Big D*ck Inferiority Complex

Off Topic
543

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Why not?

They have heard it all and they probably could not care less.

And, without doing that work you will always be a clown doing carnie tricks when it comes to game, you cannot simply do, you have to be.[/quote]

By the time we get to your third paragraph, we’re talking about different things. I have no problem with the idea of addressing outer game, and some non-specific inner game problems, with a coach. But I would not trust very personal issues with such a person. I don’t care if they’ve heard it all. Licensed therapists are ethically and legally bound to confidentiality, and that is one of the supreme triumphs of talk therapy since Freud essentially invented it. I am, in many ways, a private person; I would want to make sure that privacy remained intact.

At any rate, none of this applies to me, personally. So, with those caveats understood, each person can make his own choice based upon the evidence available.[/quote]

I trust persons, not degrees.

I trust success, not rules of engagement.

I think your obsession with ethical rules is meaningless insofar as those rules are only valid insofar as a quality person is willing to live up to them, and no amount of education actually can instill moral fiber.

The rock, Nephorm.

Let it go…

544

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

Sooooo…

These nasty, brutish animals do have a soul?

They have rules to live by?

Emily, are you learning game?

545

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

Sooooo…

These nasty, brutish animals do have a soul?

They have rules to live by?

Emily, are you learning game?[/quote]

Huh? When have I ever called men nasty, brutish animals? I like men! They’re hairy and warm and snuggly and have interesting pieces that I don’t have. They have attitudes that I find both shocking and delicious, depending. They are protective and growly and vulnerable, each of which is nice in its proper time and place.

YOU make silly generalizations, including that all women are anti-male. They’re not. Wasn’t it me who questioned your lesbian author’s ability to relate to others because she made such unflattering assumptions about all men, until she “became” one and began making nasty assumptions about all women instead?

Yeah. It was me.

546

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

Sooooo…

These nasty, brutish animals do have a soul?

They have rules to live by?

Emily, are you learning game?[/quote]

Huh? When have I ever called men nasty, brutish animals? I like men! They’re hairy and warm and snuggly and have interesting pieces that I don’t have. They have attitudes that I find both shocking and delicious, depending. They are protective and growly and vulnerable, each of which is nice in its proper time and place.

YOU make silly generalizations, including that all women are anti-male. They’re not. Wasn’t it me who questioned your lesbian author’s ability to relate to others because she made such unflattering assumptions about all men, until she “became” one and began making nasty assumptions about all women instead?

Yeah. It was me.[/quote]

Nononono…

It seems to me that you have acepted that men are different creatures from women, and that you have accepted that you training was less than instructive when it comes to their needs and how they think, and it seems to me that learning about how they worked improved your success, however you define that, with them tremendously…

How shall we call that?

Da Adventure?

Da Frolicking?

Da Recreation?

Bow to Mysterys furry hat Emily.

547

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

Sooooo…

These nasty, brutish animals do have a soul?

They have rules to live by?

Emily, are you learning game?[/quote]

Huh? When have I ever called men nasty, brutish animals? I like men! They’re hairy and warm and snuggly and have interesting pieces that I don’t have. They have attitudes that I find both shocking and delicious, depending. They are protective and growly and vulnerable, each of which is nice in its proper time and place.

YOU make silly generalizations, including that all women are anti-male. They’re not. Wasn’t it me who questioned your lesbian author’s ability to relate to others because she made such unflattering assumptions about all men, until she “became” one and began making nasty assumptions about all women instead?

Yeah. It was me.[/quote]

Nononono…

It seems to me that you have acepted that men are different creatures from women, and that you have accepted that you training was less than instructive when it comes to their needs and how they think, and it seems to me that learning about how they worked improved your success, however you define that, with them tremendously…

How shall we call that?

Da Adventure?

Da Frolicking?

Da Recreation?

Bow to Mysterys furry hat Emily. [/quote]

Again, this comes as no surprise to me. Only to you. I have admitted over and over and over again that I see and acknowledge differences. I have no agenda to protect. My frame is strong enough to allow people to be good or bad, nice or not, on an individual basis. My frame is also strong enough to allow me to admit that masculine men (and conservative types) were underrepresented in my education.

What has any of this to do with game? My love life is a source of unending delight to me. I can’t think what more I need. I like men in general, and mine in particular.

