March 19, 2012

Shame Is The Desired Outcome

shame open.jpg
do you see?



Part 1 is here.   If you're from Metafilter, you should probably stop reading now.  There are a few articles at McSweeney's I'm sure you'd enjoy.

VIII.

If the movie was a straightforward Hollywood docudrama, you'd never hear about it unless you watch the Lifetime Channel .  But-- you heard about it.   What did you learn from what you heard?



IX.

One of the big deals of this movie is the NC-17 rating, which you might expect for a movie about sex addiction.  Except that there is nothing in this movie that would deserve an NC-17.  There is way more nudity and sex in The Hangovers and Brandon's date was never shown with jizz in her hair like Cameron Diaz.

Maybe it was the penis.  In an early scene, Brandon walks naked to the toilet.  We see him from the living room, bathroom door wide open and back/butt to us, and you can see his penis hanging past his testicles as he is peeing.  When he is finished peeing, he then closes the door to take a shower.  This scene isn't an accident: it took three takes.

First question: why didn't he pee in the shower like everyone else in NY?  Maybe because he's not a pig.  Ok, second question: why close the door at all?  Or, why not close it for both peeing and showering?  In my freshman year of college I lived in a house with both XX and XY and everyone urinated with the door closed; but everyone then opened the door during a shower.  Freshmen.  The exhibitionism was a deliberate boldness, a dare, wrapped in the hope of sexual maturity that pretended to have forgotten to close the door.   By senior year, however, everyone was showering and urinating with the door open because whatever.

So the answer to why Brandon does it that way is: I don't know.  But I know why the movie did this: it wanted to show Brandon's penis in a way that doesn't make the censors go bananas.  In a movie about sex, even a showering penis would be too sexual.  To unsexualize a penis you have to show it peeing, which is why none of my freshman roommates ever let that happen.

So the movie wants us to see the penis (voyeurism=tickets) as a source of envy-- this is a perfect male specimen-- but they want to make sure you don't get too turned on. But there was a big penis showering itself back in Sex And The City II-- Dante, played by that guy on Dancing With The Stars, and that was five years ago, and only rated R.  So now the question is, why is Brandon's penis, even peeing, so much worse than Dante's SATC2 rated R penis?

The answer is: you're supposed to want actor Michael Fassbender's penis, but not character  Brandon's penis.  "This penis is very bad."

X.

Take a look at Brandon.  When media wants to depict a sex addict they depict the wealthy, the good looking, the powerful, the well hung.  There are plenty of slimy basement dwelling janitor sex addicts out there, but they are represented as sex offenders.  There are also plenty of gay sex addicts out there, but they are represented as gay.  Both of you are dismissed, the world has no time for your nonsense.  The sex addicts we see in movies and on the news are:  rock stars, politicians, sports guys, CEOs.  If you think about the demo primed to receive this depiction of lothario as sex addict-- women over 35, i.e. the demo for Shame--  sex addiction needs to be seen as terrible because it is terrible for them.  It may also be terrible for the sex addict, but fuck you, we have a society to run.

When you see the word "society" look ahead and to the right, psychiatry is in a window with its scope on you.  Sex addiction rarely breaks laws so it can't be punished, and there's no God so the immorality of it is debatable, i.e. inconsequential.  It must be a disease, that way other people don't want to catch it.  All psychiatric treatment of constructed syndromes isn't about cure but about regression to the mean, where mean= cubicle drone.  In other words, the point of offering Priapos treatment isn't that the patient gets better-- no one cares about him-- but that everyone else watching understands what he did is deeply whacked, so don't get any ideas.

When a politician is exposed for enjoying the kind of penetration that society's media arm has always promised is available to all-- self-fulfillment, be yourself, she's an adult and can make her own decisions, as long as it doesn't hurt people it's your choice!-- what other prohibition does society have against him?  Shame, aka psychiatric illness, that's it.  You can't tell him it's "wrong" to do what you've encouraged him and everyone else to do for three decades, which is why stupid people quickly turn to the default: "well, he lied about it under oath!"   Oh, so that's what makes him a sociopath.

And maybe you're a boring non-sex addicted male with a wife, two kids and a longing for a Chevy F10 Blazer so you don't buy this sex addiction gimmick, "come on, that's just an excuse!" and in that complaint you've met them halfway-- the debate is about that guy, is he or isn't he, and not about the existence of sex addiction.   The system is perfectly happy to give Tiger Woods a doctor's note if he's willing to appear on TV saying he has a doctor's note.  Saying Tiger isn't a sex addict means that there are sex addicts, and so you should start wondering whether your woman is wondering if you are one.  Better erase your cache.



time sex addiction condom.jpgthe condom is there to remind you that it's not about poor judgment




When you make behaviors a disease, individuals lose and systems win, this is always true, they benefit in still being able to call something "shameful" without needing to take any responsibility for its creation.  You'll see this in surprising places, for example organized religion.  You would think the church has a ready condemnation for too much casual sex yet it still calls it an addiction, not because millennia old religions are progressive but because if sex addiction is a disease then it can strike anyone, and that it seems to be particularly prevalent among deeply religious people from bin Laden to all of Utah, well, that's just the bad luck of DNA, there's nothing about religious institutions that both draw, and create, that pathology.  And so you are free to speculate if the vow of celibacy has anything to do attracting the kinds of genetically predisposed sexual deviants disorder patients who would never be able to plug into the system normally on their own, but don't you dare wonder if it is significant that so many Catholic priest molestations occurred not in a hotel or a van or a Dunkin Donuts but inside the church itself, no one is to ask whether the setting and the costumes were not incidental but integral to the satisfaction.  And even as I write this I shudder at the possible significance of it.   No.   Biology and Jesus have no time for Freud's lies.  See you in church.

The point here is not to be anti-religion, nor to claim that people who feel shame (not guilt) and disgust after their sexual experiences are not suffering.  The point is to reveal that any individual's suffering is secretly nurtured to maintain the integrity of the larger system.  You're expendable.  Eat it.
 

XI.

The point of treatments of "shameful" behaviors isn't to help you (though it might), but to give the system the right to decide what's pathology and what isn't.  "It's based on internal suffering."  No.  No it isn't.  When they screen you for alcoholism they ask you about guilt, when they screen you for sex addiction they ask about shame. Do you know why?  Because it's not based on internal suffering.

Here's a backwards example: Tucker Max.  His most recent book has more sex in one chapter than all of Shame.  The problem is he seems to enjoy it.  Is he a sex addict?  Not yet, but he damn well better be.



sloppy seconds tucker max.jpgthe other Radiation King




Right off, Tucker Max, and Brandon, represents a problem for society: Tucker is a reasonably attractive male with a law degree and money who has not only not plugged into the system as required, he's circumvented it for his own purposes-- and then publicizes it.  If he was an overweight cart fetcher at the A&P with a cleft palate and a strabismus his sexual exploits would conceivably be even more amazing, but no one would care because the threat to society (as distinct from his entertainment value) would be nil.  This is also why no one's made a movie about TyJeezey and the 500 baby mommas he's slept with.  TyJeezey and Cart Fetcher aren't relevant to society-- people like them passing on matrimony and Rocking The Vote would be a miniscule problem easily handled by giving them SSI.  Ta da, now you're invisible.   But Tucker Max can't be fired, and unless people stop buying his books he won't become invisible.  If more people like Tucker-- e.g. educated, attractive, wealthy, and public-- opt out, the whole thing falls apart.

The typical way sex addiction is packaged by the media is to show all the harm that comes from it, i.e. self-loathing, i.e. AIDS, i.e. divorces, i.e. suicide, i.e. murder, i.e. heroin, i.e Shame.  Unfortunately for the system, the Tucker Max Trilogy doesn't involve any of these, but the narrative desperately awaits them, wants them, which is why you can be certain that if his fall ever comes, no matter how it comes, it will make it to the front page of Gawker.   Then he could be a sex addict (or bipolar, or etc); but without the fall, he cannot be a sex addict or bipolar or etc.  So while America waits for the rape charges or the racist voice mails to his  Russian girlfriend, on to plan B.

Plan B is: instead of shaming him, shame you.

If his only audience was college men no one would have a problem with him because then he could be dismissed as wishful thinking, i.e. what keeps the college boys from following his lead is the implicit criticism that if you like Tucker Max, you must be a loser who can't get girls, or a rapist (reinforced by e.g. a story that is entirely about Tucker Max yet has nothing to do with him at all.)  Unless your identity is already well established, known, you can't risk someone "misinterpreting" your liking him, so people try to put some distance between them, which is why every time someone writes anything positive about Tucker Max there's a disclaimer: "love him or hate him..."  "he's a rude, disgusting misogynist, but..."

That's the trick of Shame.  "He's an attractive, wealthy, guy with a big penis (did you see it, ladies?) but he's not using it properly..."  Brandon's sex addiction makes him very un-desirable, no one watches Shame and says, "wow, I want to be Brandon" and no woman says, "wow, I want to be with Brandon."  The opposite is true for Tucker Max, who is popular with women, especially the very women that he "degrades."  Now what does the system do?

