How are piercings, tattoos, dyed hair, and heavy make up a sign of trauma?

[cynicist]

Here's an interesting video on tattoos and tattoo removal as a change of pace.

 

[Buggy]

Why unlikely? Would you also feel the same about an individual who enjoys and invests in fashion? Not that you're making any accusation against me but I'd like to include that I'm a big fan of men's wear.

Gosh you and Rainbow Jamz... Read it again, it's in there! 

 

Well yeah I would... As an example, why do you think Stefbot or Albert Einstein has and had no need to invest in their appearance to achieve a standard different or higher than their current/achived? (difficult to find common ground examples here)

 

 

I dunno.  Why don't you find a hermit / social isolate and ask him? 

Dang, these emo-pies who refuse to even post here are sucking the green stuff out of you. Sad to see the FDR forums suffering from these people. Would you contact a moderator about the trolling?

[Peaceful Parent]

I dunno.  Why don't you find a hermit / social isolate and ask him? 

Fair enough, at least for the "would" he or she (the social isolate) use that line of argument. As to the "could" part I imagine that you could have weighed in on that with a little more detail, had you felt so inclined.

 

I understand and agree with your rejection of the bigotry criticism. While that term may apply to your stated position, it isn't inherently negative. It's not a moral problem. I still am a bit confused by your following statement:

 

In other words, when they're wrong, the people who listen to them must pay the price. And if you don't agree with them. you're "bigoted".

 

Contrast this with my position, "If I'm wrong, then I will pay the price. And you all can do what you please."

The above is an attempt at justification for any behavior that isn't immoral, correct? No matter how destructive? So a hermit could defend his solitary lifestyle with the above, or a raging homophobe could defend his or her fear with the above, or a person contemplating suicide could use the above to terminate his or her life.

 

My point being, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the argument "if your advise is wrong then I have to pay the price" doesn't have any indication of whether someone should take the given advise. It's a neutral statement, it neither indicates if one should change their behavior or remain the same.

[J. D. Stembal]

Here's an interesting video on tattoos and tattoo removal as a change of pace.

 

 

I ran out of rep. Someone got my back?

 

If there is a more convincing reason to not get tattooed, I've not heard it.

 

The fact that an ex-Marine surgeon has expensive technological gadgets that he can use to make a comfortable living removing regretted tattoos by accelerating a process which the body performs automatically clearly indicates that way too much money is misallocated into the tattoo industry.

 

I know a man in his mid thirties who easily has ten grand worth of ink on his skin already and continues expanding the ink acquisitions every year or two. Assuming he wants to keep it touched up over the years, and then finally get it all removed when he's too old for the tattoos to have the hipster effect (let's say retirement age 60-65), how much more will he likely spend on tattoos? This math question boggles the mind. It's a primitive tribal custom!

 

Assuming all of this is true, he could easily spend $50,000 expanding, updating and then removing his tattoos over the course of the rest of his life. I'm not attempting to make a moral argument, as the decision to get inked is entirely aesthetic, but imagine how much more enlightened he could be if he spent all that money working on self-knowledge instead of being the quintessential middle-age hipster looking to get laid by twenty something women, which he does rather effectively. With that much ink on your body, women know you have disposable income hiding somewhere nearby. It's like wearing a semi-permanent Mercedes Benz on your body.

[MMX2010]

Dang, these emo-pies who refuse to even post here are sucking the green stuff out of you. Sad to see the FDR forums suffering from these people. Would you contact a moderator about the trolling?

 

Never.  For two reasons. 

 

(1) I respect the moderators' time way too much to bother them about this.  They're promoting peaceful parenting, non-spanking, non-circumcision, and many other much more important topics. 

 

(2) I've been reading a lot of Rollo Tomassi's work, and am especially enthralled with his definition of "frame". 

 

 

Iron Rule of Tomassi #1

 

Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are. 

 

The concept of “frame” is yet another ephemeral idea that had need of a term in the very beginnings of the great masculine awakening that’s become the ‘community’. If memory serves I think it may have been Mystery who first picked up on what’s really a very rudimentary and well established psychological principle. In psych terms, frame is an often subconscious, mutually acknowledged personal narrative under which auspices people will be influenced. One’s capacity for personal decisions, choices for well-being, emotional investments, religious beliefs and political persuasions (amongst many others) are all influenced and biased by the psychological narrative ‘framework’ under which we are most apt to accept as normalcy.

 

The concept of frame covers a lot of aspects of our daily lives, some of which we’re painfully aware of, others we are not, but nonetheless we are passively influenced by frame. What concerns us in terms of inter-gender relations however is the way in which frame sets the environment, the ambience, and the ‘reality’ in which we relate with both the woman we sarge at a bar and the relationship with the woman we’ve lived with for 20 years. One important fact to consider, before I launch into too much detail, is to understand that frame is NOT power. The act of controlling the frame may be an exercise in power for some, but let me be clear from the start that the concept of frame is who’s ‘reality’ in which you choose to operate in relation to a woman. Both gender’s internalized concept of  frame is influenced by our individual acculturation, socialization, psychological conditioning, upbringing, education, etc., but be clear on this, you are either operating in your own frame or you’re operating in hers. Also understand that the balance of frame often shifts. Frame is fluid and will find its own level when a deficit or a surplus of will is applied to change it. The forces that influence that lack or boost of will is irrelevant – just know that the conditions of an operative framework will shift because of them.

 

Because of my understanding of frame, I was very quick to see that James Dean and Rainbow Jamz were framing their arguments in terms of, "The needs, desires, and emotional security of anonymous tattoo'ed / pierced individuals are more important than the needs, desires, and emotional security of MMX."  And I was also able to argue in terms of a different frame, "No way.  My needs, desires, and emotional security are more important because it's MY life - not yours, not theirs.  Moreover, who are you to change my life: are you better than me, or not?" 

 

------------------------------

 

Lastly, I'll PM you (but not immediately) about a very important idea I read about, and how I apply it to my FDR-interactions (and my off-board life as well). 

[MMX2010]

The above is an attempt at justification for any behavior that isn't immoral, correct? No matter how destructive? So a hermit could defend his solitary lifestyle with the above, or a raging homophobe could defend his or her fear with the above, or a person contemplating suicide could use the above to terminate his or her life.

 

My point being, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the argument "if your advise is wrong then I have to pay the price" doesn't have any indication of whether someone should take the given advise. It's a neutral statement, it neither indicates if one should change their behavior or remain the same.

 

It's not that what you're saying is wrong.  It's that your Frame is completely backwards. 

 

You're questioning my words from the Frame of, "How do they reflect on the advice-recipient?" - but I'm Framing those words in terms of, "How to they reflect on the advice-giver?".

