us to leave," Dotson added. As the women moved from one bar to the next, the evening reportedly only grew more and more wild, with the friends telling one another whatever they needed to hear regarding callous comments made by boyfriends, deteriorating relationships with family members, pet deaths, or frustrating new haircuts. "We've always been a group of friends that listens hard, and consoles even harder," said Teri Lange, 28, who admitted that by the end of the night she had lost count of how many thoughtful, heartfelt compliments she had dished out. "Every time I turned around, left and right, there was somebody helping Karen to own the fuck out of the frustration she feels toward her fiancé." "The girls and I just absolutely let loose with that shit until Karen had the strength to accept that her emotions are real whether she likes them or not, and she has to let herself feel them if she ever wants to move on," Lange added. Sources reported that at approximately 11 p.m., the unruly and increasingly self-accepting women got completely out of hand, respecting and valuing each other to the point that many had clearly had far too much validation. One member of the group reportedly felt so validated she disappeared into the bathroom for a while to cry. Melissa Byers admitted she was still a bit overwhelmed the morning after her binge-validating spree. The 29-year-old told reporters she was hoarse from loudly singing praises, and simply "wiped out" from so much dancing around touchy subjects. "By closing time, we were all getting pretty sloppy with our affirmations, validating anything and everything we could find," said Byers, adding that her neck was stiff from a night spent constantly nodding in agreement. "I must have told Teri at least 15 times she'd made the right move by deciding to try and work things out with her boyfriend. What the hell was I thinking? That guy's a total shitheel." Patrons at Shoemaker's Pub confirmed the rambunctious women would repeatedly get up in each other's faces, stridently identify their true feelings, and embrace for dozens of hugs—only to sit down again and continue on with round after round of the strongest praise. "Almost every night of the week we get a group of ladies like this who get a little bit disruptive and rowdy, but who are basically harmless, for the most part," bartender Mike Kuhn said. "If I get complaints about them being noisy or obnoxious, I'll ask them nicely to settle down." "But I try not to be too hard on them, considering all the stress they've been through lately," Kuhn added. "Sounds like it's been really crazy at work. And when you're busy trying to balance a career and a hectic social life, it must be difficult to find time for yourself."

I didn't explain that very well. The meals are ten times a year. Everything else is coffee and movies, where she buys her own movie ticket / coffee. I also think your argument implies a sort of "Stewardship-Socialism", wherein the rare guys who are capable of providing Stewardship should act as if other men are capable of providing Stewardship by not providing any goods / services to engaged / married women. But such men aren't looking out for my interests, so why should I automatically look out for theirs? (Worse, such men aren't merely ignoring me; they're supporting laws that criminalize male desire.) I also think that hypergamy is enabled by the US legal system, media, and educational system. It's never as simple as, "If one man didn't do X, then women wouldn't be hypergamous." And it's also as simple as, "If her fiancé were to take absolute control of his well-being, particularly his body, his finances, his emotional health, and his expectations-of-women, then he would challenge her to either accept his as her all-in-all - or dump him for another man." By putting a ring on her finger, he accepts a level of power / responsibility that a single man doesn't possess.