There's only one thing it can do: say that these women don't know better, that they're broken women from broken homes... that they're not real women.  Note that if this were true you'd think someone would want to help them, educate them, elevate them, but it doesn't want to "treat" them, it only wants to "diagnose" them as a warning for everyone else.  In other words, the system sacrifices them. They're expendable.  Eat it.

The sad paradox of this system is that on the one hand it hates Tucker Max et al for how they degrade women, but on the other hand hates those very women even more for liking him.  He's a human you hate, but you hate them as a group.  Surprise: your misogyny > his misogyny.  You should hang that above your bed, especially if you are a woman.  

I will delicately avoid all jargon: this is understood as a) defining yourself based on who you hate ("I'm not like those sluts"); and b) secretly believing that only you have-- deserve-- free will, other people (Tucker Max, the women who like Tucker Max) are just too dumb to handle it.   I could say that that a) and b) are causes of totalitarianism or characteristics of narcissism, but it's more useful to say that a) and b) are why you are not happy, and it's more useful because that's the only thing you really care about anyway.

X.

Back to Brandon.  What Brandon doesn't realize is that his movie is inseparable from the commentary that comes with it, it relies on it. In fact, the movie itself is less relevant than the commentary, the movie is an excuse for the commentary.  You lose or gain nothing by knowing that Tree Of Life's brother committed suicide when he was 19, but it is absolutely vital that you-- you who saw it and especially you who didn't-- know that Brandon is a "sex addict", i.e. bad, i.e. not the system's fault for demanding you consume but only the right amount, i.e. don't get any ideas.

If you weren't told he was a sex addict, what would you have thought Brandon's problem was?  That he was mean; that he may have had sex with his sister; that he was cold, distant, and infinitely narcissistic; that he watches cartoons; that he had a crazy sister.  You would have looked at the sex as a convenient way of escaping those things, as a consequence of those things, and maybe you would have lingered long enough on his furtive attempt at a normal relationship to ask whether the pathology wasn't there and not 15 minutes later with the hooker.  But you were told you were seeing a movie about sex addiction, of how sex addiction destroys your life, so the Marianne debacle and the cartoon watching was to be understood as a consequence of that addiction.  But "sex addiction" wasn't what wrecked his life at all.  Do you believe if he refrains from porn he will be happy?

To make sure you never consider this, they tell you upfront the context in which you are to understand this movie, even and especially if you never actually watch it.  Fortunately for Brandon he's just a fictional character and doesn't care about being used as means of social control.  He's expendable, but, let's not forget, so are you.  Eat it.

---


http://twitter.com/thelastpsych











Comments

Two questions: 1.... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 6:16 PM | Posted by Anon: | Reply

Two questions:

1. Do you truly believe people can't learn to love? Can't it be nurtured, especially outside of American society?

You hang out with someone, you learn about them, you start liking things about them, boom, love. (and work)

2. If realizing death is imminent is the reason to start choosing (better), then where do you look for the choice map to see if you can at least follow in the right direction? Obviously reading this blog and thinking can tell you there are a lot of standard choices that have been commodized but are not for everyone. (9-5)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (17 votes cast)
Great piece, as usual.... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 6:23 PM | Posted by Jim: | Reply

Great piece, as usual.

Time to fixate on the important fact you missed. The final scene of "Boogie Nights" featured a giant penis that was so sexualized as to become desexualized. And it came out FIFTEEN years ago.

FTW.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (19 votes cast)
Why is social control bad? ... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 6:33 PM | Posted by FredR: | Reply

Why is social control bad? Doesn't society have a right to defend itself?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -8 (38 votes cast)
I'm not really sure what yo... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 6:42 PM | Posted by BHE: | Reply

I'm not really sure what your thesis is here. Is this partly an argument that sexual behaviors are on a continuum and that any attempt to classify them is a means of social control? Are there not people whose sexual choices are self-destructive, whether or not they are in response to other factors in their lives? And if you are in the mental health community, how do you deal with that? Is this an argument against the DSM in general? Against mental health classifications on the whole? That seems to be at the core of a lot of your articles. So what is your solution or proposed alternative? Do you suggest treating each human being as an individual apart from as many officially-sanctioned labels as you can avoid? If so then why the obsession with labeling so many things as narcissistic or as symptoms of a narcissism that you have defined? I love all the food for thought on this blog but sometimes I really lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 23 (31 votes cast)
I'm also unsure what the th... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 7:56 PM | Posted by asdf: | Reply

I'm also unsure what the thesis is. That alpha males are acting on an incentive to disengage from monogomy and that some people think shaming can curtail this behaivor (to their benefit). That's old hat.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (21 votes cast)
Asdf, I think your interpre... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 9:42 PM | Posted, in reply to asdf's comment, by Mike: | Reply

Asdf, I think your interpretation is the mirror opposite of what TLP is going for. You say people are attempting to shame those you call alpha males; that is correct, but TLP's point is not "reject that shame." The whole question of shame - either trying to enforce it or proudly rejecting it, PUA-style, are just two sides of the same coin. Shame obscures the matter of guilt: it sets aside the question of right or wrong in favor of socially acceptable or not.

I'd say that if one is proud of the fact that they engage in behavior others wish to shame, then they are still tangled up in the same way of thinking.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 29 (35 votes cast)
It seems we retain a... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 9:54 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply


It seems we retain a vestige of our moral judgments but we're socially unable to express them. Today's mental health disorders are yesterday's immoralities. Same old problems, we just have to change the name, due to God being dead, along with good and evil.

Its an easy enough substitute when we speak of the "sex addict," whose life is shattered with HIV, etc. There is something tangible to point to and say "ha, that's why sex is bad!"

As TLP points out though, our mental health paradigm is insufficient in addressing the promiscuous person, who seems both happy and healthy, just the same. We can't say you have a disease if we can't see any symptoms. So the diagnosis will lie in wait, locked and loaded, for the first 911 call or preliminary hearing.

Don't worry, though, the diagnosis will not have to wait long. Unrestrained sex has a way of catching up with people. Its nothing new to mankind, nor are its effects.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 12 (22 votes cast)
I had no idea who Tucker Ma... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 9:57 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I had no idea who Tucker Max was, googled and found this, you may want to comment on this also as it involves psychiatry.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/18/tucker-max-gives-up-the-game

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
what do you mean the brothe... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 9:57 PM | Posted by eric: | Reply

what do you mean the brother in Tree of Life committed suicide? He was killed in a war/military service--thus, the soldier delivering the letter to his mother.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
You've mentioned hanging ou... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 10:23 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

You've mentioned hanging out with Tucker Max on Twitter in the past. Can you really be unbiased, or is this deft product placement?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (18 votes cast)
I also have problems identi... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 10:51 PM | Posted by Heytor: | Reply

I also have problems identifying the points on which The Last Psychiatrist will stand. Then I realized that she deliberately avoids clarifying a few points, preferring to leave the draft in rough form. You can see this in the one liners dangling at the end of paragraphs. They seem to declare novel things with authority, or serve as punchlines to setups prior, but I meet most of them with a bit of puzzlement. In this piece, see you in church.

You can also see this roughness in the quoted portions that pop up. It's obvious TLP is hearing her reader's objections while writing, and puts those into quotes. "It's based on internal suffering." But without any introduction into the line of thinking, these quotes stand out as markers of a dialogue we readers are not part of. It's just happening in TLP's head, and we're here to witness.

I don't want to criticize too hard; there are a lot of interesting interpretations, like the pissing scene at the start, which are well-polished. These insightful moments pile up across a post and by the end readers might have a few new ideas they want to try out on life around them. At that point it would be difficult for a casual reader to remember how discontinuous the entire piece is.

I think this intentional roughness is artistic in nature, allowing more room for interpretation by the readership and give them cause, whether enamored or frustrated or degrees of both, to come back week after week.

For example, in reviewing my own message here, I see how much more clear I could be by using the word "thesis" in my first sentence. It's short, and identifies exactly what I'm talking about. If I were TLP I would deliberately not use that word, at is would be too definite. Even without "thesis" I'm still basically talking about the same thing, it's just not so apparent that you might object, were my message as surprising as TLP usually is. As a writer I should probably care about your your interpretation, but as TLP that frustration potentially means more self-reflection on the material. And potentially more page views for my site, of course.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (30 votes cast)
"Doesn't society have a rig... (Below threshold)

March 19, 2012 10:55 PM | Posted, in reply to FredR's comment, by Z. Constantine: | Reply

"Doesn't society have a right to defend itself?"

The pig says "oink".

The cow says "moo".

The horse says "nay".

The system says "nom nom nom" ... and that's where you get your bacon cheeseburger with miscellaneous filler.