 

------------------------

 

Here's what I mean:

 

In post #67, James Dean says (among other things), "I am saying the most consistent way to determine if people have unprocessed trauma is to ask them, not to rely on physical markers."

 

In post #69, I replied (among other things), "You cannot negotiate desire.  Nor can you make someone feel something they don't feel by merely giving them advice." 

 

In post #72, he replied (among other things), "But where would that desire come from? For me it comes from a sense that the person is virtuous and rational, a quality that is easily ascertained by being vulnerable and connected to them.

 

His word, "me", made me giggle in humorous, dismissive, contempt because he just didn't get it. 

 

I don't think you, me, or James Dean would give a homosexual man pages and pages of advice as to how to get women to sleep with him.  But if we did, I'm sure we'd be deeply embarrassed by it - because we've been taught to respect homosexual desire.  (Not necessarily to condone homosexual behavior, mind you - but to, at bare minimum, respect homosexual desire.) 

 

When James Dean gave me pages of (terrible!) advice as to how to discern whether tattoo'ed / pierced individuals have unprocessed childhood trauma, it was as if he was giving a homosexual man advice on bedding ladies.  But when I pointed this out to him, he talked about himself.  So he simply never realized that, in order to give someone helpful advice, you have to understand their needs and desires FIRST. 

 

But when he didn't apologize, I knew he would never get it.  Nor would he get that, without an apology, I don't care what advice he gives me on any subject.  My finances are bad right now, so I could seriously use some money - but if James Dean gave me unsolicited stock advice, I would ignore it.  And if the stock produced a 900,000,000% increase in two days I wouldn't feel bad that I "lost" the money - because I'd feel good that I ignored his advice. 

 

So, when I say, "In other words, when they're wrong, the people who listen to them must pay the price. And if you don't agree with them. you're "bigoted".  Contrast this with my position, "If I'm wrong, then I will pay the price. And you all can do what you please.", I'm impugning their lack of leadership ability - as well as their bizarre unwillingness to accept that I exclude tattoo'ed / pierced individuals. 

[Buggy]

-

I truly don't know how I could break it down further, without looking up the psychological terms for what I'm describing, which I believe is unnecessary. 

Anyways, what are your thoughts on it?

[MysterionMuffles]

I'm gonna take a huge step back from this thread now and see if I even have any desire to respond to you in the future, MMX. If I do, I'm gonna be in a better place to do it. But right now I don't think anything I respond with will be productive because either you or I, or probably both of us are emotionally compromised to reply rationally. So I'm gonna follow this thread and see what others may want to add, but I will no longer be participating in the discussion actively, just a spectator.

[MMX2010]

I'm gonna take a huge step back from this thread now and see if I even have any desire to respond to you in the future, MMX. If I do, I'm gonna be in a better place to do it.  But right now I don't think anything I respond with will be productive because either you or I, or probably both of us are emotionally compromised to reply rationally. So I'm gonna follow this thread and see what others may want to add, but I will no longer be participating in the discussion actively, just a spectator.

 

Not even close to being good enough, RJ.

 

Your statement, "But right now I don't think anything I respond with will be productive because either you or I, or probably both of us are emotionally compromised to reply rationally." is just a passive-aggressive way of trying to make me admit EQUAL FAULT in our discussion.

 

"Probably both of us"?  Seriously!?!?

 

RJ, just ask yourself one question:  Did you use the word "bigotry" / "prejudice" BEFORE asking me about my experiences with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals?  I adore this question because it's factual.  Just scroll back and find the first post in which you used the word "bigotry" or "prejudice" - it's post #59. 

 

It reads as follows: "What is your experience with tattoo'd and pierced up people in your life? Have you had particularly negative interactions, hell even relationships, with those kinds of individuals? Or is this all just a prejiduce you have against tatoo'd and pierced individuals, MMX? I thank Robert for sharing his experience and that helps me understand where he's coming from. But for you, I just see it as hyper critical prejiduce based on shallow values. Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tatoo'd, and pierced people--you're just spouting bigotry."

 

Because I never revealed (and still haven't revealed) any of my experiences with tattoo'ed / pierced individuals, it was (and still is) impossible for you to "see it as hyper-critical prejudice based on shallow values."  The only thing possible was for you to feel offended by my non-association with tattoo'ed individual.  But rather than state, matter-of-factly, that you felt offended, (RTR, ftw), you turned your feelings-of-offense into "Until you share your personal experiences with obese, tattoo'ed and pierced people - you're just spouting bigotry."  (In other words, you ORDERED ME TO OBEY YOU, under penalty of calling me "bigoted" if I didn't answer you.)

 

"Bigotry" is the second-strongest accusation you can make on the FDR message board, (behind only "child abuser" / "supporter of child abusers at the expense of abused children").  So you didn't merely "grab the gun in the room", RJ.  You grabbed the rocket-propelled grenade in the room!

 

And the only two things you have to say are...what?  (1) I dunno if I'm ever going to reply to you ever again, MMX.  (2) You, me, or probably both of us are too emotionally invested and irrational right now. 

 

That's it? 

 

Own what you did, RJ.  The facts are on my side, not yours.  (Or, if you don't want to own what you did - just run.  After reading about r, K, rabbits, and wolves, I know exactly what you're feeling right now.  So if you want to run, run.  If you want to apologize, apologize.)

[MMX2010]

With that much ink on your body, women know you have disposable income hiding somewhere nearby. It's like wearing a semi-permanent Mercedes Benz on your body.

 

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. 

[Livemike]

I think piecing and tattoos are deliberately altering your body to be more pleasing/interesting to others.  It's the behaviour of what Ayn Rand called "Second Handers", people who get their own sense of value form others believing they are valuable, regardless of whether they are. 

 

Dyed hair and heavy make up aren't as drastic as they aren't permanent, thus showing that someone can conceive of a time when impressing others isn't the most important thing.  However the more time you can looking after your appearance (beyond a certain minimum) the more you're saying "I have nothing to offer in reality, therefore I'll concentrate on looking good.". 

 

Given these symptoms I'd say that shows trauma of some kind, or at least neglect.

[J. D. Stembal]

I think piecing and tattoos are deliberately altering your body to be more pleasing/interesting to others.  It's the behaviour of what Ayn Rand called "Second Handers", people who get their own sense of value form others believing they are valuable, regardless of whether they are. 

 

Dyed hair and heavy make up aren't as drastic as they aren't permanent, thus showing that someone can conceive of a time when impressing others isn't the most important thing.  However the more time you can looking after your appearance (beyond a certain minimum) the more you're saying "I have nothing to offer in reality, therefore I'll concentrate on looking good.". 

 

Given these symptoms I'd say that shows trauma of some kind, or at least neglect.