Editing to add that yes, I think I can work more successfully with young men with a better understanding of men in general, specifically around sports, heroes, dating, and fighting and aggression. So what? Why do you seem to feel vindicated? I identified a gap in my knowledge base and sought to fill it. You, on the other hand, are told repeatedly that you have gaps in your knowledge base and spend your energy blocking information that might reduce the gap.

548

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:

I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

Sooooo…

These nasty, brutish animals do have a soul?

They have rules to live by?

Emily, are you learning game?[/quote]

Huh? When have I ever called men nasty, brutish animals? I like men! They’re hairy and warm and snuggly and have interesting pieces that I don’t have. They have attitudes that I find both shocking and delicious, depending. They are protective and growly and vulnerable, each of which is nice in its proper time and place.

YOU make silly generalizations, including that all women are anti-male. They’re not. Wasn’t it me who questioned your lesbian author’s ability to relate to others because she made such unflattering assumptions about all men, until she “became” one and began making nasty assumptions about all women instead?

Yeah. It was me.[/quote]

Nononono…

It seems to me that you have acepted that men are different creatures from women, and that you have accepted that you training was less than instructive when it comes to their needs and how they think, and it seems to me that learning about how they worked improved your success, however you define that, with them tremendously…

How shall we call that?

Da Adventure?

Da Frolicking?

Da Recreation?

Bow to Mysterys furry hat Emily. [/quote]

Again, this comes as no surprise to me. Only to you. I have admitted over and over and over again that I see and acknowledge differences. I have no agenda to protect. My frame is strong enough to allow people to be good or bad, nice or not, on an individual basis. My frame is also strong enough to allow me to admit that masculine men (and conservative types) were underrepresented in my education.

What has any of this to do with game? My love life is a source of unending delight to me. I can’t think what more I need. I like men in general, and mine in particular.[/quote]

If that would be true your frame would be so wide as to be nonexistant and what does that have to do with anything?

The point was, you admitted to using reverse game so to speak.

And it works.

Congratulations.

Nobody is less suprised than me.

Now, to that hat…

549

541×811 85.6 KB

…

550

Uhhh, sure. Okay.

551

Just to clear up any confusion, your FRAME is not what you want the world to be, or what you believe the world to be, though that is debatable, ultimately it is what you WILL the world to be.

You hold no such frame unless your name is Gaius Julius Caesar and you have a month named after you.

552

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I know you didn’t mean to bring yourself into it, that was me. I’m sorry to impose.
[/quote]

Please don’t take it that way; I did not mean that you imposed. I just wanted to clarify that my comments were not an attempt at fishing on my part.

My point is that plenty of other men also have these qualities, so there is no reason to trade-down when you can get the best of both worlds. Attractive, interesting, intelligent, Democrat, Republican, etc. are not mutually exclusive. So when someone points out a quality, and singles it out as being attractive, I’m saying that one is improperly viewing that quality in a vacuum because other men will have at least that quality, and will have other exemplary traits, besides.

[quote]
I also agree with orion that psychology and its offshoots are overly feminine in their orientation. I feel that TNation has filled in large gaps in my education. My work with boys and young men has been immeasurably impacted and improved by my reading of these boards.[/quote]

This is probably anachronistic of me, but I never saw Freud as having a feminine orientation, although his theories were certainly put to use by feminists. There’s a big difference between counselling and psychotherapy.

553

[quote]orion wrote:
I trust persons, not degrees.

I trust success, not rules of engagement.

I think your obsession with ethical rules is meaningless insofar as those rules are only valid insofar as a quality person is willing to live up to them, and no amount of education actually can instill moral fiber.
[/quote]

Except, when faced with unknown qualities such as moral fiber and personal ethics, how on earth would you know whether to trust the person? If you’ve known a non-accredited individual for years, and seen how he or she has dealt with situations over all that time, you might be able to form a reasonably educated opinion about how he/she will treat you. Professional standards of conduct and ethics provide a reasonably reliable external indicator. How often do you hear about therapists divulging the content of their patients’ therapy?

554

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I trust persons, not degrees.

I trust success, not rules of engagement.

I think your obsession with ethical rules is meaningless insofar as those rules are only valid insofar as a quality person is willing to live up to them, and no amount of education actually can instill moral fiber.
[/quote]

Except, when faced with unknown qualities such as moral fiber and personal ethics, how on earth would you know whether to trust the person? If you’ve known a non-accredited individual for years, and seen how he or she has dealt with situations over all that time, you might be able to form a reasonably educated opinion about how he/she will treat you. Professional standards of conduct and ethics provide a reasonably reliable external indicator. How often do you hear about therapists divulging the content of their patients’ therapy?[/quote]

Not often, how often do you hear about PUA coaches spilling their beans?