Eat it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -5 (19 votes cast)
Terrence Malick's brother. ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 2:19 AM | Posted, in reply to eric's comment, by Z: | Reply

Terrence Malick's brother.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
I agree, very nice article.... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 3:53 AM | Posted by gogo: | Reply

I agree, very nice article. I´d like to suggest another view, which is not contrary, which is afirmation. Another reason of the opened doors: What is more,to be more Freudian, or better said more Foucaultesq: Shame is a masochistic part of sexual pleasure. Shame is device of individual delight. This is why people search shamefull practics, isn´t it?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (8 votes cast)
I don't know about anyone e... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 4:51 AM | Posted by Judge wilhelm: | Reply

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm ready to eat it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -4 (8 votes cast)
I don't know about anyone e... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 5:09 AM | Posted by Judge wilhelm: | Reply

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm ready to eat it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -8 (10 votes cast)
Maybe he was referring to d... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 5:19 AM | Posted, in reply to eric's comment, by another eric: | Reply

Maybe he was referring to director Terrence Malick's younger brother who killed himself?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
One can buy into right/wron... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 7:19 AM | Posted, in reply to Mike's comment, by asdf: | Reply

One can buy into right/wrong without buying into the cultural/religous narrative of what's right and wrong. I might, for instance, believe that a crooked business deal is wrong but still think promiscous sex is ok.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (9 votes cast)
Well, I think that in this ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 7:28 AM | Posted, in reply to BHE's comment, by Stacy: | Reply

Well, I think that in this piece he said something about not wanting (sexual?) behavior to be controlled by society/shrinks, then in the Penelope Trunk piece he said she acts like a borderline, which is a personality disorder, which he then said was a description of behaviors, just like he's saying about this proposed hypersexual disorder tyhat is not in the new DSM yet but may be.
I think he may be referring specifically to sexual behavior...
I think a good way to listen to him is as if he's anyone else, all of us take our beliefs and piece togeher arguements as best we can. Sometimes I worry that because he's a shrink, people take him far too seriously, perhaps because of their own cravings for ... perhaps because they want a sort of parent figure, who has the answers and thus can give out tacit approval (love) and whatnot. But what do I know? I think part of the reason I like him is he is a person, not a total asshole shrink, plus he's interesting...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
Although I only read what h... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 7:34 AM | Posted, in reply to Stacy's comment, by stacy: | Reply

Although I only read what he wrote once, so maybe I missed it...
He seems to express a concern with psychiatry becoming a tool of oppression overall based on this and other posts, or that it is becoming too powerful, acting as a substitute for individual thoughtfulness. Because people lean on psychiatry to tell them what is what...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
I'm surprised, and not surp... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 9:40 AM | Posted by Phil A.: | Reply

I'm surprised, and not surprised that TLP was so "gracious" to Tucker Max. On the one hand, attacking his character would be too obvious (HAHA Tucker Max is a narcissist - surprised?) and would be counterproductive to the overall point of the post. On the other hand, I don't agree with Nietzsche's moral philosophy, and I suspect that TLP does not either. So. Tucker Max is a bad person, not because he gamed "the system", but because it is wrong to live a selfish, solipsistic life even if others are willing to facilitate such a thing. Because it's wrong, in itself.

But then...

That kind of seems to be the point of the post. Maybe I'm wrong, and it's just an interpretation, but I just think people are overthinking this post and that's why they're confused.

If everyone in society is on board with Nietzsche, and (a higher) morality is no longer a factor in our lives, then we can only rely on shame to curb our behavior. Isn't that part of, or consistent with, narcissism? No concrete moral sense, just shame? If so, then there doesn't seem to be much else to be confused about in this post. The specifics are incidental, or rather they're just dressing to help make the point more interesting to read even though we've read it already. Or even a way for TLP to make the point in a little bit of a different way so that you get a fuller picture. Or whatever.

Personally, I don't see this post as being about psychiatry's influence over sexual behavior, per se. Sure, if TLP is right and the system is in place, then psychiatry is a tool of the system, but then the point about psychiatry is just that: it's a tool for the system. And psychiatry in particular is where we go to get our morality? I sort of agree with that, but wouldn't the system be the real point?

Heytor, you said that the one liners leave you hanging. But the "See you in church" line comes right after a pretty concrete point about the possible fetishism of organized religion having an influence on priests being attracted to altar boys.

There is a bit of vagueness to it, but that's because flat out saying, "Priests diddled altar boys because they were acting out some 'show' in their head, because they're narcissists and narcissists see everything as a movie or tv show about them," might be a little jarring. Also, writing it that explicitly reveals a gap in logic that would require a whole other post(s) to bring out so....

In fact, though I agree with a lot on this blog, I happen to disagree with that. But then I have to wonder what the chances are of so many priests molesting so many kids in one denomination and....

This was a great post.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 14 (20 votes cast)
As usual, the problem is yo... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 10:09 AM | Posted by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

As usual, the problem is you, and the only thing that motivates the system is labor costs (and disguising the reincarnation of feudalism, which is really just a tactic to control labor costs). It's creepy how well you make the case for this understanding of the world.

When you say make the censors go bananas, do you mean rate the movie NC-17, or do the censors have the power to tell the producers to cut the scene if they want to show it here?

I'm tempted to protest that the glowing lie that bombards the senses of almost every person in the developed world is also a large part of the problem, but I know that's a cop out. Like Art Immelman, it only enables people to do what they think they want to do, to believe what they want to believe (also, not everyone lives in New York, where the lie finds you even when you're not looking for it).

I am a little curious about your implication that the Church creates the problem of pedophile priests just as modern media creates a (secretly) sex obsessed populace. Modernity does this to motivate, to drive, to prevent satisfaction. The Church's motives are much less clear, if they are trying to do it. Also, why in church? Isn't opportunity a better hypothesis than the indulgence of fantasy? Maybe you're pulling the same trick you object to: those freaks are probably turning molestation into a ritual or something, their actions can't be manifestations of any societal problems. The celibacy thing is so weird, it's obvious they're disturbed, etc.

(On a side note, celibate Eastern Orthodox priests only live in community, and it's mostly bishops that remain celibate. I believe most parish priests are married. As a married man I can understand the reasons for a celibate priesthood (St. Paul gets to the heart of them), but I think they would be better off living in community than spread out at parishes.)

On the guilt-shame relationship: The media is trying to usurp the place of God by making itself the judge. Thus it can revive guilt, enhancing its power. Tucker Max can reject it, but as long as the media can say he's a deviant, but you're all OK, carry on consumers, the system grows more powerful and more able to convince the would-be Tucker's of the world there's something wrong with themselves. But it has an internal conflict because so much of it's power is driven by base impulses that would destroy the society it controls. So we have modern insanity.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
When did Tucker Max become ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 10:23 AM | Posted by asdf: | Reply

When did Tucker Max become a spokesmen for anything. I hear people calling him a prophet. He's just a dude that was born with a lot going for him and its kinduv and aimless jerk.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (8 votes cast)
<a href="http://thirdtierre... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 10:26 AM | Posted by Nando: | Reply

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/

Someone recently pointed out to me a story of a former prostitute who is a college senior, and looking at becoming a lawyer. As if she has not experienced enough shame, in her lifetime.

Adding $100K in student debt, and entering a crumbling legal job market, will not help her out.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -28 (32 votes cast)
Which is fine. I guess my ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 10:32 AM | Posted, in reply to asdf's comment, by Mike: | Reply

Which is fine. I guess my point is that TLP is saying more than "people are trying to shame alpha males" -- I'm saying that the PUA style alpha male pleasure in being a bad boy answers to the very same paradigm that wants to shame them in the first place.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 7 (9 votes cast)
you have to read and unders... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 12:15 PM | Posted by puppylander: | Reply

you have to read and understand the part posted earlier to understand what tlp is talking about here.

in essence, it's a critique of shame as a behavior-changer.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
"Do you truly believe peopl... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 12:20 PM | Posted, in reply to Anon's comment, by Guy Fox: | Reply

"Do you truly believe people can't learn to love? Can't it be nurtured, especially outside of American society?
You hang out with someone, you learn about them, you start liking things about them, boom, love. (and work)"

An old Margery Wilson quote for you (from memory): Many young women write to me asking how to recognize when they've truly fallen in love. When it happens, you will no more need ask whether you have fallen in love than you would need to ask whether you have fallen down the stairs.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
I've always had highly spir... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 12:33 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I've always had highly spiritual people---of various stripes, who usually were leaders within their chosen faiths---attracted to me, and in my experience, they are sexually really fucked up---no matter how good their religion was---
Why is this? What is it that would make someone spiritually and sexually extreme to the point that it clearly violates the boundaries of their own chosen religion?
My old shrink said something about people who are out of touch with their own humanity. ?
It seems far too easy to babble on about repression.
I'd love it if someone could explain this; I can't.
And the post with the quotation above mine, I have to say, it's beautiful.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
gabe, i've always wondered ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 12:57 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by puppylander: | Reply

gabe, i've always wondered the same thing, re: church --> peds. zizek makes the same claim. i've never really been sure why it should be true.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
First it was god created wi... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 1:27 PM | Posted by Paula: | Reply

First it was god created with living close-civilization, fucking sheep and imposed shame/guilt/fire/hell because we got STD's and died from them leaving orphans. Then when god was dead from medicine/science/understanding we had childhood abuse and animal nature. Then a big uptick in death from Aids. Now it has leveled out and we have the struggle of just "are you happy?"
If one is happy and not making others pay for it or others miserable- then all is good.
As the Buddhists knew 3 thousand years ago-balance-always struggle for balance. That's the nature of happiness-um simplified of course.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
i think the question of "ar... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 1:40 PM | Posted, in reply to Paula's comment, by puppylander: | Reply

i think the question of "are you happy?" is being linked quite closely with "animal nature"/evolutionary biology. (interesting how tlp's views coincide with jordan peterson's.)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
why do you refer to tlp as ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 2:53 PM | Posted, in reply to Heytor's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

why do you refer to tlp as "she", idiot?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -18 (20 votes cast)
Oh yeah---like that's some ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 4:11 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Oh yeah---like that's some sort of egregious error, or something.
Better question: why are you such an asshole over such a small thing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (10 votes cast)
And what makes media, film-... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 5:02 PM | Posted by Eipa: | Reply

And what makes media, film-rating-agencies and the rest of the general public unite to defend these ideas of morality and to condemn a lifestyle they would normally promote? Is that the crowdsourced Superego, you keep mentioning in your Walker-posts, trying to prevent change from happening? Similar to the unconscious of an individual?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"Why is social control bad?... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 6:28 PM | Posted, in reply to FredR's comment, by Elisabeth: | Reply

"Why is social control bad? Doesn't society have a right to defend itself?"