 

The real value is being perceived as someone who you are not. Like MMX pointed out, tattooed individuals like to act as if the ink defines their identity. It's the me plus syndrome. You aren't comfortable in your own skin, so you have to physically deform it to accept approval from others.

 

I'm still struggling with the concept of frame. In relationship to women and dating and RT's blog, I think it's just another word to describe people interacting when they won't empathize with each other. I have sympathy for people that scar themselves with tattoos and piercings because it takes a tentative relationship to reality to subject yourself to pain willingly for no productive purpose, and then take offense when people who have not chosen to scar and ink themselves criticize your decision as misguided or foolish because of repressed family issues.

 

When I was 17, I dated a girl who was a self-mutilator. She extinguished matches into the skin on her arm to create designs with the burned tissue as if it was an accessory, like a bracelet. I was as curious as I was repelled by her behavior, but in the end, I knew I couldn't continue to condone the behavior by continuing to date her. I had to use social shaming without being mean or insulting about it. The reason why so many people are into self-expression through deformation/mutilation is because it's socially subsidized as hip, trendy or even aesthetically pleasant. There are tangible me plus benefits to physical augmentation just as women gain status by wearing high heels, push up bras, fake nails and hair weaves, although these aren't permanently scarring. If we can just snap people out of the trance, more people will resist the urge to continue tormenting their bodies.

 

Part of my curiosity over the girl's commitment to mutilation was actually envy, as scary is that is to say. My outlet for my childhood pain was my artwork, which frightened some people, but I wasn't willing to wear my artwork, like she was willing to do. I wanted people to see my pain, but I wanted to disassociate myself from it. Perhaps the real reason I broke off contact with her is because I would have also started deforming my appearance in semi-permanent ways as well, associating my pain with my lonely childhood. I chose self-erasure rather that blame my parents. I think this was the same year my dad had a heart attack.

 

She was very proud of her augmentations, which also included cutting. I think it was a compulsion for her, an addiction to pain. It's telling that many tattoo fanatics describe their desire to acquire more tattoos as an addiction.

 

My self-abuse manifested in alcohol and drug abuse. I'm not going to argue that one manner of abuse is more or less destructive than the other, but that they are various manifestations of the same experiences of torment, isolation, and abuse as children.

[MMX2010]

I'm still struggling with the concept of frame. In relationship to women and dating and RT's blog, I think it's just another word to describe people interacting when they won't empathize with each other.

 

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. 

 

 

 

I have sympathy for people that scar themselves with tattoos and piercings because it takes a tentative relationship to reality to subject yourself to pain willingly for no productive purpose, and then take offense when people who have not chosen to scar and ink themselves criticize your decision as misguided or foolish because of repressed family issues.

 

When I was 17, I dated a girl who was a self-mutilator. She extinguished matches into the skin on her arm to create designs with the burned tissue as if it was an accessory, like a bracelet. I was as curious as I was repelled by her behavior, but in the end, I knew I couldn't continue to condone the behavior by continuing to date her. I had to use social shaming without being mean or insulting about it.

 

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".) 

 

 

 

The reason why so many people are into self-expression through deformation/mutilation is because it's socially subsidized as hip, trendy or even aesthetically pleasant. There are tangible me plus benefits to physical augmentation just as women gain status by wearing high heels, push up bras, fake nails and hair weaves, although these aren't permanently scarring. If we can just snap people out of the trance, more people will resist the urge to continue tormenting their bodies.

 

 

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. 

[J. D. Stembal]

This is what you are doing to my head right now. 

 

 

I'm going to have to reread your last reply a couple times. It is striking me as brilliant right now, but I'm still wrapping my head around it. I like how you explained the difference between frames for the specific scenario of dating a cutter. She clearly had tremendous family issues, as did I. The previous school year, I had been dating her older sister who dumped me out of the blue after a school dance for which I had shelled out way too much dough. (Maybe she thought I had been cheap!) I must have had only two or three short conversations with her sister while dating her, but little sis took it upon herself to start calling me, and eventually asking me out after several weeks of telling me how big of a bitch her mom and sister were. The whole scenario smelled of an attempt to piss off her sister, who began to denounce me openly as a dirt bag. I was an easy mark.

 

Either way, it was an easy decision to break it off. It began to be way too stressful to handle, as her relationship to her sister and mother fractured deeper. I should have never agreed to see her in the first place. It smelled like a set up from the very beginning. I listened to her when she need to talk, but I had no illusions that I was going to make her less abusive to herself. I could plainly see it was a loud cry for attention that her parents never gave her. I was in the same boat. I got to have revenge on the sister who spurned me, which is terribly petty, but I'm not going to claim that it did not feel good to get under her skin, hearing the things she was saying about me behind my back. To my face, all she would do is give me cold stares. Attention is nice no matter how caustic when I barely had any as a child, even if I was simply a tool for familial manipulation. Can you imagine how civil family dinner must have been for them? It gives me cold shivers to think about how I was complicit in perpetuating whatever horrors were going on over there between mother and daughter. Gah!

 

Frame or no frame, people who like tattoos and think that they are neat should have no problems feeling that way as long as they know it's coming from a place where they have a firm basis in self-knowledge. I don't trust myself around alcohol and drugs for this very reason. I can clearly see that my addiction to brain destroying chemicals was an attempt to medicate and ignore my inner revulsion for myself, and my family.

 

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. OMGpewpewlasers retracted his Philosopher King donation over the drug and addiction as a form of child abuse management discussion, first turning it around on us by saying the community was being repressive and close-minded. Speaking of framing...

[Blackfish64]

This is the thread that will not die...

 

Here's to it!

 

[Buggy]

-

'The video owner has blocked it from being shown on FDR.com'

By: "AFP News Agency (Rightster)"

Use: This link (To YouTube)

[PatrickC]

Blimey "cattoos".. The ultimate feminist statement to say into old age spinsterdom.

[J. D. Stembal]

People are getting Grumpy cat tattooed? I am floored. I loved my two cats and mourned their passing. It never occurred to me to get a tattoo of two tabbies.

 

How do you block YT videos from being embedded on specific websites? I'll have to look into that.

 

PS: I'm still waiting on my last post to make it through the moderator filters.

[Peaceful Parent]

I have more questions and comments for some of the points being made above, but I better address this direct question first.

 

I truly don't know how I could break it down further, without looking up the psychological terms for what I'm describing, which I believe is unnecessary. 

Anyways, what are your thoughts on it?

I can't read the section of my comment that you are quoting (it's not visible), so you'll have to clarify what it is you think I'm asking. Now to the "my thoughts" question, I need a more specific question.