Okay, I can answer your questions about my personal experience with tattoo'ed individuals, but some Background terms first. "The First Belief": I believe that very few women can happily survive in any society without the beneficial presence of a man. (It's cool if you disagree with me, but I'll provide no evidence now because I want to focus my post.) Stewardship is the (Biblical?) term describing the natural consequence of accepting The First Belief. It means that the man volunteers to elevate a woman he loves up to the best possible version of herself. Under stewardship, her health, happiness, wealth, poise, ability-to-love, and a bunch of other positive qualities are his responsibility. (They are NOT under his power or control, but they are under his responsibility. A man who fails to provide Stewardship is a failure in the relationship.) Patriarchy is Stewardship on a cultural scale. It means that everyone acknowledges women's inability to be happy without men, and places the majority of responsibility for everyone's happiness onto men. I don't believe in Patriarchy, because I don't think most men are capable of Stewardship. And I think a much firmer and philosophically rigorous happiness is found when women have rights and freedoms. Feminism is a good thing when it rejects Patriarchy. But it's a bad thing when it rejects Stewardship, because it invalidates the male purpose of being in a relationship. ("I don't need you! I can do it all myself!" is codespeak for "I don't need your Stewardship." And I will always translate that into, "There's no point in your being in a relationship with me...") White-Knighting is when a man provides Stewardship without any expectations of love, friendship, or sex in return. I am not a White Knight. I think White-Knighting is an epically stupid way to be heart-broken and alone. I only provide Stewardship in return for love. --------------------- I've had extensive relationships with two tattoo'ed women: one positive, one negative. I'll only post the positive one here. I'm 38. She is much younger than me, and I've known her for years. When we met, she had a boyfriend, whom she is now engaged to. At first, we exchanged notes - (almost spy-like, as I remember) - which were personal and intellectual but not flirtatious nor sexual. From there, we'd meet for coffee and hug / cuddle. Slowly, we became flirtatious, but only to the point of heavy petting. Some time ago, I had a one-night stand with a woman whom I had known for about a year. She was contemplating divorce, and we weren't sure whether we wanted to become a couple. (We did, eventually, become a couple. She was the only woman I've ever considered marrying, but she broke it off after a year of dating.) Two days after that one-night stand, the tattoo'ed, younger woman initiated sex with me. (And if you think that was coincidental, you don't understand women!) Thus, for years she and I have slept together about four times a year. Because these sex-dates need to be planned in advance, and often involve weekends-away, the sex is wonderful, fresh, and eventful. It is not true that we only meet up when we plan to have sex. I will visit her at work or attend movies, go for coffee, and go for dinners - (which I always pay for) - with her about thirty-five times a year. So our non-sex meet-ups are much more frequent than our sex meet-ups. I've established Frame Control by implementing multiple unspoken rules. First of all, she has never been allowed to complain to me about her boyfriend / fiancé. She will, occasionally, break this rule - but I will never respond by giving her advice nor angling to be her steady boyfriend. Secondly, we don't talk on the phone unless we're meeting up - and all of our conversations are less than five minutes long. Thirdly, I don't tell her about my problems - ever. This very tight Frame Control means that our relationship centers around fun, light-teasing, and only the occasional emotional sharing (all of which is from her to me). I assume, probably correctly, that she meets up with me whenever she's bored or annoyed at him. I also know that she loves me, but not enough to demand exclusivity. (When I was devoted to the other woman, I told her that we couldn't sleep together. She didn't object, nor did she insert drama to pull me away. I would've noticed, and wouldn't have stood for it.) When I first met her, she was a healthy weight and non-tattoo'ed, but as the years have progressed she has put on significant weight and a large number of tattoos. I don't object to either of these, because that would be providing Stewardship. And I don't provide Stewardship to women who are married / engaged to other men. (It's his job to provide Stewardship, so if I were to provide Stewardship, I'd be angling to be her steady boyfriend.) I also don't find her body "gross" or anything like that. I still greatly enjoy sleeping with her, even though it would be ideal if she were thinner. Two important things are true, though: (1) If my memories of our time together were erased, and if I met her on the street, I wouldn't think she'd be very attractive because she's overweight and has tattoos. So I'd avoid talking to her. (2) If she ever asked me to become her serious boyfriend, then she'd be asking me to provide Stewardship. I would accept this, but then her weight would become a personal issue because it makes her lower-than-her-best-possible-self. In other words, her weight would symbolize that I'm failing to provide Stewardship - and that would make me feel morally uncomfortable. Ultimately, though, I think the tattoos would form a large stumbling block in terms of her losing weight. After all, if you get tattooed while possessing a certain body shape, then a dramatic change in shape will change the look of the tattoos. And if she were dead serious about NOT losing weight because of her tattoos, then I couldn't provide adequate Stewardship in the relationship. And that is a deal-breaker for me. So, overall, this relationship is positive for both of us. And it's been that way for years. But I don't think it could progress into a long-term, exclusive relationship. (Unless, of course, she surprises me by losing weight and either changing or removing the tattoos. But I'm extremely doubtful.)