I think the problem is not so much the social control as the obfuscation surrounding it.

If society, or people within a society (Alone does not specify just who is making these rules and evasions) want to make rules, then that is one thing. But they need to state what they think is wrong, and why.

That is where it falls short. There is a lack of knowledge about just what rules there should be. We cannot state why we believe that something is wrong, because no one is entirely sure of what moral code to use, and thus cannot defend it in terms of right versus wrong.

So they turn it into a question of health. Notice how many of the old prohibitions have returned to some extent? Not because of moral disapproval and judgement, oh heavens no, but because of your health, you see.

"Health", both physical and mental, has become the new "morality". It's even more insidious because you cannot argue for or against it as you would morals. It is Science. We are powerless in its wake.

So state your moral convictions, by all means. But this is a perverse version of moral control, in that it manages to silence dissent by pretending it doesn't exist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
it's only perverse if you t... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 8:56 PM | Posted, in reply to Elisabeth's comment, by puppylander: | Reply

it's only perverse if you think morality was ever anything but a guideline to health (physical and/or mental).

otherwise, it's the other view of morality that is (read has been) perverse. you might even say that's the reason we're in the various messes we're in.

that is, is there really value to dissent if "dissent" merely means "rejection of reality"? isn't that one version of insanity?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
"you might even say that's ... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 10:03 PM | Posted, in reply to puppylander's comment, by Z. Constantine: | Reply

"you might even say that's the reason we're in the various messes we're in."

Are you arguing for or against the Westboro Baptist Church?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
It looks like this whole si... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 11:26 PM | Posted by Hmm: | Reply

It looks like this whole site can be summarized by:

Get over yourself, you are just one of the billions. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Stop thinking so much, focus and do. And yes, everyone feels the same thing too.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (13 votes cast)
"Change breaks the brittle.... (Below threshold)

March 20, 2012 11:35 PM | Posted by Hmm: | Reply

"Change breaks the brittle."

- Jan Houtema

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
I happened upon your old wr... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 1:19 AM | Posted by porn: | Reply

I happened upon your old write up on Scott Adams. I think it is relevant here.

Validation from sex is important, but I think we need to realize that sex itself is important. The physical act. If you don't think that is a basic need, you've never really needed sex. A someone who had to wait till 27 to get laid, I know it all too well.

Having sex removes a huge weight on your shoulders. Its biologically necessary. Do I still want a GF? Yes. Do I still want to date? Yes. Do I still want other kinds of relationships? Yes. But I NEED sex.

In fact having a supply of sex makes it easier to obtain the validation, companionship, and intamacy your talking about because you don't need to waste time on people and things that are counterproductive to those interests but are necessary to obtain the needed amount of sex. My relationships have improved since I started using prostitutes, because I no longer pursue terrible women just to get laid. I only focus my efforts on women they are good for me. It means I get laid less from those efforts, but its ok because I have another source of sex to fill in the difference. This has made such a difference in my life I can't begin to explain how poisonous your advice is. There are so many men out there like me that could vastly improve their lives by giving up on the shame your peddling, but realizing that sex and validation don't have to be tied at the hip.

There were definately many times I would have raped someone if I could guarantee I wouldn't get punished. Thousands. The only thing stopping me was retaliation.

You might say that's horrible. Maybe so. Alright, probably so. But desperate people do desperate things. If I was starving to death and you said I had to kill a man to get a loaf of bread, I'd do it. And there are a lot of things I'd do for sex. Maybe not kill a man, but rape probably would be on the list (and note that lots of men kill for sex, we call it war but we all know what its about).

Does that make me a sociopath? I dunno. I feel empathy for people all the time. I do nice things for people all the time. I gave up a chance to get fantastically rich (and thus get more sex) because it meant ruining a lot of people that didn't deserve it. I think labeling one group of people sociopaths and the others normals misses the point. We can all be either given the right context.


"So what is wrong with what Adams said? What argument might convince him that he is wrong, or at least help him release some of that anger?


Adams seems to be believe that men are naturally sexually aggressive, and women/society put limits on their natural impulses. This is what Jezebel got wrong: he doesn't believe this. He wishes this.


And when he says society is a "prison" for men's natural urges to penetrate random women like in caveman days, he is not really complaining about this prison. That's what he wants. He wants it to be true that society is cockblocking him.

Because if that is true, then it isn't his own inability to score chicks that's limiting him. "I'd love to just walk up to some hot chick in a bar and just take her home and bang her," he might think, "but society doesn't let me." Really? Dude, you need to switch bars.


Not being able to easily and fluidly pick up women is maddeningly destructive to many men, not tempered by other successes in their lives. We hear the refrain that media images create unrealistic expectations of women to be hot, etc, but the flip side is that some men can't understand why everyone else seems to be able to hook up easily, freely, fun-ly, while they're in the corner all boiling rage. Confronted with this, they have two choices: I'm inadequate, or the Matrix is against me. Men who don't want to kill themselves choose b.

Notice carefully and repeatedly that I didn't say "have sex with." The point isn't the having of sex, the point is the convincing of someone to have sex with you. That, and not the sex itself, is a measure of your value as a man. The value has to be determined by someone else. If she thinks you're worth it and she doesn't know you, then you must be. The sex part is fun and best done standing up, but irrelevant.

There are men who sleep with three dozen women and still think they can't pick up girls, because they have an explanation for why each one didn't count: she was drunk, she was on the rebound, she was slumming it, she was trying to make her boyfriend jealous...


Note that Adams is a world famous cartoonist... and it is still not enough. Neither is the fact that he's convinced at least one woman (wife) to sleep with him ("that doesn't count, she loves me.") Why? Because he hasn't allowed those legitimate successes to define him ("that's not who I am"-- which is also why he is reinventing himself as a blogger), and so he's trapped in the mind of a pre-cartoonist nerd, finding a scale for his self-worth in people who don't know him's eyes.

What Adams doesn't realize is that this world controlled by women, who prevent his fulfillment and happiness, does not exist; and that he thinks it does drives women, and at least a few men, bananas. But it is absolutely necessary to his survival that he believes it exists, or else all is lost.


I'll bet he has little cartoons taped to his office wall. He should replace one of those cartoons with a little yellow post-it note upon which he should write, with a Sharpie, seven words: you are being lied to, by yourself."

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (26 votes cast)
Damn playa. I'm beginning t... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 9:23 AM | Posted by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Damn playa. I'm beginning to wonder if you're TLP trolling the commentariat to prove his point.

Where does TLP advocate labeling people like you sociopaths? He objects to the society using that label to control behaviors that are not indicative of pathology. He doesn't care that you use prostitutes. Whatever gets you through the day. But he prefers truth to lies, and believes that lies you tell to yourself are not conducive to human flourishing at the personal level, and are even more destructive at the level of society.

You've been poisoned, but it wasn't by the doc. The fact that you stick around and argue means you're trying to convince yourself that you've got it figured out, because we have your own testimony that trying to help others does not motivate you. It's all about you. What else is there?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
Thank you for this. It see... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 1:44 PM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by Robert Pound: | Reply

Thank you for this. It seems that seeing TLP's posts as negative (you are fucked up, let me tell you more!) makes one worse, and seeing them as a healing tool makes one better, and more empathetic to others.

Thank you TLP

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
he just assumed tlp is a wo... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 2:02 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

he just assumed tlp is a woman on who knows what kind of theory or obscure information, so I just assumed he is an idiot. Why are you calling me an asshole? You're mean

anyway nice job on focusing how I called him while avoiding the point. Like calling him an idiot is an egregious error or something- also why do you use a word like egregious, I'll beat the shit out of you.

the point is: I'd like to know why did he refer to tlp as a woman, what's the reasoning or obscure information I'm not aware of.

bye

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -12 (14 votes cast)
Foucault makes largely simi... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to Elisabeth's comment, by tim: | Reply

Foucault makes largely similar claims in his text, The Birth of the Clinic

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
just playing with pronouns ... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

just playing with pronouns I would guess, something you might be familiar with if you had ever read any feminist texts

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
does feminism advocates usi... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 5:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

does feminism advocates using the feminine pronouns for male characters?

I'm saying characters because obviously alone could be a woman (even if I don't believe it), but the persona he uses is a man. So unless you have proof or information about the actual sex of the author, using she is retarded.. using it to make a point about feminism makes it doubly retarded.