[maieesa]

In my opinion, this post contains some interesting viewpoints, some valid research, and also a lot of insight about each of you who have posted, seemingly uninteded divulgences.  There are too many statements of opinion and I am not here to offer rebuttals to any of them.  What I am here for is to offer my own perspective, as promised. Childhood trauma manifests in many ways overt and also insidious and barely detectable, and not at all visible. We all process our experiences in a variety of ways. The way that I see it, most things in life can be broken down to basic categories, such as: productive or destructive, cruel or loving, useful or not.  You will never be able to look at a person and know via their appearance alone, whether or not they have unprocessed trauma.  Perhaps, as Joe Rogan predicts, in the near future, we will all be wearing google glasses type devices which will make us effectively telepathic.  My take on that is that if I were to only connect with people who do not wear heavy makeup, appear physically fit, do not dye their hair as far as I can tell, do not have visible tattoos or piercings, I would still discover many people who have unprocessed traumas and dysfunctional ways of being.  I can say with certainty that this attempt at preemptive self-defense would also have me miss out on connecting with some people who have worked through tremendous odds to become all the more insightful and even who have not been traumatized but just love purple in their hair, or tattoos or have an endocrinological disorder.  Objectively speaking, this tactic is not useful.  Here is why:  It would be useful for me to not choose a sexual covered in tattoos and piercings to have sex with before I even get to know if the history of risky behavior, etcetera applies to them.  But I am not fucking people who I do not know very very well anyhow, ever. It woud also be useful for me not to engage in other ways that would make me vulnerable, but again, if I do not know that person well, I am not going to put myself into situations with them which could turn out to be dangerous.  My theory is that if you are hung up on being able to judge people by these characteristics visibly apparent without further insight, then you do not trust your own intelligence to not choose foolishly and that you may be prone to risky behaviors and a lack of true discernment yourself.  Being naturally and insatiably curious, I love to hear people's stories and get to know all kinds of people. Seeing how they behave, hearing their story and what they have taken from it, and how it has shaped their philosophy and psychology are the ways which I choose to decipher who is worth my time and who is not.

Personally, I have been working rigorously for most of my life, to grow and develop as a person.  The artwork that I wear has been a celebration of my deepening awareness and self-love, from the first.  When I first chose to get a tattoo, I thought that it would be the only one that I would ever get.  I identified a desire to ritualize the rite of passage, which was disentangling myself from my mother's 'mental illness' (read evil-psycho cuntyness).  I took a stand for myself and told my parents and the doctors who had been abusing me and using me as a guinea pig, that I would not take their drugs any more.  There is nothing in place in the society in which I live, to celebrate rites of passage.  Since then, I have found an anarchistic, voluntarist and peaceful parenting community spread out worldwide in which any person can call together a circle to celebrate themselves or to greive, or for whatever you need, so long as it is not harmful.

 

The tattoos that I wear, I designed and/or my younger sister designed and/or applied.  This collaborative creativity for us has been in and of itself, healing.  The artwork, some of which we both wear, reflects our philosophical and psychological writing of a new story together and reparenting ourselves, as well as redefining our relationship. This theme is reflected in the largest piece of artwork that I wear.  That piece is a work depicting some of the inner landscape of the child inside me, reveling in my own wilndess and beauty, hiding and observing...It expands and contracts with my breath.  Little eyes peek out from beneath or through my clothing, playfully. It has changed over the years with my body and one of the best things about it, is the way that it will continue to change including disintegrating with my flesh, as my flesh, dying when I die.   I am an artist and I have always said, "I love creating out of every medium that I can get my hands into." The fumes from certain media may be carcinogenic. Photography chemicals are quite unhealthy. I love casting objects in clear plastic resin, but I would never do it druing a pregnancy. I eat organic and take good care of my health, and I enjoy the shit out of life, including getting my hands into all kinds of artistic media, even if they carry some risks. If somebody would teach me to weld and make large junk sculptures out of scrap metal, I would be psyched, although I know it could be dangerous. 

One thing which I would like to directly address from other comments is the recurring mention of the pain associated with tattooing.  Different people have different experiences of physical sensations, sometimes drastically different, such as a particular yoga student of mine, who finds great relief of physical pain and discomfort, from maintaining a regular practice, but during the practice time, he finds every bit of strengthening and also stretching to be very painful.  While women neccessarily are able to withstand childbirth, some women do not just withstand it, they orgasm during the experience.  Others cry out for drugs to numb themselves after the first contraction.  This is an interesting example to compare, as though my experiences as a doula, I have observed that the women who have experienced more drastic abuse in their lifetimes are consistently the ones who can not relax and open and definitely do not find pleasure in it. This is purely empirical observation; I cannot cite any study on this matter.  It is however agreed on via concensus throughout the natural childbirth community.  It is also complex and requires considering other facets besides any individual response to pain.

Also, addressing this pain/pleasure spectrum theory from a personal perspective, I would like to compare sensations in my own self and my own tolerance to them:  One person, with the same tolerance for pain experiencing two different sensations.  The process of depilation, has to be maintained on a weekly or biweekly schedule.  My skin is sensitive and will not tolerate certain means to attain that soft smoothness and I am also a person of sparse soft hair, which I mention only to highlight the fact that for most other people who wish to do this kind of body modification, it is more difficult and would therefore entail more pain as well as needing to be done more frequently.  That is unless you are able and choose to have permenant laser treatments remove your hair, which I hear is extremely painful.  Now, I will honestly tell you that tattooing does entail some pain, but the point that I would like to make here, is that comparatively, in my experience depilation is more painful than getting inked. And it often takes as long as or longer than some of my smaller tattoos.  Very few people are getting tattooed as often as they must be waxed or electrolysised.  Is it unprocessed trauma that has them feel the need to be less hairy than they are naturally as per the status quo and trends of popular culture?  I hear that big bushy bushes are making a comeback in the U.S.  Do you suppose that this correlates with the proportion of the population who are in therapy and processing their trauma? 

I would also like to touch briefly on the consideration of people who are obese.  Yes, we can correlate obesity with trauma.  However, we cannot correlate obesity with unprocessed trauma, just like we cannot say that tattoos would tell us anything about whether somebody's traumas have been healthfully addressed. Being overweight will change the metabolism and endocrinological functioning of many peoples' body systems permenantly and some people will not ever be able to do much to change their appearance.  There is a sort of point of no return.  Although surgeries can usually help, they are in and of themselves risky and traumatic.  Similarly, the ink is mostly permenant and a person might have done a lot of work on themselves since the time of it's application.  The only way that we can know the truth, is to commune.

[MMX2010]

 

This is what you are doing to my head right now. 

 

I'm going to have to reread your last reply a couple times. It is striking me as brilliant right now, but I'm still wrapping my head around it. I like how you explained the difference between frames for the specific scenario of dating a cutter.

 

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. 