The incentive structure is the same.

As do your first question, you dont.

Just let go.

If he is an ass, can always kick him in the bollocks.

The same is of course true for licensed therapists.

Safety… is an illusion.,

555

[quote]orion wrote:
Not often, how often do you hear about PUA coaches spilling their beans?
[/quote]

How would you hear about it? What is the number of PUA coaches per capita versus licensed therapists?

[quote]
The incentive structure is the same. [/quote]

It is provably different. Therapists won’t even divulge to law enforcement.

Absolute safety is an illusion, mitigating risks is real.

556

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Absolute safety is an illusion, mitigating risks is real. [/quote]

Alright, but this would be dark, dark stuff, you know.

And in that case, even a licensd therapist is obligated to report that to the police.

As far as I know.

557

[quote]orion wrote:
Alright, but this would be dark, dark stuff, you know.

And in that case, even a licensd therapist is obligated to report that to the police.

As far as I know. [/quote]

Here you go: The History and Purpose of Duty to Warn in Therapy

The standard is not “dark.”

558

[quote]nephorm wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Alright, but this would be dark, dark stuff, you know.

And in that case, even a licensd therapist is obligated to report that to the police.

As far as I know. [/quote]

Here you go: The History and Purpose of Duty to Warn in Therapy

The standard is not “dark.”[/quote]

Usually when they snitch on you, you are about to do some very nasty stuff to other people.

I am not going to speculate, in fact I am completely agnostic in all of this, but some of the stuff they would rat you out for is indeed, very, very, dark stuff.

Be that as it may, if it is about stuff that was done to you and not about stuff you have done or would like to do to others, I believe my point still stands.

559
560

[quote] orion wrote:
Usually when they snitch on you, you are about to do some very nasty stuff to other people.

I am not going to speculate, in fact I am completely agnostic in all of this, but some of the stuff they would rat you out for is indeed, very, very, dark stuff.
[/quote]

Socrates is bearded. Socrates is a man. Therefore, all men are bearded.
Faulty syllogism.

[quote]
Be that as it may, if it is about stuff that was done to you and not about stuff you have done or would like to do to others, I believe my point still stands. [/quote]

There’s plenty that someone might not want the world to know, despite the fact that there’s no risk of imminent harm.

561

[quote]nephorm wrote:

There’s plenty that someone might not want the world to know, despite the fact that there’s no risk of imminent harm.[/quote]

True, but there is a lot about me that you could use to “shame” me I guess, but I could kick those person in the bollocks anyway.

Your idea on how much you must protect yourself is intimately tied to your idea how much pain you can dish out if you must.

562

[quote]nephorm wrote:
My point is that plenty of other men also have these qualities, so there is no reason to trade-down when you can get the best of both worlds. Attractive, interesting, intelligent, Democrat, Republican, etc. are not mutually exclusive. So when someone points out a quality, and singles it out as being attractive, I’m saying that one is improperly viewing that quality in a vacuum because other men will have at least that quality, and will have other exemplary traits, besides. [/quote]

Do you really encounter a great number of exceptionally bright, good looking, ethical and interesting men? Recently I have come across one such, the risk director at my former workplace. Very handsome, funny, charming, extremely bright, PhD in psych without being feminine…I’m guessing mid-thirties (married with kids). Anyway, so that’s one who meets the “fab guy in every way” criteria. I also worked with a kid of that sort, but he was gay. A year or so ago I went out with a doctor who is very bright, very fit (a reserve army guy) and while not VERY handsome, pretty good looking. One problem was that he was a little boring. The two dates we went on were LONG. And now, thanks to him, I view my cat as a sociopath because he monologued about brain differences in cats and dogs.

[quote]
This is probably anachronistic of me, but I never saw Freud as having a feminine orientation, although his theories were certainly put to use by feminists. There’s a big difference between counselling and psychotherapy.[/quote]

I think some of the better psych programs do a good job of covering all bases and also attract as many men as women, but by and large there are significantly more women in the field (“field” to include offshoots) than men, and it is influenced in that direction. I also think that men drawn to the work tend to be on the less masculine side. They are relational empathic types, which are traditionally feminine characteristics. My field, social work, is extremely liberal/feminist in its orientation and education. And last I heard, clinical social workers comprise 60% of all therapists in America.