By the way I recognize that arguing about is also retarded, mind you. Sorry Alone, I enjoyed your post, I just like to pick fights on the internet every now and then, and also promising physical harm to some of your commenters. By the way I'll sexually abuse all the pieces of shit who downvote my comments and I will also beat their mothers

bye

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -17 (19 votes cast)
This was pretty mind-blowin... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 7:07 PM | Posted by Bruce N. Stein: | Reply

This was pretty mind-blowing. Thanks.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
"If you think about the dem... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 8:58 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

"If you think about the demo primed to receive this depiction of lothario as sex addict-- women over 35, i.e. the demo for Shame"

Steve McQueen, director of Shame: "more than half of the movie's audience is male"

http://youtu.be/3dCD9977ARY

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Here's a backwards... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 10:02 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

Here's a backwards example: Tucker Max. His most recent book has more sex in one chapter than all of Shame. The problem is he seems to enjoy it. Is he a sex addict? Not yet, but he damn well better be.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelellsberg/2012/01/18/tucker-max-gives-up-the-game

To be fair, they try to be proactive about it.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"Validation from sex is ... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 10:07 PM | Posted, in reply to porn's comment, by d2: | Reply

"Validation from sex is important, but I think we need to realize that sex itself is important. The physical act. If you don't think that is a basic need, you've never really needed sex. A someone who had to wait till 27 to get laid, I know it all too well."

That you got to 27 years of age without getting laid says that it's not a basic need, and I say that as someone who got to 26.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 10 (16 votes cast)
So funny, the idea that we ... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 10:37 PM | Posted by ginnygeneva@gmail.com: | Reply

So funny, the idea that we just need more Tucker Maxes to legitimize copious coupling. Yeah, right---that'll solve EVERYTHING!!!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I agree thoroughly. Shamefu... (Below threshold)

March 21, 2012 10:46 PM | Posted, in reply to gogo's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I agree thoroughly. Shameful sex is the best. I don't think it's masochistic though. But, like, being 15 and getting away with something that is still kind of really wrong? AWESOME.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
Hi, This is not related to ... (Below threshold)

March 22, 2012 3:59 PM | Posted by con: | Reply

Hi, This is not related to the topic here, however this is the only way I could find to reach you. I am curious about if you have read Anatomy of an Epidemic by Whitaker, and what your opinion about him is.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
you might also try TLP's fa... (Below threshold)

March 22, 2012 4:57 PM | Posted, in reply to con's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

you might also try TLP's facebook page. If you have a FB account I think you can send a message.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Porn,You said you ... (Below threshold)

March 22, 2012 5:03 PM | Posted, in reply to porn's comment, by Phil A.: | Reply

Porn,

You said you feel empathy for people, but then you said that the only thing stopping you from violently raping people is retaliation? There's a word for what you're doing here, and it's called "lying". You can't just switch empathy on or off (although you can numb it or increase it with work over time).

Maybe you just don't feel empathy towards women?

Anyway, sex is not a biological necessity. You can live a full life without having sex. The only biological need your body has is occasional "evacuation", to put it politely. Either through your own hand (har har) or your body will just do it while you sleep. One way or the other, that is the only biological necessity.

Sex, apparently for you, is a psychological need. You keep complaining about how you have to have it, but you don't. Not physically anyway.

If you're not happy when you're not having sex, then find a way to get over it. Even married guys have to spend time away from their wives, or at least must be celibate after the birth of a child for a couple months while their wife heals. What would you do? Cheat, just because you "need" sex?

You should actually interact with what people are saying to you here, if you want feedback. Just repeatedly posting, "I need sex, and your advice is bad because otherwise I might rape people or something" isn't going to get you anywhere, because TLP generally doesn't respond to comments.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
z,that's actually ... (Below threshold)

March 22, 2012 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to Z. Constantine's comment, by puppylander: | Reply

z,

that's actually an interesting question...

(though i'm specifically thinking of most strands of contemporary christianity, so maybe it's not quite right for me to extrapolate across all religions, nevertheless...)

what i mean to express is that religion, as practiced today, has gotten away from "health"--despite claiming to be good for you. a lot of religion today seems to me to be a kind of psycho/emotional pill-popping (pejorative). that is, fleeting, feel-good, temporary high, underlying torment/anguish unresolved, false sense of happiness, continued deeper frustration/anger (esp. directed at "other"). in these respects, the "religion" practiced at westboro baptist church is not so different. so, in this sense (though overall also), i'm "against" westboro baptist.

but, the specific question of homosexuality turns a bit differently for me. dodgier. could be confirmation bias, but i find a streak of unusual self-absorption in a number of gays i know. it's not homosexuality per se that troubles me, rather it's the attendant self-absorption. correlative or causal? can't be sure, but i can see possibilities for causal. (so lately, i've found myself shaking my head at the 15-35 yr olds i know, a lot of american "liberals", a lot of american "conservatives".) and in this sense, the religious proscription against homosexuality is not really much different from the proscription against other vices--greed, gluttony, lust, wrath, etc. i'm hedging, of course, to say that westboro baptist is potentially right, in the way that "even a stopped clock is right twice a day".

so, getting back to point, i'm of the view that the original incarnations of religion (see jordan peterson for takes that i largely agree with) were no less about one's mental and emotional health--and when properly understood and applied, worked. today, churches like westboro baptist don't understand, misapply... and the result is a kind of inflicted living hell (for themselves and for others).

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
A common theme in TLP's pos... (Below threshold)

March 23, 2012 1:11 AM | Posted by thestage: | Reply

A common theme in TLP's posts is is that society is perfectly content to peddle misery for its own gain, even that misery is built into the system, that the system needs you to define yourself in terms of it in order for it to maintain the status quo. Which seems fairly true to me. We can, like Foucalt, move through specific social subsystems with a magnifying glass to prove it to be so if we like; or we can, like TLP, move through specific objects (the movie) or cases (Tucker Max)looking for the symptoms. Where the latter differs from the former, however, is that TLP is at least somewhat interested in teaching us how to live in a world like this. Chalk it up to his profession, I guess.

But the conclusions always seem to be of the form "society will press you to ruin, here is how you are trapped in misery by some unfortunate collusion of your own mental sphere and the society which has informed or created that mental sphere...but the only way out of it is to conform back to that society's expectations, which also go hand in hand with your misery." Essentially, if you do not opt in you will always be the miserable man in the corner. Social living is a process by which living a certain way under certain rules produces misery, but which seeing the rules for what they are and opting out of them in some way brings no relief; rather, one is then required to opt back in under some uneasy intellectual compromise if one is to even try to repair the damage. Call it the Dostoyevskian dialectic, I guess. Didn't really work for him, though. Maybe Joyce is the model. What I am saying is the conclusions seem themselves to be practical dead ends. Once you go down the whole you not only never come back, but you're not really going to find anything down there in the first place.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
i hugely disfavor talking a... (Below threshold)

March 23, 2012 8:40 AM | Posted by puppylander: | Reply

i hugely disfavor talking about society as a discrete entity--the same way i disfavor talking about government as a discrete entity. both are merely agglomeration of humans--seeing them as monolithic (for lack of a better term) is to treat an emergent property of a thing as if it were the thing itself. (not to mention ignores that, to someone else, you are part of "the rest of society".)

but other than that, i think your explanation is fairly true.

where it gets interesting is the notion of misery--and the other side of the coin, happiness. (is every "misery" bad? every "happiness" good? i put the terms in quotes because i think there are ambiguities of definition.) (anyhow, asked because, there seems to be this view, in america at least, that indeed, every "misery" is bad and every "happiness" is good. there's a case to be made that this view is incorrect--and a failure to correct brings its own [different] miseries.)

there are a couple of spots in this conversation where a strange proposition rears its head. (not your comment, just me riffing.) that is, a somewhat vague proposition that the individual knows (or will know) what's best; that society doesn't; ergo, that society is the problem. (not untrue that the individual can know what's best--but doesn't seem to me it would follow that the individual does or will know what's best.) inferred from a comment here or there that seems to bristle at the idea of "inarguable". that is, morality or science are objectionable on grounds that each demands acceptance--i.e., neither are subject to negotiation. this suggestion feels a bit wrongheaded. (why should everything be subject to negotiation?) (this paragraph only relevant in the sense that the content parallels the prevalent notions of all "misery" is bad and all "happiness" is good.)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
oops. above meant in respon... (Below threshold)

March 23, 2012 8:48 AM | Posted by puppylander: | Reply

oops. above meant in response to thestage.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
The above three comments ma... (Below threshold)

March 23, 2012 11:59 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

The above three comments make me wish we didn't have free speech. Also Gabe's.
Just to see if I can laugh (and not just feel sick) maybe you guys should take your assumptions and actually argue at least one of them, preferably the weaker arguments. Like you would in college. Especially the comment that was like, "well of course one could explain." Oh, then please do. Misery isn't misery! Happiness isn't happiness! Only an American would think that! (Hear the superiority there?).
Also, has anyone commenting on Tucker Max actually read one of his books? I love how the one guy was like, "TLP is trying to give us an example..." An example of a perpetually-drunk-college-student that sleeps around a lot and that likes big fake titties? Yeah, well, thanks TLP. Thanks a lot. You're still a genius.
Also, the implied twinship some people feel they have for TLP? (I'm reminded of a particularly disturbing comment in an earlier post: "You make me want to be a better man!"--and women, what, what do they make you want? Or your family? Or yourself?...Then there's the speaking for TLP. "TLP would say..." What would you all say? In normal english without paraphrasing what you got from, say, Foucault? Why is misery not misery and happiness not happiness? And why is that not Orwellian doublespeak?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 5 (9 votes cast)
TLP PLEASE DO A POST ON ACA... (Below threshold)

March 23, 2012 12:48 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

TLP PLEASE DO A POST ON ACADEMY AWARD WINNER BEST PICTURE THE ARTIST.... So much fodder and Right in your wheelhouse

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
I saw the title and picture... (Below threshold)

March 24, 2012 12:48 PM | Posted by Myrmecodon: | Reply

I saw the title and picture on this post and thought it was about Louis CK, plz post on his current misadventures TLP, we are all breathlessly waiting for more narcissism stories we can blame ourselves for.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
"When you see the word "... (Below threshold)

March 24, 2012 4:21 PM | Posted by Supracon: | Reply

"When you see the word "society" look ahead and to the right, psychiatry is in a window with its scope on you."