[maieesa]

MMX, I am interested in hearing about your personal experiences with people who are: tattooed, pierced, overweight, heavily made up, and or wear dyed hair..Please.  The conversation about frame is also very interesting to me, but I need to reread your posts to grasp it.  However, I am also interested in hearing more about that as well.

[adamNJ]

 The artwork, some of which we both wear, reflects our philosophical and psychological writing of a new story together and reparenting ourselves, as well as redefining our relationship. This theme is reflected in the largest piece of artwork that I wear.  That piece is a work depicting some of the inner landscape of the child inside me, reveling in my own wilndess and beauty, hiding and observing...It expands and contracts with my breath.  Little eyes peek out from beneath or through my clothing, playfully.

 

Thanks for sharing your story maieesa, I myself don't like tattoos and would never ever get one. But after reading that I am kinda curious to see what that tattoo looks like.  Also I think you make an interesting and valid point when comparing the pain of depilation to tattooing.

[MMX2010]

MMX, I am interested in hearing about your personal experiences with people who are: tattooed, pierced, overweight, heavily made up, and or wear dyed hair..Please.  The conversation about frame is also very interesting to me, but I need to reread your posts to grasp it.  However, I am also interested in hearing more about that as well.

 

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.) 

[J. D. Stembal]

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. 

 

Another insightful post. 

 

When I was younger, I had a strong aversion to girls who had their ears pierced. I could not explain why it bothered me so much. Seeing infant girls with pierced ears bothered me even more. Later, in college, my girlfriend got her tongue pierced without consulting me on the decision, and I nearly broke up with her on the spot.

 

The reason why I was so offended by voluntary body modification is that my parents felt confident that I should have my genitals mutilated as an infant. This would be akin to tattooing newborn babies with a family brand or crest. I didn't get to consider the aesthetic qualities of severing flesh from my penis beforehand. It turns out that there are no benefits for the man when it comes to circumcision, the scourge of the body mods.

[J. D. Stembal]

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. 

 

If this woman is engaged, why are you buying meals for her thirty-five times a year (three times a month)? Clearly, you are taking her future husband's Stewardship away from him because every time you take her out, it's an opportunity to take her out that he is missing. I also think that having quasi-romantic relationships with engaged or married women is enabling hypergamy. Feel free to disagree, but that is just my initial judgement on the matter.

[MMX2010]

If this woman is engaged, why are you buying meals for her thirty-five times a year (three times a month)? Clearly, you are taking her future husband's Stewardship away from him because every time you take her out, it's an opportunity to take her out that he is missing. I also think that having quasi-romantic relationships with engaged or married women is enabling hypergamy. Feel free to disagree, but that is just my initial judgement on the matter.

 

 

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. 

[MysterionMuffles]

It's been a while since I've taken a look at this thread, but MMX thank you for sharing...

 

I just wonder; how do you feel about partaking in affair like this? Wouldn't you want form a more functional relationship with someone who is single?

[MMX2010]

It's been a while since I've taken a look at this thread, but MMX thank you for sharing...

 

I just wonder; how do you feel about partaking in affair like this? Wouldn't you want form a more functional relationship with someone who is single?

 

I tried answering your question directly, but my response got all jumbled.  So I'm going to discuss my negative experiences with a different tattoo'ed woman. 

 

She is the wife of a young man I've known for years.  We met (online) when he was 17, posting on message boards.  I would describe him (then) as exceptionally intelligent but also deeply lost.  (Ironically, I think his being lost is stupid, because it's obvious what he is.  When he was eighteen months old, he was able to hear a song on the radio (just once), and then play it on the piano.  Thus, while many of us struggle to know ourselves, because we don't have an exceptional talent guiding us, he shouldn't be struggling with any identity issues - because he's a musician.  Whether he, his wife, or anyone else, likes this or not - that's just what he is.) 

 

When he turned 18, his grandparents kicked him out of the house and forced him into the military because he "needed discipline".  For the first six months, he essentially "half-assed" everything.  But even his half-assedness was so much better than everyone else's efforts that he became an officer. 

 

He met her by sending a message to her myspace page.  So the first nine months of their courtship was essentially text messages, chat rooms, and Skype calls.  But she grew up less than ten miles from his hometown, so they met when he was on military leave.  They had instant chemistry, but she was dating a drug-addicted person whom he (correctly) perceived as being no good for her.  And he convinced himself that she could be so much more....if only she were provided adequate guidance and leadership.  About six months later, he essentially stole her from him, (a long story whose details I'll omit to keep this post short), and they were married shortly after. 

 

During the first phase of their marriage, he was stationed in Korea for about a year, maybe longer.  And during that time period, he was working out, regularly writing music, and (somewhat) advancing in the military.  (His military advancement was the least important thing because: (1) he believes he is being watched over by what is best described as a "spirit guide" - (called the "daimon", if you know archetypal psychology) - which got mad whenever he advanced in the military, and (2) he's a musician, not a soldier.)  He achieved the best shape of his life, thanks mostly to the Insanity workout plan, and was happy.  As a couple, they, too, were happy.

 

During the second phase of their marriage, he was stationed on American soil, which allowed them to live together.  And during this second phase, I visited them twice - (with the intention of moving in with them) - and my two visits can be called "Pre-Stef" and "Post-Stef".  My Pre-Stef visit revealed a couple that was emotionally happy with each other, but my Post-Stef visit revealed a lot of warning signs - most of which he is aware of, but doesn't know how to handle. 

 

In my opinion, the most obvious physical warning signs are her tattoos and her inability to sleep unless she smokes weed.  And the less obvious (but more dangerous) ones are: (1) he no longer works out, nor writes music - so he has become significantly overweight, (2) she (almost) never mentions how sad she is about this, and when she does, it's extremely weak and easily dismissed, (3) she is what I silently call "half a whore".... (Which half?  The worse half!) .... because she works as a CamGirl and moonlights as a legal prostitute but she only works six days a month, (sometimes fewer), and frames her work choices as "fine" because "she pays her own bills".  (4) She has what I think is a very high ACE score (minimum 5, but I'd guess a 7 or 8), but she has only very recently begun therapy.  (5) She is the first woman he has ever slept with, and he was (and still is) a soft-spoken, gentle individual.  But she has "talked him into" performing BDSM on her and taking her to "swinging parties".  He neither objects to this, nor is curious about whether he likes it or not.  He merely entered into it with an open mind, and found that it was "fine".  (6) He has, recently, begun a polygamous / three-person relationship with another woman, also a CamGirl.  Second Girl majored in Woman's Studies, and is a much more successful CamGirl (mostly because she works longer hours).  She also has what I perceive to be a high ACE score, and has never gone to therapy.  He is fascinated by her emotional distance, which he perceives as intellectual objectivity, and he uses conversations with Second Girl to contrast with the emotional volatility of His Wife.  But I perceive Second Girl's "intellectual objectivity" as extremely-sheltered non-intellectual, non-curiosity - which is a perfect match to His Wife's non-intellectual, non-curiosity; the only difference is one is emotionally cold when she's saying stupid things while the other person yells and throws things. 