Thank you for explaining everything very well. WastachMan, imagine the difference between a voluntaryist school and a coercive one. Under voluntaryism, you would only study what you wanted AND you'd have a strong say in what was taught. (So just because you want to learn physics doesn't mean, in a voluntaryist system, that you want to learn physics from that particular teacher. Nor does it mean that you want to learn that particular part of physics.) I imagine under voluntaryism homework would be very correlated with learning, but that's due to the voluntaryistic nature of the interaction.

I, personally, would find that a strange thing to say - because most women say the opposite. Do men ask you questions after you say this, or does the conversation abruptly end, like someone popped a balloon?

I'm glad, but I think I can do better. The feelings you have are largely determined by your Frame. (1) "I, personally, will not allow anyone to self-harm." (Self-centered, Moral Frame) produces intense feelings of Righteousness, and cycles of Appreciation (when she agrees) and Revulsion (when she self-harms). It also leads to a pretty intense power struggle, since anyone who adopts a Moral Frame must inevitably try to impose that Frame onto others. (2) "I, personally, feel uncomfortable whenever I witness self-harm." (Self-centered, Aesthetic-Revulsion, Non-Moral Frame) can produce either intense or mild feelings of Revulsion, depending on the intensity of personal discomfort. But this Frame is unlikely to produce a power struggle, unless a highly tattoo'ed individual really wants to get close to you, and you don't want to. (3) "It's my job to elevate the woman I'm dating to become the best possible woman." (Self-Sacrificial, Her-focused, Strictly-between-the-two-of-you Frame) produces very intense feelings of Self-Righteousness or Self-Loathing, depending on whether she cut herself that day. Also, if your actions don't consistently map to specific results, then you'll feel intensely Helpless and/or Violent towards her. (It would be a simple matter if, for example, she only self-harmed when you eat bacon. But if there's no pattern in her self-harming responses, then you're completely at-a-loss. Unless, of course, you decide to leave.) Psychologists call this, "intermittent reinforcement", and it produces intense feelings and an addiction to the person/thing providing those intense feelings. (4) "I must make the entire world a better place by eliminating this woman's self-harm." (World-focused, Self-sacrificial, Her-sacrificial Frame) can produce either stoic or intense feelings. You're much less likely to judge yourself based on whether she self-harms, but you're much more likely to judge her. So you'll feel coldness, followed by intense judgmentalism. You'll look down on her a lot, but will occasionally praise her. --------------------- But, by far, the two most interesting revelations about Frame are: (1) A man is free to the extent that he chooses his own Frame. (2) Most people are NOT trained to choose their own Frame; they're instead trained to passively accept every Frame they possess and then to impose that Frame on to others. My favorite Frame is Dominance/Submission, because I like watching nature shows and because there are a lot of different ways to be dominant or submissive. (I tried listing them all, over the past three days, but there are so many. And I always feel like I'm missing one or two more.) With tattoos, the relevant Dominance/Submission Frames are Being Chased/Chasing and Judging/Being Judged. ------------------ You said, "Anyone that's certain that piercing, body modification, or tattoos aren't an unconscious expression of the abuse or discontent in their childhood should have no problems with anyone discussing the possibility of trauma leading to tattoos." - but I think the biggest roadblock for tattoo'ed / pierced individuals can be found in the Dominance/Submission Frame. When we go out and try to meet new friends, most of us feel like we're Being Judged and/or Chasing other people. These are both Submissive Frames, which make us feel bad. Getting a tattoo can flip the Frame into Being Chased, because then people can either compliment you on your tattoo. Being Chased is Dominant. Also noteworthy, the loudest objectors to my "no tattoos, no piercings, no obesity" preferences moralized their arguments. Josh F. grabbed the "nuclear gun in the room" by claiming that I was behaving "morally inconsistent". Rainbow Jamz grabbed the "bazooka in the room" by calling me "bigoted" and "prejudiced". And James Dean insisted that my perspective was "not scientifically objective". But everyone who understands UPB realizes that "tattoos / no tattoos" falls strictly under the Aesthetic / Non-Moral behavioral category, and so it's literally impossible to behave immorally when excluding people with tattoos / piercings. Moralizing your Aesthetic preferences is the ultimate in Dominance, and forcing others to adopt your Frame is called Frame Control. And Frame Control gives people extremely pleasant feelings related to dominance, self-worth, admiration, and so on. But a person who understands Frame and Frame Control is very good at reversing the Frame - (at changing an interaction intended to make him Submissive into one that makes him Dominant). Once this Frame Reversal happens, the happiness one felt at being Dominant is instantly flipped to annoyance/anger at being Submissive. Most importantly, the intensity of both feelings is the same - (if you only felt slightly happy at being Dominant, you'll only feel slightly annoyed at being Submissive), so moralizing non-moral discussions is the easiest way to either completely "win" the conversation or be completely destroyed by a Frame-Reversal. So, overall, I think a tattoo / piercing is nothing more than a compensation mechanism. Rather than meeting people face-to-face without "crutches", a tattoo / piercing is both a "crutch" (a way to elevate one's self-worth without actually accomplishing anything) and a Dominance-inducing device. Tattoo'ed / pierced individuals assume (incorrectly!) that only prejudiced / damaged people will "discriminate against them" because they have tattoos / piercings. And they've so moralized their argument that they become highly offended when JUST ONE PERSON says, "I don't associate with people who have tattoos or piercings." Worst of all, (or funny-as-Hell if you know about Anonymous Conservative's Rabbits/Wolves Frame), when they meet a Frame-Reverser who argues passionately and calmly without resorting to name-calling, angry words, or other put-downs, they just can't deal so they just up-and-leave.

I've been following the AnonymousConservative blog for months, and his writing gets better and better. His major thesis is r/K selection, but his minor thesis is that a specific part of the brain, (the amygdala, which fires whenever something is wrong), largely predicts both an individual's reactions to the world and large-scale social reactions to it. (Once you see the world in terms of Rabbits and Wolves you can't unsee it.) ----------------------------- Rabbits, Acclimatization to Free Resources, and the Drive to Foment Unrest Posted on December 10, 2014 by Anonymous Conservative As we approach the apex of r, there will be turmoil, and most of it will be fomented by the rabbits. As you view these events, view them in the context of an easily triggerable amygdala, accustomed to free resources and prone to enter a profoundly irritable state in the absence of free resources. In that irritable state, such an amygdala will be highly irritated by the happiness and success of others, and as a result will drive behaviors to diminish its own irritation, by diminishing the success and happiness of others. So as conditions deteriorate for everyone, themselves included, the rabbit’s gaze will naturally fall upon the happy, and combined with their own adversity, their resentment will grow. As it does, they will want to act out. Normal people will tend to focus on bettering their own lives, but a rabbit, focused on and irritated by the happiness of others, will need to try and destroy that happiness. If the happiness that their gaze falls upon is people happily buying Apple products, and Apple succeeding merrily, they will try to disrupt that happiness, and if possible, turn the populace upon the happy people. Doing that is all that can alleviate their angst. If the happiness they see is a military man, being cheered by a crowd, they will try to turn that crowd against the military man. If the happiness is merely relief, in the form of a Police Officer who negotiated a violent encounter successfully and survived, even the more educated rabbits will try to turn the violent in our ranks on the Police Officer. As things get worse, the stimulus required to irritate them to action will grow ever less. Since the rabbit is too cowardly to attack their enemy themselves, their go-to strategy will be to try and make everyone they see unhappy, and turn any threat they can find in our populace upon the successful. At its climax, even those barely able to survive will precipitate such rage that the rabbit will try to get anyone they can to kill them. This strategy is an outgrowth of something innate to the undeveloped amygdalae – a fundamental, penetrating sense of helplessness. If your amygdala is developed, it has been developed through experience. When it encounters adversity, it scans your brain for a solution, finds it stored in memories of prior experiences, and it will then drive behaviors to address your adversity. As a self-sufficient non-rabbit, your amygdala will drive you to fix your own problems. If, however your amygdala is not acclimated to adversity, then you will not be able to find a solution stored in your amygdala, and you will feel helpless. Once you are helpless, and your amygdala is applying aversive stimulus to drive you to take action, your focus will direct itself to making others solve your problems for you. Then, rather than fixing your problems yourself, you will focus on making everyone else miserable, in the hopes that to alleviate their misery they will solve your problem for you. Suddenly you are laying down in the middle of a freeway, basically telling other people that unless they fight your enemies for you and fix your problems on your behalf, you will stop traffic, and prevent them from getting home. Notice, developed amygdalae solve problems, undeveloped amygdala make more, for everyone, in the hopes that increased misery all around will benefit them at some point. One builds a successful society, one screws everything up as they try to make others as miserable as themselves. These overly triggerable amygdalae will produce unrest and turmoil that will be unlike anything we have seen in our lives, if the current path is maintained. Make no mistake, we have gone to unimaginable lengths to feed unimaginable levels of free resources into our ecosystem, producing rabbits of unimaginable mental instability, with completely undeveloped amygdalae. I do not believe there has ever been a more Warrior-like population, infested with a more viscerally repugnant and mentally unstable, rabbit-like cohort, whose panic and intolerance for any sort of discomfort is so immense and unappeasable. Historically, the end result of conditions like these has been a societal turmoil of unimaginable proportions. These are the materials historic events are made of. If you have ever read an historical account, wide eyed and amazed at what someone in the past endured, understand those same types of events may someday present themselves to us. Be prepared.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're confused because you're framing the issue incorrectly. The word "fault" describes how your parents harmed you. But the word "responsibility" implies that your parents owe you something because they harmed you. The absolute most painful conclusion in philosophy is, "Your parents are at fault, but you're responsible." ------------------------ In my opinion, the "So in what age period does the shift go from parental responsibility to personal responsibility?" question is pointless, because it distracts from the Fault / Responsibility paradigm. ------------------------ I also think that Pablo's questions helped you reach a healing, helpful conclusion - and I don't want my post to undermine what you've learned. Instead, I want you to keep the words Fault and Responsibility in your head, at all times, to prevent yourself from falling backwards into the conundrum you possessed at the beginning of this thread. Edited to add an example: I'm going to pretend that you wake up every day with an important To-Do List. So you're about to start Item #1 when you remember something horrible that your parents did. This will make you angry, at which point you can tell yourself that you're angry because it's their Fault. If you do this well, your anger will propel you into accomplishing your To-Do List. However, if you get depressed, because you're feeling the Responsibility of re-building yourself, you'll NOT want to tackle your To-Do List. At this point, you should gently remind yourself that it was wonderful to get angry at your parents - but it's debilitating to get depressed because of what they did. Then, tackle your list (albeit with less energy than was possible when you were angry). No matter what, "Everything your parents did was their Fault, but nothing they did excuses you of your Responsibility."

I am not. But I was so impressed with the Gracie Breakdown of the Eric Garner video that I'm planning to enroll in BJJ. Will also probably take up boxing, as well.

Empathy can either be constantly present, constantly absent, or inconsistently present / absent with regard to frame. One of my friends has a rule with her husband wherein one of them first declares, "I just need to vent right now...", and the other person must only listen and acknowledge, neither providing solutions nor taking the words personally. That's an empathetic frame, wherein the declaration itself causes the other person to behave empathetically. And it's also an equalized-empathy frame, because either person can use it at any time, and they both use it equally. (They've counted.) Some empathetic frameworks are less equalized, wherein the woman can seek empathy whenever she wants without making any declarations. Whereas he must approach with a very specific tone-of-voice and declaration, (such as, "Baby, I really need you now..."), before she'll fully empathize with him. That unspoken conclusion, "She can get empathy whenever she wants, but I have to overtly ask for it..." is Frame. Your Frame here can either be expressed as, "I, personally, will not allow anyone to self-harm." (Self-centered, Moral Frame) Or it can be expressed as, "I, personally, feel uncomfortable whenever I witness self-harm." (Self-centered, Aesthetic-Revulsion, Non-Moral Frame). In the above two Frames, your needs are primary. Or it can be expressed as, "It's my job to elevate the woman I'm dating to become the best possible woman." (Self-Sacrificial, Her-focused, Strictly-between-the-two-of-you Frame). In this third Frame, your needs are secondary; hers are primary. You're grading your "performance" / "effectiveness" in the relationship by how well you get her to stop self-mutilating. (I can't over-emphasize how different this Frame is from the first two! I, personally, prefer the first two Frames, because I feel self-protected whenever I place my needs as primary. But in this third Frame, where her needs are primary, my relationship-happiness and self-satisfaction are dependent on HER future progress. This gives her control of the Frame, which can be very precarious, especially when she knows she controls the Frame, and can thereby manipulate / exploit you by cycling between "making progress" and "losing ground".) This fourth Frame can be expressed as, "I must make the entire world a better place by eliminating this woman's self-harm." (World-focused, Self-sacrificial, Her-sacrificial Frame). It's Self-Sacrificial because you're compelled to give up pleasurable pursuits whenever she self-harms. (So if you planned to go to a movie, and you discover she's harmed herself, you're compelled to address this rather than attending the movie.) But it's Her-Sacrificial because you'd break up with her after long periods of non-compliance. If you could magically see into her future and know that you'd be her best boyfriend ever, you'd still break up with for non-compliance; hence, Her-Sacrificial. In this fourth Frame, the World's needs are always most important, your needs are drastically secondary to the World's, and her needs are drastically tertiary to both the World's and to your's. (You'll notice, also, that empathy is both present and absent in this Frame. It's very present for the World, somewhat present for yourself, and arguably either somewhat present or completely absent towards her.) ----------------------- The biggest reason I didn't accept either Josh F's, Rainbow Jamz's, nor James Dean's arguments is that they were all Framing my desires and needs as non-important. Their Frame was, "You, MMX, have to alter your desires in order to make tattoo'ed / pierced individuals happy!" I don't let people place me into Frames wherein I'm not-very-important, especially not when they're strangers whom I've no emotional connection with.

It's worse than that. If he had bought the Benz, he would've been very attached to the Benz - but it wouldn't have necessarily been part of his "identity". (Sure, a significant number of people view their Benz's as part of their identity - which is why they flip out whenever you spill coffee in it, scratch the paint just a wee-bitty-bit, and so on.) But tattoo'ed individuals? I think the tattoo-trolling piece by Matt Forney is so effective because tattoo'ed individuals view their tattoos as part of their identity. It's why he was able to write an article with (seemingly) ridiculous conclusions like, "5 Reasons Why Tattooed / Pierced Individuals Are Broken" - ("broken", really? Those are fighting words!) - and receive dozens, (if not hundreds), of literal death threats. Seriously....death threats. And those death threats are only hilarious, because they confirm Matt Forney's conclusions that they are, indeed, broken.