I just got it: "back and to the left"--> JFK

psychiatry is part of a conspiracy against "freedoms"

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
" Its biologically necessar... (Below threshold)

March 24, 2012 4:50 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

" Its biologically necessary. Do I still want a GF? Yes. Do I still want to date? Yes. Do I still want other kinds of relationships? Yes. But I NEED sex. "

I would argue that long term love and reliable affection and validation are also very real "needs" as least as much as the "need" for sex depending on the person.

And I would guess you define a horrible woman, as a woman who NEEDS love in order to be ok. Ironically, you are the equals of each other which is why you find such women so easy to manipulate despite that you fail on your end of the deal (the love is what the women are hoping for after the sex right? You bail at that point and then say the women are crazy for NEEDING love after you use them for sex)


Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
I'm female, and I like sex.... (Below threshold)

March 24, 2012 6:14 PM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm female, and I like sex. If you think people give Tucker Max a hard time for freely enjoying himself, try to imagine if you will what they do to me for being essentially the same person.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Wait, so you're saying you'... (Below threshold)

March 24, 2012 11:06 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by tim: | Reply

Wait, so you're saying you're a female narcissist and then complaining about how people give you a hard time...? What?

Or maybe not...and you should reconsider who you compare yourself to :\

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
you find such wome... (Below threshold)

March 25, 2012 2:13 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

you find such women so easy to manipulate

In case you missed his other posts, he says he's an ugly beta with no outstanding attributes, and also says he would commit rape if there were no chance of getting caught.

He says these things, not because he frequently oversteps women's boundaries, but because he (as with most betas) has no clue where the boundaries are, and struggles to understand how women can enjoy any form of submission.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -6 (8 votes cast)
On what grounds do you call... (Below threshold)

March 25, 2012 1:24 PM | Posted, in reply to tim's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

On what grounds do you call Tucker Max a narcissist?
On the other hand, on this board apparently everybody is one, by nature of existing. But seriously, what makes you so sure?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
Whereas alpha males are so ... (Below threshold)

March 25, 2012 1:25 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Whereas alpha males are so good with boundary issues?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
Alphas know how and when to... (Below threshold)

March 25, 2012 8:56 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Alphas know how and when to push boundaries in order to get what they want.
Your average beta's favorite chapter of any PUA manual is "when is it OK to touch the female?"
For betas, the problem isn't shame, it's guilt over male privilege/sexuality.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -8 (8 votes cast)
I suspect the men I love th... (Below threshold)

March 25, 2012 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I suspect the men I love the most would all be considered betas. They take care of their women. My grandmas were from the generation when men were supposed to do that. That was what made them men, actually. Take care of the women and kids. My dad too. It does not seem to apply anymore. It seems like all this alpha stuff is about adopting certain behaviors to get laid. It's like bottoming from the top or topping from the bottom or something. I dunno. I know that marriages used to last and everybody was taken care of then. Not anymore.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
"Alpha", "beta", etc... are... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"Alpha", "beta", etc... are merely designations of one's level of comfort within social situations.
On one end, you have the extreme "beta" - the awkward pushover doormat Nice Guy.
On the other end, you have the extreme "alpha", the charming narcissistic social chameleon.

Guys that are somewhere between the ends of the spectrum often serve as good family men, but for the worst "betas", the issue is being comfortable enough around women to be able to start a relationship in the first place.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
Tucker Max is in psychother... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 2:58 AM | Posted by Allie Celeste: | Reply

Tucker Max is in psychotherapy, and he no longer wants to continue with the life style that made him famous. (Although, being rich and famous, he could.)Perhaps the whole thing was psychologically damaging to him.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
The censors definitely do h... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 9:24 AM | Posted, in reply to Gabe Ruth's comment, by Lynn: | Reply

The censors definitely do have the power to tell the producers to cut out scenes in order to avoid a "worse" rating. Watch *This Film Is Not Yet Rated* to learn some about how MPAA movie ratings work.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"I suspect the men I love t... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

"I suspect the men I love the most would all be considered betas. They take care of their women. My grandmas were from the generation when men were supposed to do that. That was what made them men, actually."

I suspect that this is the problem with the whole alpha/beta philosophy. There's no moral dimension anymore, and a man is no longer defined what what he does but by who he does. "Alpha" should (and perhaps did) mean that you could be a confident, assertive man who could easily pick up women, while also being dependable, (generally) moral, and so on.

Now it's just about sex.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I'm not so sure. I mean, my... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

I'm not so sure. I mean, my grandpas and my dad are great, and were good catches, but able to pick up woman easily?! Ha. No way. My one grandpa was raised so religiously he couldn't say "I love you" to his own kids, let alone hug them, although it was apparent in other ways he loved them and my grandmother very much. My other grandpa never talked hardly at all ever. And when he did it took him forever to say what he wanted; he just wasn't a talker. (Raised in the Deep South, not around a ton of other people). (He talked so slow even after he moved to L.A., for awhile when I was little I thought he might be a zombie, and I was a little afraid of him). Neither of them were hot, they were just nice, sturdy-type men you could depend on. My dad was a falling down drunk when he met my mother and he changed mainly because my mother is fierce and determined and she made him change, and he became a family man and successful. But adept with women, not until after he made a whole bunch of money and got divorced. I thought he looked like Robert Redford when I was little but that was seeing through the eyes of love. He's just kind of ordinary, but with exceptional people skills and a very healthy ambition. I think everyone's an alpha for the right person. :-)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
mine is not that hard a con... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by puppylander: | Reply

mine is not that hard a concept to grasp. think of the old expression "no pain, no gain". reflect on it, and you'll understand what i'm talking about.

otherwise, misery that isn't really misery is just a simple example of language being imprecise--the ideas represented by words can be ill-conceived. none of this should be new (or surprising) to anyone, so there's not really any need for argumentation... unless by "college", you mean "freshman".

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
""Alpha" should (and perhap... (Below threshold)

March 26, 2012 10:39 PM | Posted by Allie Celeste: | Reply

""Alpha" should (and perhaps did) mean that you could be a confident, assertive man who could easily pick up women, while also being dependable, (generally) moral, and so on.

Now it's just about sex."

Maybe to some drunk chick in a bar or people of similar caliber having sex with as many women as possible is the true badge of honor. But to a lot of us, it's not. When I was a very little girl, I really wanted to marry my daddy. He was the manliest, most impressive man I knew. Now, 20 years later, it's still true. I like men who are just like my father- smart, funny, dependable, responsible, interesting, knowledgeable about many things, independent thinkers who are confident in their well researched opinions, yet willing to hear new information and with hobbies they enjoy. If a man isn't well respected by his peers, he is, usually, not much of an "alpha". If he doesn't value his own seed enough to make sure his kids are taken care of in every way, you know what he thinks of his own DNA. Having defective specimen abandon their own young is nature's way to cull the herd. I guess the women who are impressed with such men are also selected by nature as poor choices for mothers of quality offsprings. It makes sense to waist a drunk's eggs on a pick up artist.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
independent thinke... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 1:43 AM | Posted, in reply to Allie Celeste's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

independent thinkers who are confident in their well researched opinions
Did you know that people who speak with "confidence" are more than likely spouting ideology, rather than facts? This has been well researched; perhaps you should look into it.

Unless of course, you think being believable is more important than being accurate.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (7 votes cast)
Well, since the people I sp... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 2:01 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Well, since the people I speak of I know really well, I know they don't just spout bullshit.* You'll also notice that I finished that phrase with "yet willing to hear new information". Basically, a real man forms his own opinions about issues that are important to him through research and his personal values, and he is not easily cowered. He isn't a mindless follower, and while he might not be a born leader of an army, he can, at least, be a strong leader to his own children. My dad, probably, never won a fist fight, but I've always felt safe around him. He has his strengths and weaknesses, but he always made sure his family was alright.