 

"Post-Stef" is also "Post-Rollo Tomassi", so I know much more about Frame and Frame Control.  This knowledge helps me perceive important things by wondering to myself, "When these two argue, how often does she do what he wants - even though she disagrees?  When they argue, how often does he do what she wants - even though he disagrees?"  And, "Dude, your initial attraction to Her is founded on the notion that she'd become a much better person, if only she were provided leadership and consistent guidance, but: (1) who defines what "better person" means and what accepted forms of "leadership" and "consistent guidance" are?, and how do you know your answer is true? (2) If they are your definitions, how eagerly does she follow your guidance in everyday life, but if they are her definitions, then how you do know they align with your best interests?  (3) The most important question of all: 'what percent of your free thinking time - especially your free time at work where your mind can wander anywhere because you're not free to pursue your hobbies - centers around something-she-said, something-she-did, or something-she-didn't-do?" 

 

Those questions are supremely important because their answers establish who is Controlling the Frame.  And Frame Control questions establish Who Is Really the Leader of This Relationship?  I've never asked him these questions directly, because we no longer speak, but I know he'd swear that they're his terms.  However, if she's not changing her behaviors because of his advice, OR if he's spending all of his free energy worrying about her, then they're NOT his terms and he's NOT the leader of their marriage. 

 

The souring of our friendship taught me many things, but the crucial thing is: You are never providing either leadership or Stewardship if you don't have Frame Control.  Women are biologically designed to test your boundaries, and failing those tests means you'll be following her directions and her implied goals, all while swearing to everyone that she's following your directions and implied goals. 

 

----------------------------

 

In my next post, I'll answer your questions.  But I'd like to state three things I know.

 

(1) Women are biologically programmed both to constantly test a man's philosophical strength and moral boundaries and to possess completely contradictory motives-for-having-sex, (which translates as being attracted to contradictory types-of-men).  These contradictions are specially tuned to her menstrual cycle. 

 

(2) These contradictions, combined with the pussy pass that Stefan describes, means that the overwhelming majority of women have less-than-zero self-knowledge about men, themselves, and sexuality.  (Zero knowledge would mean they're ignorant, but less-than-zero knowledge means that they think they know important things....but their knowledge is wrong.) 

 

(3) Items 1 and 2 mean that, in the vast majority of cases, the best part of a relationship is during the beginning stages when a woman is behaving better solely for the purpose of keeping you around.  When she begins to feel disappointment towards who you are, she begins to behave less better - which sours the relationship. 

 

To what extent do you believe these three things to be absolutely true for all women, (with rare exceptions)? 

[MysterionMuffles]

Well thank you for answering my question from last month, but if you're just gonna skirt around my questions and not be direct, I'm not gonna pretend I'm having a discussion with you.

 

Nowhere in your anecdotes do I read anything of you taking any ownership over your association with these individuals. Actually, all I see is a lot of implicit and somewhat explicit contempt for them. 

 

Actually...now that I think about it, this recent post seems to have nothing to do with your experience with a tattoo'd woman, rather a snapshot of her relationship with her military boyfriend. And most of it is about him and how skilled he is at certain things anyway!

 

MMX...I'm sorry for the leading questions, but do you have trouble being direct? Do you always have to intellectualize and cloud things with thought expiraments and seemingly non-sequitor anecdotes? It could just be a fault on my part, but I find you incredibly difficult to read and follow.

[MMX2010]

Well thank you for answering my question from last month, but if you're just gonna skirt around my questions and not be direct, I'm not gonna pretend I'm having a discussion with you.

 

Nowhere in your anecdotes do I read anything of you taking any ownership over your association with these individuals. Actually, all I see is a lot of implicit and somewhat explicit contempt for them. 

 

Actually...now that I think about it, this recent post seems to have nothing to do with your experience with a tattoo'd woman, rather a snapshot of her relationship with her military boyfriend. And most of it is about him and how skilled he is at certain things anyway!

 

MMX...I'm sorry for the leading questions, but do you have trouble being direct? Do you always have to intellectualize and cloud things with thought expiraments and seemingly non-sequitor anecdotes? It could just be a fault on my part, but I find you incredibly difficult to read and follow.

 

No, I don't have trouble being direct.  I'm undergoing a large change in my personality and values through reading the works of Rollo Tomassi.  Because his language is somewhat specialized, and because I strongly sense you're not familiar with it, it's difficult for me to communicate to you unless I'm assured that you speak the language.  (You'll notice, however, that you began with your feeling of discomfort - (which was accurate) - and turned it into my personal problem, "MMX has a problem with being direct.")

 

Also, you didn't directly ask whether I take accountability for my interactions with those people.  But you definitely Implied that I do not.  My answer is not only, "Yes, I take full responsibility for my interactions with them.", but also, "You are not appointed by any higher authority to monitor my level of responsibility-taking, nor did I explicitly ask you to help me with that."  (You'll notice, again, that you began with your feeling of discomfort - (which was accurate) - and turned it into my personal problem, "MMX has a problem with taking responsibility.") 

 

 

 

Actually, all I see is a lot of implicit and somewhat explicit contempt for them. 

 

There are two reasons for this, one already stated, one not.

 

(1) Before he moved in with her, he was devoted to his music and was regularly working out.   But after he lived with her, he stopped writing music and has grown overweight.  He has also become bankrupt.  If you take the long-view and ask, "Is their relationship a healthy one?", the answer is almost certainly, "No."  But he is so devoted to turning her into a healthy, independent, strong woman that he only takes the short view.  "Today is a good day if her behavior looks like progress.  But today is a bad day if her behavior looks like non-progress."  So he experiences "good days and bad days" without recognizing the downward slide of their relationship, especially in terms of the two things which ought to matter most to him: his music and his health. 

 

(2) Long before I moved in with them, I paid them monthly rent for an apartment that I wasn't even living in.  He seemed devoted to his work and music, so I figured financing him would be helpful.  But when I moved in, and discovered they were bankrupt, I decided to move out.  I made this decision with both of them in the room, but decided to only tell him, since he would take it most difficultly.  I told them, "I've already made up my mind with regard to my living situation, so Wife, please excuse me." 

 

Wife replied, "No.  I get to be involved in any decision you make.  I live here." 

 

I replied, "No, don't worry about it.  Let me just tell Husband what I've decided." 