* It takes getting to know me really well to get into my pants. By the time I make love to a man, I know he isn't just posturing. Besides, those with confidence in their views are relaxed about it while those reciting dogma are usually frustrated and ready for a fight.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
^^^^^^^^That's my co... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 2:19 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Allie Celeste: | Reply

^^^^^^^^
That's my comment above.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
LOL, the whole expression "... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 5:49 AM | Posted by Anonymous: | Reply

LOL, the whole expression "alpha" reminds me of this guy I knew once...modeled his whole idealized reality on the behavior of wolf packs...doesn't that say it all?
The kind of guy who would spend time deciding, if both Gillian Anderson and Kim Bassinger wanted him, how he'd split his time between the two of them equitably...
Called himself a shamen, felt his BDSM was "really spiritual" and wished fervently he could share his "lifestyle" with his parents, since it was so "meaningful." I can't quite explain it, but something's wrong there.
When one of his gf got preg, named the baby after his other gf...

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Unintended irony claims ano... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 7:11 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Gabe Ruth: | Reply

Unintended irony claims another victim in brutal fashion. There oughta be a law.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
everybody spouts ideology a... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 11:35 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

everybody spouts ideology all the time.
anyway, how do you distinguish between ideology and whatever other bullshit that comes out of people' mouths? What makes what you term ideology especially bad? serious question. it all seems about equal to me.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
I'll give you examples...</... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 1:54 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Allie Celeste: | Reply

I'll give you examples...

Music

Teenager ideology:
People who listen to Justin Beiber suck! Nu metal fans are even worse- a bunch of posers. People who REALLY get it, aren't just a bunch of pussies, don't just follow the herd and can appreciate musical craft listen to real metal.

My fiance: Do you want to come to these 763695734652395692 metal concerts with me? Yes, I LOVE metal, especially the A, B and C kind, but not so much the X, Y, Z kind because A and B kinds are just more fine tuned and seem to require a lot more thought and talent, and C is something I listened to since I was a kid. Well, NO. I'll prove to you that A metal is better than X because of blah, blah, blah. No, no, I'll get you a book about the history and you MUST listen to these 865786 bands. Okay, sure I'll get you a CD of X since you like it. Yes, I'll go to the Justin Beiber concert with you since it's a long drive and I don't want you to go alone. I know you were really looking forward to that concert, and I'm glad I'll get to see you have such a great time.

The above example was illustrating the difference between people who like something just to build an image , so they despise everyone with different tastes and people who like the things they truly, passionately enjoy, want to share those things, but still easily respect the tastes of others, even if those tastes are somewhat less refined. My fiance is like that and my daddy is the same way- they both really like their hobbies, fandoms, other, in spite of what's not popular or too popular, but they aren't defined by these things. They already have strong identities, and don't need subcultures to define them.

Politics

Rabbid Ron Paul supporter ideology:
Ron Paul is the only real choice we have, as far as presidentioal candidates go. If you don't vote for Ron Paul, you are either a retard or a traitor. You people just don't think! All the other candidates are exactly the same. You are all just sheep being led to the slaughter by the sold out politicians and greedy corporations. Everyone;s so stupid. Ron Paul knows how America was meant to be.

My fiance:
What, me? I'm supporting Ron Paul. No, I don't agree with everything he stands for. I'm pro-choice and I don't believe the states should have quite as much power as Ron Paul wants them to. Sure, I can explain why, if you want. Well, OF COURSE, in the end my reasoning stems from my personal values. Isn't that true for everyone?

My dad:
Plague on all of their houses. I've listened to all of them and none of them represent me. No surprises there. I've lived through enough to know that a presidential candidate can't ever really represent a common man's interests. I continue watching the coverage to stay in the loop, but that's it. A common man can influence his own life by tending his own garden, adapting and doing his best. Sure, i'll give you a ride to the voting booth. No, you will not convince me to vote.


I could give a million of other examples. But the unifying themes are: strong confidence in one's own well researched opinions based on one's own personal tastes and values, respect for the opinions and tastes of others, an identity strong enough that it doesn't get defined by a political party, musical genre, internet blog, celebrities, cliques or whatever else even if the person participates in the listed above. And above all, it's the knowledge that one's life's direction is in one's own hands, in those of some imaginary enemy. People who believe that their main problems in life stem from the patriarchy, feminism, liberals, conservatives, Tucker Max, Christians, Britney Spears fans or some other boogie man tend to spew ideology. People who take responsibility to direct their own lives, fix their own faults and strive for happiness tend to think independently. All members of the NOW, Roissy, Tom Leykis, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and members of the Westboro Baptist church, just to name a few, are all about mindless ideologies that explain away their own shortcomings and place blame on someone else. My daddy, fiance, brother, sister and best friends tend to their own gardens and have no need to belong to some group or engage in scape goating. And they are all happier for it.

Does that answer your question?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
Thanks for responding. :-)<... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 6:14 PM | Posted by Carly: | Reply

Thanks for responding. :-)
Wow, you went to a Justin Bieber concert for love? That is amazing. I don't think I could do that.
I see, it sounds like what you are saying is that ideology for you means an identifiable sort of consciousness that is shared by a group of people, primarily for the aim of fitting into a group.
Wikipedia says that as well, I liked what they said in part of the entry on Ideology:
"Psychological research[12] increasingly suggests that ideologies reflect motivational processes, as opposed to the view that political convictions always reflect independent and unbiased thinking. Research in 2008[12] proposed that ideologies may function as prepackaged units of interpretation that spread because of basic human motives to understand the world, avoid existential threat, and maintain valued interpersonal relationships. The authors conclude that such motives may lead disproportionately to the adoption of system-justifying worldviews. Psychologists have generally found that personality traits, individual difference variables, needs, and ideological beliefs seem to have a common thread."
-Carly

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
No, NO! That was an extreme... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 8:15 PM | Posted, in reply to Carly's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

No, NO! That was an extreme, exaggerated example. I haven't really been to a Justin Beiber concert. But, my little sister is really into Twilight, and she was embarrassed about it because she knows the writing is crap, and I told her she doesn't have to apologize for enjoying something. And then I bought her one of the books in the series and that DVD. So, yeah, it's kind of the same thing. And, I'd like to think that I WOULD go to a Beiber concert for love with a smile on my face. Hopefully, I'll never be tested like that, but if I will be, I intend to do my best to raise to the occasion. The important thing is that your loved one has a good time without being shamed by you, ya know, not that your ears will get raped for 2 hours straight.

And yes, I think you got my meaning. And my original point about how the whole alpha/beta thing is bullshit was also referring to things like... my dad proudly wearing the pink hat a knitted for him at his 30th birthday party(I only had pink yarn when I was 5, and I couldn't ask for a different color because then the gift wouldn't be a surprise) and taking all the pictures in that hat. And when his cool friends came over one by one with their DJ crap and beers, laughing and asking what's up with the gay hat, he would reply all nonchalant-like, "Yeah, that's my favorite hat. You understand nothing about fashion, dork." Dad might not be able to beat up anybody, being a short math and physics nerd, but he has enough self-confidence to wear a pink hat his daughter made without apologetically explaining it. And he's that way about everything. Can't peer pressure him. Can't make him pretend to be someone he's not. Life might have knocked him around a bit with set backs and rejection(just like everyone else), but he never lost his kindness, humor and faith in himself. And my fiance is the same way.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
^^^^^^^^^^Me again. ... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 8:19 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Allie Celeste: | Reply

^^^^^^^^^^
Me again. I keep forgetting to fill out my name.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
That's nice. I wish I'd alw... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 8:22 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by carly: | Reply

That's nice. I wish I'd always been that good with my daughter.

If you think the Twilight books are horrible, you should check out Stephenie Meyer's new book (on her website) on aliens. I think it is the worst book in the history of the world. And I mean that.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
How can anything be of wors... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 8:43 PM | Posted, in reply to carly's comment, by Allie Celeste: | Reply

How can anything be of worse quality than Twilight? I'm afraid to look. Although... is it so crappy that it reaches the point of becoming entertaining as a joke?

I was stuck in a hospital for a full day once with a book someone recommended. I was led to believe it was fantasy/sifi. Turned out it was a horrifically written romance novel where the writer abandoned all the plot points to concentrate on the tomboyish girl who couldn't decide between the gorgeous, powerful son of the Sun God and a beautiful, talented magical prince both of whom were madly in love with her. The whole thing was written in a very serious tone too. The novel was so bad, it crossed over zero and began to gain negative value. I actually sorta enjoyed it in a perverted point-and-laugh way.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
No. Her new book does not b... (Below threshold)

March 27, 2012 9:11 PM | Posted, in reply to Allie Celeste's comment, by Carly: | Reply

No. Her new book does not become so-bad-it's-funny.
They should read it in hostage situations. The criminal would let everyone go and surrender immediately. Had this book been read over speakers in Waco, a peaceful resolution would have been reached and the Branch Davidians would have abandoned their weapons and come out with their hands up.
Either that or, ha ha, they would hear it and start an even weirder new religion based on it, ho ho.
It's a bad, bad book.

If you have any tips for dealing with kids (it sounds like you have a handle on the whole tween/teen thing) please let me know. I have a fifteen year old who goes for a month at a time without speaking to me, apparently for no reason. We don't live together, not because I did something horrible, but because myself and my partner split up. ..I sent her very valuable art she wanted for a long time recently and still she won't speak. It is the worst punishment in the world. And she won't say what I did. Just "I'm busy Mom." For a month at a time?! She won't even call once a week even though I said she doesn't have to talk, just to say she's okay. At first I sat around and worried she was dead or hurt all the time, but now I'm forcing myself to carry on although there is this disconcerting sense that I could start crying and lose it at any moment, a sort of do-not-disturb of the soul or something. :-( Fragile.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
That's terrible, Carly. I'm... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 3:25 AM | Posted, in reply to Carly's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

That's terrible, Carly. I'm truly sorry to hear you're going through that. My parents divorced when I was 15...