 

Wife replied, "Look, motherfucker.  When you agreed to pay us rent, you didn't sign a lease or anything.  So if I wanted to call the cops on you right now, I could." 

 

I replied, laughingly, "Well, if you're going to do that, make sure to do so when Husband is home." 

 

Wife turns stares directly at Husband, who's white as a sheet and completely frozen.  He had the presence of mind to say, "Don't look at me....", in a very weak voice.  But it took him three minutes to say, "Just go.  Let us talk." 

 

When I told him I was moving, he was extremely disappointed.  But I asked him directly, "Do you realize how ironic and frightening it was that she threatened to call the cops on me to remove me from a house that I was already committed to leaving?"

 

He weakly said, "I don't like it when she acts entitled."  But it never dawned on him to stand up to her. 

 

So if you think my contempt is misplaced, please say so.  But I find it sad that you'd criticize my contempt before knowing all the facts of the situation. 

 

----------------------------

 

Lastly, I asked you three important questions before:

 

(1) Women are biologically programmed both to constantly test a man's philosophical strength and moral boundaries and to possess completely contradictory motives-for-having-sex, (which translates as being attracted to contradictory types-of-men).  These contradictions are specially tuned to her menstrual cycle. 

 

(2) These contradictions, combined with the pussy pass that Stefan describes, means that the overwhelming majority of women have less-than-zero self-knowledge about men, themselves, and sexuality.  (Zero knowledge would mean they're ignorant, but less-than-zero knowledge means that they think they know important things....but their knowledge is wrong.) 

 

(3) Items 1 and 2 mean that, in the vast majority of cases, the best part of a relationship is during the beginning stages when a woman is behaving better solely for the purpose of keeping you around.  When she begins to feel disappointment towards who you are, she begins to behave less better - which sours the relationship. 

 

To what extent do you believe these three things to be absolutely true for all women, (with rare exceptions)? 

 

 

[MysterionMuffles]

There are two reasons for this, one already stated, one not.

 

(1) Before he moved in with her, he was devoted to his music and was regularly working out.   But after he lived with her, he stopped writing music and has grown overweight.  He has also become bankrupt.  If you take the long-view and ask, "Is their relationship a healthy one?", the answer is almost certainly, "No."  But he is so devoted to turning her into a healthy, independent, strong woman that he only takes the short view.  "Today is a good day if her behavior looks like progress.  But today is a bad day if her behavior looks like non-progress."  So he experiences "good days and bad days" without recognizing the downward slide of their relationship, especially in terms of the two things which ought to matter most to him: his music and his health. 

 

(2) Long before I moved in with them, I paid them monthly rent for an apartment that I wasn't even living in.  He seemed devoted to his work and music, so I figured financing him would be helpful.  But when I moved in, and discovered they were bankrupt, I decided to move out.  I made this decision with both of them in the room, but decided to only tell him, since he would take it most difficultly.  I told them, "I've already made up my mind with regard to my living situation, so Wife, please excuse me." 

 

Wife replied, "No.  I get to be involved in any decision you make.  I live here." 

 

I replied, "No, don't worry about it.  Let me just tell Husband what I've decided." 

 

Wife replied, "Look, motherfucker.  When you agreed to pay us rent, you didn't sign a lease or anything.  So if I wanted to call the cops on you right now, I could." 

 

I replied, laughingly, "Well, if you're going to do that, make sure to do so when Husband is home." 

 

Wife turns stares directly at Husband, who's white as a sheet and completely frozen.  He had the presence of mind to say, "Don't look at me....", in a very weak voice.  But it took him three minutes to say, "Just go.  Let us talk." 

 

When I told him I was moving, he was extremely disappointed.  But I asked him directly, "Do you realize how ironic and frightening it was that she threatened to call the cops on me to remove me from a house that I was already committed to leaving?"

 

He weakly said, "I don't like it when she acts entitled."  But it never dawned on him to stand up to her. 

 

So if you think my contempt is misplaced, please say so.  But I find it sad that you'd criticize my contempt before knowing all the facts of the situation. 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying your contempt is misplaced. I'm just pointing out that you have it. I'm really sorry for how the woman treated you when it came to your decision about living there. But what have you learned in all this? What attracted you to these people? Why did you think they would the right type of people to live with? What signs can you only see in hindsight, or what signs did you ignore that they wouldn't be the right people to spend time with?

 

 

You can simply say you take responsibility for your interactions and associations with these two seperate women, but where's your reasoning and proof behind it?

 

I can spend all day talking about how much I own a jetpack, but unless I show some pictures, I'm just blowing smoke. (Or not, if I don't have a jetpack)

 

 

No, I don't have trouble being direct.  I'm undergoing a large change in my personality and values through reading the works of Rollo Tomassi.  Because his language is somewhat specialized, and because I strongly sense you're not familiar with it, it's difficult for me to communicate to you unless I'm assured that you speak the language.  (You'll notice, however, that you began with your feeling of discomfort - (which was accurate) - and turned it into my personal problem, "MMX has a problem with being direct.")

 

And oh, so...because you're reading the works of a certain man, your language is evolving? And I can't comprehend it because I'm not reading it as well? What is this? Fog insurance? By that I mean, making sure I'll never really understand what you're saying because you're going to continue to find ways to make it harder for people to understand you?

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I asked you three important questions before:

 

(1) Women are biologically programmed both to constantly test a man's philosophical strength and moral boundaries and to possess completely contradictory motives-for-having-sex, (which translates as being attracted to contradictory types-of-men).  These contradictions are specially tuned to her menstrual cycle. 

 

(2) These contradictions, combined with the pussy pass that Stefan describes, means that the overwhelming majority of women have less-than-zero self-knowledge about men, themselves, and sexuality.  (Zero knowledge would mean they're ignorant, but less-than-zero knowledge means that they think they know important things....but their knowledge is wrong.) 

 

(3) Items 1 and 2 mean that, in the vast majority of cases, the best part of a relationship is during the beginning stages when a woman is behaving better solely for the purpose of keeping you around.  When she begins to feel disappointment towards who you are, she begins to behave less better - which sours the relationship. 

 

To what extent do you believe these three things to be absolutely true for all women, (with rare exceptions)? 

 

Why does this even matter anymore? Why should I answer this when my real concern is your inability to answer a question directly.

 

First I asked if you've had personal experience with tattoo'd and pierced individuals, but you answered with an impossible lifeboat scenario expirament--all because I didn't ask in a way that you liked.

 

You spent a whole month derailing my thread, making it about James and Josh's sexual experience with tattoo'd and obese women (when obesity wasn't even a topic here), when it turns out that it's YOU who has had significantly dysfunctional relationships with tattoo'd women. This was just supposed to be about how tattoos and piercings were signs of trauma. That's it. Not women and sex.

 

Finally you answer the original question a month later, and then when asked how you FEEL about engaging in an affair with an engaged woman, you share another experience with another tattoo'd woman--yet your anecdote has much more to do with her skilled boyfriend.

 

MMX2010, you can say whatever clever intellectual thing you want about me, and ascribe motives or weaknesses on my part that probably aren't even there--but I honestly cannot communicate with you any further. I need to disengage from you. I feel my enjoyment of this thread has been significantly reduced when I read your posts. It's no longer what about what it was supposed to be about much thanks to you.

[MMX2010]

 

Why does this even matter anymore? Why should I answer this when my real concern is your inability to answer a question directly?

 

Because you asked, "I just wonder; how do you feel about partaking in affair like this? Wouldn't you want form a more functional relationship with someone who is single?"

 

But whose definition of "more functional relationship" are we using? 

 

Yours?  (If yours, is it because you have exceptional relationships and I don't?  If yours, is it because your definitions are based on scientific consensus of what functional relationships are?  If yours, is it because you feel strongly that your definition is better?) 

 

Or Mine?  (If mine, is it because you asked me the question, and I'm free to choose my own definition?  If mine, is it because I have superior relationships than you?  If mine, is it because my definitions are based on scientific consensus of what functional relationships are?  If mine, is it because I have strong feelings that my definition is better?) 

 

Those questions, RJ, were designed to examine what your definitions of "more functional relationship" are, and where you derive your definitions from.  Without answering those questions, you just complain that I "didn't answer your question directly" - which looks like you don't want to discuss your definitions of "more functional relationship".  Instead, you want the entire world to assume that your definitions are right, so you can justify your impression that my affair with tattoo'ed chick isn't functional. 

 

Meanwhile, my relationship with her is functional, is healthy, and is wonderful. 

[MysterionMuffles]

A monogomous relationship. Whose definition of functional? The majority of FDR's definition of functional. A monogomous reationship.

 

How is going behind her fiancee's back to sleep with you considered functional? What is healthy and wonderful about keeping you secret from him? Say if she chose to be faithful to you and break up with this man--what's stopping her from cheating on you the same way?

 

I'd prefer that you ponder on these questions on your own time rather than try to justify your relationship with this woman.

 

Again, it's already bad enough that you tried to reframe my thread to be about James and Josh's sex lives involving tattoo'd and obese women when you're the only one who has provided evidence of having one of your own.

 

If you spent more time introspecting on your selfs, and less time on thought expiraments and counter arguments on forums........you just might 

 

1. Learn something about yourself
2. Learn to communicate more effectively
3. Learn to be more honest and direct
4. Take responsibility for your actions and relationships
5. Stop making lists and probably get to the point more often

[MMX2010]

 

A monogomous relationship. Whose definition of functional? The majority of FDR's definition of functional. A monogomous reationship.

 

 

RJ, you live in America, right?  I do, too.  And, boy oh boy, do we believe in the glory of monogamous relationships. 

 

However, around 60% of marriages end in divorce.  And I would guess, (but cannot prove), that around 65% of still-married individuals are unhappy.  If you grant my numbers for the sake of argument, this means only 14.5% of monogamous relationships are functional or healthy. 

 

My argument doesn't support my case, but it does reveal the enormous flaws in yours.  Because if monogamous relationships are so wonderful and functional, and because America is so devoted to monogamous relationships, then a 14.5% success rate is not impressive. 

 

So, despite the force with which you say, "Monogamous relationships are healthy!", the majority of cases disprove your argument. 

 

 

 

How is going behind her fiancee's back to sleep with you considered functional? What is healthy and wonderful about keeping you secret from him? Say if she chose to be faithful to you and break up with this man--what's stopping her from cheating on you the same way?  I'd prefer that you ponder on these questions on your own time rather than try to justify your relationship with this woman.

 

 

 

RJ, I first asked you very specific questions to determine what definition of "functional relationship" you're using. 

 

I then suggested Rollo's blog as an excellent introductory source about the nature of women and relationships. 

 

But now you're presuming that I don't know the answers to your questions.  Your contempt is palpable, but you don't realize that Rollo's blog asks, and answers, these questions repeatedly.  Nor do you realize that his blog has supplied me with those answers long before you asked them. 

 

-------------------------------

 

 

How is going behind her fiancee's back to sleep with you considered functional? What is healthy and wonderful about keeping you secret from him? Say if she chose to be faithful to you and break up with this man--what's stopping her from cheating on you the same way?

 

 

(1) Our relationship is functional for her, because she combines my best qualities with his best qualities to acquire a better man than she could independently.  We live in the most female-permissive society that has ever existed, and this permissiveness has revealed woman's nature to us all.  In times past, society prevented women from expressing their bad and ugly sides, but those restrictions no longer exist. 

 

(2) You're assuming that we are "keeping secrets" from him.  This assumption makes him the passive victim of our choices.  But did you ever consider that the evidence is right in front of him, and yet he doesn't want to look?  Of course not, but most importantly, Why not? 

 

(3) As for her "cheating on me", my answer is, "Nothing at all, and I wouldn't have it any other way." 

 

Feminism asks, "Which woman do you prefer?  A woman who is with you because she wants to be.  A woman who is with you because she needs you.  Or a woman who is with you because she has no other choice but to be with you." 

 

I not only prefer the first, but I also accept that women's freedom makes it highly unlikely that any woman will be deeply satisfied with any one man.  Christina and Stefan will be fine for years because Stefan is Stefan.  He is wealthy, famous, attractive, physically fit, excellent with children, and emotionally accessible.  He is Alpha Male, and Beta Male, combined: a veritable one-in-100-million. 

 

I am "merely" me.    I work hard to improve myself, while accepting that no amount of self-improvement will "entitle" me to a woman's life-long loyalty.  My favorite Rollo saying is, "You cannot negotiate desire."  And its truth applies to both personal improvement and the societal shaming of woman's poor choices. 

 

The statement, "She needs to take responsibility for her mating choices!", is correct 100% of the time.  But shouting it to yourself so that you can hold women's misbehavior in contempt, or assert that "bad men" "enable women's misbehavior" - (a falsehood in a society where women are free) - is an attempt to negotiate a woman's desire.  But the more women obey your statement, the more likely you'll either end up with a woman who needs you, or (worse!) a woman who is with you because she has no other choice. 

 

If you think a woman is going to be sweet, pleasant, nice, and virtuous just because she needs you, what happens when she no longer needs you?  And if you honestly think a woman is going to be sweet, pleasant, nice, and virtuous when she has no choice but to be with you.  *shudder*. 

 

A toast to you RJ: May you get the woman you deserve according to your romantic definitions, your knowledge of women, your degree of self-improvement, and your confidence in all of these.