I'm just a stupid person from the internet, and i might get the whole thing wrong, but here's my take on it, since you asked:

This is a situation where you, as a parent, have to sacrifice by leaving yourself wide open for being hurt over and over and over again. I know that if you could have one person in the world not reject you, you'd pick your kid, but kids often forget that their parents have feelings and needs, and yet you always have to remember about theirs. I believe that unless you are a mass murderer or a child rapist, it's in the best interest of your child to have regular visitations with you. Is there a court order? Could you get one? Might your ex partner agree to enforce something like this? Now, the thing is that your daughter might see these visitations as forced and something that's done to her against her will. I can't stress enough how little that should matter. Most parents out there are utterly lame, boring, embarrassing and less interesting than a middle of the road TV show. And yet, extreme situations aside, kids are always better off with their parents present in their lives. Kids with parents do better than orphans and kids with 2 parents do better than kids raised by single parents. You need to establish a routine. For example, you could do something every Saturday morning and have dinner every Tuesday night. Your daughter will probably complain about it and roll her eyes at the whole thing, but she'll get used to it and it will be greatly to her benefit. The best thing for her and for the sake of your long lasting relationship is for you to absorb the pain of as much vocal rejection as she throws at you and keep on seeing her/being in contact with her regularly and consistently. You can try bribing her with activities she like/dining our, or if you can't afford it- sandwiches at your place are just fine. Parents make kids do things for their own good all the time. Your daughter NEEDS you in her life, even if she doesn't know it at 15 (unless you raped her kitten in front of her). In 10 years, she'll need memories of being in consistent contact with her mom, even if right now it'll be a big, lame chore.

This must really, really suck for you. I hope you have someone to give you hugs and listen to you about this. However, you probably won't get your daughter to be that person for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, that's very normal. More often than not, children see themselves as the needy party rather than the caring party until their parents are very old and frail. Expecting her to be nice to you because you bought her a nice gift is coming at it from an entirely wrong place. She isn't supposed to be in contact with you because it's a nice thing to do, and you deserve for her to be nice to you. No. She is supposed to be in contact with you because it's the rule- the correct way of doing things. And if she doesn't like it today, she'll understand later why it's so crucial for her and for your long term relationship. If your ex-partner truly cares about your daughter, he/she must help enforce this routine. Btw, if i didn't make this clear already: you don't have to be educated, hip or a perfect parent for your regular presence to be hugely beneficial for your daughter. Most mothers worry about ya in annoying ways, offer unremarkable pearls of wisdom and have an array of annoying habits. It's called personalized normalcy, and kids need it. We couldn't go without and not suffer damage to ourselves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
That's terrible, Carly. I'm... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 3:26 AM | Posted by Allie Celeste: | Reply

That's terrible, Carly. I'm truly sorry to hear you're going through that. My parents divorced when I was 15...

I'm just a stupid person from the internet, and i might get the whole thing wrong, but here's my take on it, since you asked:

This is a situation where you, as a parent, have to sacrifice by leaving yourself wide open for being hurt over and over and over again. I know that if you could have one person in the world not reject you, you'd pick your kid, but kids often forget that their parents have feelings and needs, and yet you always have to remember about theirs. I believe that unless you are a mass murderer or a child rapist, it's in the best interest of your child to have regular visitations with you. Is there a court order? Could you get one? Might your ex partner agree to enforce something like this? Now, the thing is that your daughter might see these visitations as forced and something that's done to her against her will. I can't stress enough how little that should matter. Most parents out there are utterly lame, boring, embarrassing and less interesting than a middle of the road TV show. And yet, extreme situations aside, kids are always better off with their parents present in their lives. Kids with parents do better than orphans and kids with 2 parents do better than kids raised by single parents. You need to establish a routine. For example, you could do something every Saturday morning and have dinner every Tuesday night. Your daughter will probably complain about it and roll her eyes at the whole thing, but she'll get used to it and it will be greatly to her benefit. The best thing for her and for the sake of your long lasting relationship is for you to absorb the pain of as much vocal rejection as she throws at you and keep on seeing her/being in contact with her regularly and consistently. You can try bribing her with activities she like/dining our, or if you can't afford it- sandwiches at your place are just fine. Parents make kids do things for their own good all the time. Your daughter NEEDS you in her life, even if she doesn't know it at 15 (unless you raped her kitten in front of her). In 10 years, she'll need memories of being in consistent contact with her mom, even if right now it'll be a big, lame chore.

This must really, really suck for you. I hope you have someone to give you hugs and listen to you about this. However, you probably won't get your daughter to be that person for the next 20 years. Unfortunately, that's very normal. More often than not, children see themselves as the needy party rather than the caring party until their parents are very old and frail. Expecting her to be nice to you because you bought her a nice gift is coming at it from an entirely wrong place. She isn't supposed to be in contact with you because it's a nice thing to do, and you deserve for her to be nice to you. No. She is supposed to be in contact with you because it's the rule- the correct way of doing things. And if she doesn't like it today, she'll understand later why it's so crucial for her and for your long term relationship. If your ex-partner truly cares about your daughter, he/she must help enforce this routine. Btw, if i didn't make this clear already: you don't have to be educated, hip or a perfect parent for your regular presence to be hugely beneficial for your daughter. Most mothers worry about ya in annoying ways, offer unremarkable pearls of wisdom and have an array of annoying habits. It's called personalized normalcy, and kids need it. We couldn't go without and not suffer damage to ourselves.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oh, and I was not trying to... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 3:30 AM | Posted, in reply to Carly's comment, by Allie Celeste: | Reply

Oh, and I was not trying to suggest that YOU aren't all kinds of hip and interesting, only that this shouldn't be about getting your daughter to like you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Allie you have daddy issues... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 5:15 AM | Posted, in reply to Allie Celeste's comment, by Anonymous: | Reply

Allie you have daddy issues.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (8 votes cast)
OK. I hear what you're sayi... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 11:33 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Carly: | Reply

OK. I hear what you're saying. Stay in contact even if she treats me really badly. I had a feeling that was what I should do but sometimes I get confused about it. It certainly feels counter-intuitive sometimes. Thank you very much.
You also write really well. I think you sound good enough to publish. Have a good day. :-)

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Yeah, it is really maladjus... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 11:45 AM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Carly: | Reply

Yeah, it is really maladjusted she likes her dad and he treated her well.
I can't imagine what's wrong with you to go after a stranger on the internet just because she's happy with her relationship with her father.
Only you could enlighten us but that would require insight into yourself.
I'm not holding my breath.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
"Allie you have daddy issue... (Below threshold)

March 28, 2012 12:43 PM | Posted, in reply to Anonymous's comment, by Phil A: | Reply

"Allie you have daddy issues."

Sounds like she actually doesn't have daddy issues. She respects him, and looks up to him as a solid model of masculinity. If it makes you uncomfortable that her father was her first love, that's fine, but I would argue that it's a normal developmental stage. The reason some women might have daddy issues is because, at the stage they should be modelling their concept of men off of their father, their father is a poor model. That's daddy issues.

Loving your father and respecting him for the right reasons doesn't qualify.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Your website is so much nic... (Below threshold)

April 8, 2012 11:54 PM | Posted by buy-mlbjerseys: | Reply

Your website is so much nice i would like to see all the posts but i have dont enough time to do it. Over all i loved your all the articles

buy mlb jerseys

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Great read. Thank you.... (Below threshold)

April 20, 2012 10:38 AM | Posted by Will Savage: | Reply

Great read. Thank you.

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Bienvenue à... (Below threshold)

May 2, 2012 11:44 PM | Posted by tn requin: | Reply


Bienvenue à - http://www.tnstocker.com ----

meilleur sevice de la manière suivante:

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Doctor this blog makes me h... (Below threshold)

June 21, 2012 12:48 PM | Posted by Tam: | Reply

Doctor this blog makes me hot. I need to see this movie, I have been mastrubating while I read it all morning. Doctor does this make me a naughty girl? I'm just so hot and wet do I need your help or does everybody get excited by your writing?

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I want to jump on the guy w... (Below threshold)

June 21, 2012 1:20 PM | Posted by Tam: | Reply

I want to jump on the guy who writes this blog and ride him like a stallion! I want him to lick my pussy and fuck me in the ass. This blog is better than a movie, you should call it "read and ride" !

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
I know! It makes my nether ... (Below threshold)

June 21, 2012 9:55 PM | Posted by Trilby: | Reply

I know! It makes my nether regions tingle!~

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
What are your nether region... (Below threshold)

June 21, 2012 11:04 PM | Posted by Tam : | Reply

What are your nether regions like Trilby? Maybe I can get off on you. Hot and ready! Wet now!

Vote up Vote down Report this comment Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Post a Comment


Live Comment Preview

November 27, 2014 15:30 PM | Posted by Anonymous: