Jump to content
Mental Support Community

Recommended Posts

Is this forum a good outlet. what do you honestly feel. i feel that it is healthy but i have seen many people here misusing their right to free speech by indulging in masochism and other bad things. ii am not referring to klingpeach who is honsetly one of the most upstanding citizens of this community. i honsetly think that despite our difficult lives we must always try to keep our heads above the water and support each other through things.

i have myself not been most responsible. i have at times been insensitive and it's only when such behavior is directed against me do i truly realize how destructive it is.

on the flip side, there is a negative side to this forum. i do honestly think that the positive outweighs the negative but let us mention the negative too just for the sake of a fair assessment. most people's lives are not centered around their dick. when we come to this forum we consciously direct attention to this part of ourselves which to be honest may not be a good idea.(freud once said something to the effect that there is much in man that is new to him and these organs have not grown into him and still give him much trouble)

going back to the positive it is definitely cathartic and dammit everyone needs an outlet for the helplesness we feel. i think we as a group are victimized more than any other section of society and it has to stop.

i think i will start dealing with women really soon in my life because i have not been doing so and i have made a crucial and strategic mistake in my life by not facing the fear of rejection. i think women are far better in this than men and even if a woman rejects you in the worst manner possible it is not as bad as having some dude mocking you. this is an actual fact and i want to hear other people's views on this. i have never had negative reaction from women but have with other men. i have read about women's terrible reactions against men but i have myself never experienced anyting negative simply because i never put myself out there. the worst a woman has done to me is reject me in silence. that's not too bad. in one occasion i read about a woman who couldn't suppress a cackle when the guy stripped. and she prided herself on being an 'A grade bitch.' another woman says .. why are you so antsy is it because you have an oversized clit. these things are terrible but they are nothing compared to what guys do to each other. we wipe out the entire existence of another human being with a single comment or a look. that is the truly punishable part. i want to hear other peoples view on this. back when i was very young i was very arrogant perhaps as a mechanism of compensation. i was once insulted by another male i never forgot that. i spent days measuring myself and looking at myself in the mirror. i saw charts in which pleasure was ranked along side girth and length and i just felt worse and worse. it was not before i went to grad school that i learned the true meaning of life. and that comes down to freud's prescription .. 'work and love. work and love. that's all there is'. now i live by it. i know i will never recover from the realization that i am small even if only in girth but that's what matters or so we are led to believe.

anyway, everyone must face their worst fears at some point or the other and it's what keeps life from being insufferable.

i used to read a lot of freud in my youth because i generally like critical analysis. people know freud for his views on sexuality but he was a theoretician who transcended mere sex. his essay instincts and their vicissitudes is one of the most brilliant piece of writing i have ever come across and it lays the groundwork for his entire theory which lies on a rock solid foundation. he explains in it his core principle --the pleasure principle.i.e. the nature of human beings to seek pleasure and avoid pain. he then explains the reality principle. this comes into operation as a child grows and becomes and adult and realizes that the world cares nothing for his aspirations or desires. in order to reconcile himself to the reality principle he needs a sense of self and also a constructed social self. he must engage in self restriction and this according to him is the germ of neurosis and mental disorders.

there is another book worth mentioning in this context. there is a book called the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. it is about the author's theory that consciousness is an aberration and that in earlier times men were not self conscious in today's sense and were guided by the voices of gods(which came from the right hemisphere of the brain) and they obeyed those commands without excpetion or attention. these voices seemed to come from outside.. it is after cruelty both physical and mental came into existence in society that men became truly conscious and this was a fall from a state of grace. consciousness we may interpret is a sign of pain. the author begins the book not by outlining what consciouness is but wht it isn't. he argues that one doesn't need consciousness to construct sentences oor to play games or walk or do any of the things we enjoy most. consciousness is merely the product of the mind being directed towards itself and the cause is human cruelty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the_anonymous_one said:

 i think women are far better in this than men and even if a woman rejects you in the worst manner possible it is not as bad as having some dude mocking you.

That's not how I feel at all. No guy has ever mocked me and if he did I would just beat the crap out of him. I really don't care what guys think of my dick as I never intend on having sex with a guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so basically you've misunderstood the entire point of my post. please try and understad the point before replying. the point is not that. other men who mock you do so to reduce your status in the eyes of other women so that you become undesirable to them. it impacts your chances of having sex with these women. it's survival of the fittest. and beating the crap out of anyone does not raise your status at all. i've had a person who insulted me after i asked out another girl(who refused). the girl who refused was friends with another girl who was a friend of the person who insulted me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great OP. I do however agree with John. That female insults Hurt more. I have experienced Them. But fewer times than with guys.

And beating the crap out of someone does raise your status in some communities. 

I also like Freud even though i am not so well versed as you. I have reffered many times in here to his penis Envy theory. Even though it has been contested i still think it stands the test og time.

The bigger the size Queen = the more severity of penis envy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issue I have with this forum is the aggressive/passive aggressive/sarcastic replies I sometimes get otherwise the people seem good but a few times I've put a comment in a thread or started one only to get some smarmy sarcastic dude shoot me down. This type of thing doesn't really do wonders for the community atmosphere.

I really think this whole penis envy is out dated I mean I understand its a primal thing but truth of the matter is we generally don't get to see our friends dicks much (thankfully) to compete in that way and besides everyones full of s**t when it comes to their erect sizes. A guy could be small flaccid but be average/above average erect but numbskulls seem to think anyone with a flaccid smaller penis MUST have a smaller erect penis. It doesn't work like that for the most part I mean I am sure some do but the majoity who are "growers" are not still smaller than average erect but it doesn't matter anyway seeing as we've mostly moved on from this ape type behavior. Penis size? pfft. Hey its 2019!!! nows its about who's making the most money, driving the nicest car, has the best job, screws the most women.

These things are something of the modern equivilent I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FloridaDood898 said:

Only issue I have with this forum is the aggressive/passive aggressive/sarcastic replies I sometimes get otherwise the people seem good but a few times I've put a comment in a thread or started one only to get some smarmy sarcastic dude shoot me down. This type of thing doesn't really do wonders for the community atmosphere.

I really think this whole penis envy is out dated I mean I understand its a primal thing but truth of the matter is we generally don't get to see our friends dicks much (thankfully) to compete in that way and besides everyones full of s**t when it comes to their erect sizes. A guy could be small flaccid but be average/above average erect but numbskulls seem to think anyone with a flaccid smaller penis MUST have a smaller erect penis. It doesn't work like that for the most part I mean I am sure some do but the majoity who are "growers" are not still smaller than average erect but it doesn't matter anyway seeing as we've mostly moved on from this ape type behavior. Penis size? pfft. Hey its 2019!!! nows its about who's making the most money, driving the nicest car, has the best job, screws the most women.

These things are something of the modern equivilent I feel.

Are you kidding me??????? You have done nothing but try to shoot me down since I claimed you have been out of the dating scene for a while.

Also you should really read up on the theory behind penis envy before you start making self-righteous/obliviuous comments like the one above.

You make the common mistake of believing it has to do with male penis size comparisons  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy

While you're at it you could also benefit from looking up the word solipsism

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 4/29/2019 at 12:05 PM, the_anonymous_one said:

there is another book worth mentioning in this context. there is a book called the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind. it is about the author's theory that consciousness is an aberration and that in earlier times men were not self conscious in today's sense and were guided by the voices of gods(which came from the right hemisphere of the brain) and they obeyed those commands without excpetion or attention. these voices seemed to come from outside.. it is after cruelty both physical and mental came into existence in society that men became truly conscious and this was a fall from a state of grace. consciousness we may interpret is a sign of pain. the author begins the book not by outlining what consciouness is but wht it isn't. he argues that one doesn't need consciousness to construct sentences oor to play games or walk or do any of the things we enjoy most. consciousness is merely the product of the mind being directed towards itself and the cause is human cruelty.

I read that book and found it very interesting.  It was a long time ago, but my interpretation was different than yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 4/29/2019 at 12:05 PM, the_anonymous_one said:

i used to read a lot of freud in my youth because i generally like critical analysis. people know freud for his views on sexuality but he was a theoretician who transcended mere sex. his essay instincts and their vicissitudes is one of the most brilliant piece of writing i have ever come across and it lays the groundwork for his entire theory which lies on a rock solid foundation. he explains in it his core principle --the pleasure principle.i.e. the nature of human beings to seek pleasure and avoid pain. he then explains the reality principle. this comes into operation as a child grows and becomes and adult and realizes that the world cares nothing for his aspirations or desires. in order to reconcile himself to the reality principle he needs a sense of self and also a constructed social self. he must engage in self restriction and this according to him is the germ of neurosis and mental disorders.

Have you noted that psychological think like Freud, Jung, Adler et al has gone out of style?  Now it's all about inherent tendency and identity.

I have read a lot of psychology and try to diagnose my own neuroses without much success overall though some things are clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah .. clinical psychology has become psychiatry whereas the more academic side of it has been absorbed into cognitive science. it is as a matter of fact out of date. don't try to self diagnose it's an exercise in futility. you will ALWAYS come up with explanations that put you in a good light and you will be literally blind to your faults.

i spent years thinking that my neurosis was due to a very high intelligence whereas the truth is that it was because of an inadequate sexual organ.

you do seem to be an interesting person so i doubt there is very much wrong with you at the core. likely, you have developed any neurosis you might have just as a result of procrastination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, the_anonymous_one said:

well yeah .. clinical psychology has become psychiatry whereas the more academic side of it has been absorbed into cognitive science. it is as a matter of fact out of date. don't try to self diagnose it's an exercise in futility. you will ALWAYS come up with explanations that put you in a good light and you will be literally blind to your faults.

i spent years thinking that my neurosis was due to a very high intelligence whereas the truth is that it was because of an inadequate sexual organ.

you do seem to be an interesting person so i doubt there is very much wrong with you at the core. likely, you have developed any neurosis you might have just as a result of procrastination.

Sorry to butt in here, but do you mean (Vienna Circle) psychological theory is out of date? 

Seems to me it should be up-dated for a less culturally bound, more generally applicable approach, but the baby seems to have been thrown out with the bathwater.

My original self-diagnosis, far from putting myself in a good light, cast myself in a very negative light:  moral flaws in exercising will.  Now I see I was hormonally and genitally inadequate quite beyond the power of any "moral will" to correct.   Hello Dr. Adler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, the_anonymous_one said:

you do seem to be an interesting person so i doubt there is very much wrong with you at the core. likely, you have developed any neurosis you might have just as a result of procrastination.

Divorced has left the site because of personal issues she is handling.  She said she will not be returning.

She has mentioned to some of us and in her posts too that she suffered rather severe abuse in high school and believes herself to be suffering psychologially from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, smallguy said:

Divorced has left the site because of personal issues she is handling.  She said she will not be returning.

She has mentioned to some of us and in her posts too that she suffered rather severe abuse in high school and believes herself to be suffering psychologially from that.

That is too bad.

I for one liked her for her honesty and female perspective on things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2019 at 8:50 PM, smallguy said:

My original self-diagnosis, far from putting myself in a good light, cast myself in a very negative light:  moral flaws in exercising will.  Now I see I was hormonally and genitally inadequate quite beyond the power of any "moral will" to correct.   Hello Dr. Adler!

Does anyone follow Alfred Adler's thinking any more?  He seemed to claim "compensation" for real or imagined mental, social or physical inferiority was the central psychological dynamic of human existence.  He was an associate of Freud, one of the original members of Freud's Vienna Circle.

He wrote a book titled ORGAN INFERIORITY which I read.  It never mentioned, if I recall correctly, the penis.  I wondered if that was because frank discussion of sex was then frowned upon.  Anyway, does anyone know if Adler advocated "compensation" or tried to abolish it?  Or, advised patients to adopt more sensible compensations?

Maybe those of us actually afflicted with a truly small penis should think in terms of rational compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I asking questions instead of googling?   Adler's book full title that lead to his break with Freud wasA Study of Organ Inferiority and Its Psychical Compensation.  .  Seems obvious that Adler, given the basic focus of his psychology should have focused at some point on the problem of perceived or actual genital inferiority!  But, I can't find any information on his recommendations!

Maybe this quote from the article below explains Adler's failure to address "our" issue directly:  "Adler increasingly downplayed Freud’s basic contention that sexual conflicts in early childhood cause mental illness, and he further came to confine sexuality to a symbolic role in human strivings to overcome feelings of inadequacy."

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Adler#ref276945

Alfred Adler

AUSTRIAN PSYCHIATRIST
Alfred Adler, (born February 7, 1870, Penzing, Austria—died May 28, 1937, Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Scotland), psychiatrist whose influential system of individual psychology introduced the term inferiority feeling, later widely and often inaccurately called inferiority complex. He developed a flexible, supportive psychotherapy to direct those emotionally disabled by inferiority feelings toward maturity, common sense, and social usefulness.
Alfred Adler.
Alfred Adler.Universal History Archives/REX/Shutterstock.com

Throughout his life Adler maintained a strong awareness of social problems, and this served as a principal motivation in his work. From his earliest years as a physician (M.D., University of Vienna Medical School, 1895), he stressed consideration of the patient in relation to the total environment, and he began developing a humanistic, holistic approach to human problems.

About 1900 Adler began to explore psychopathology within the context of general medicine and in 1902 became closely associated with Sigmund Freud. Gradually, however, differences between the two became irreconcilable, notably after the appearance of Adler’s Studie über Minderwertigkeit von Organen (1907; Study of Organ Inferiority and Its Psychical Compensation), in which he suggested that persons try to compensate psychologically for a physical disability and its attendant feeling of inferiority. Unsatisfactory compensation results in neurosis. Adler increasingly downplayed Freud’s basic contention that sexual conflicts in early childhood cause mental illness, and he further came to confine sexuality to a symbolic role in human strivings to overcome feelings of inadequacy. Outspokenly critical of Freud by 1911, Adler and a group of followers severed ties with Freud’s circle and began developing what they called individual psychology, first outlined in Über den nervösen Charakter (1912; The Neurotic Constitution). The system was elaborated in later editions of this work and in other writings, such as Menschenkenntnis (1927; Understanding Human Nature).

Individual psychology maintains that the overriding motivation in most people is a striving for what Adler somewhat misleadingly termed superiority (i.e., self-realization, completeness, or perfection). This striving for superiority may be frustrated by feelings of inferiority, inadequacy, or incompleteness arising from physical defects, low social status, pampering or neglect during childhood, or other causes encountered in the course of life. Individuals can compensate for their feelings of inferiority by developing their skills and abilities, or, less healthily, they may develop an inferiority complex that comes to dominate their behaviour. Overcompensation for inferiority feelings can take the form of an egocentric striving for power and self-aggrandizing behaviour at others’ expense.

Each person develops his personality and strives for perfection in his own particular way, in what Adler termed a style of life, or lifestyle. The individual’s lifestyle forms in early childhood and is partly determined by what particular inferiority affected him most deeply during his formative years. The striving for superiority coexists with another innate urge: to cooperate and work with other people for the common good, a drive that Adler termed the social interest. Mental health is characterized by reason, social interest, and self-transcendence; mental disorder by feelings of inferiority and self-centred concern for one’s safety and superiority or power over others. The Adlerian psychotherapist directs the patient’s attention to the unsuccessful, neurotic character of his attempts to cope with feelings of inferiority. Once the patient has become aware of these, the therapist builds up his self-esteem, helps him adopt more realistic goals, and encourages more useful behaviour and a stronger social interest.In 1921 Adler established the first child-guidance clinic in Vienna, soon thereafter opening and maintaining about 30 more there under his direction. Adler first went to the United States in 1926 and became visiting professor at Columbia University in 1927. He was appointed visiting professor of the Long Island College of Medicine in New York in 1932. In 1934 the government in Austria closed his clinics. Many of his later writings, such as What Life Should Mean to You (1931), were directed to the general reader. Heinz L. and Rowena R. Ansbacher edited The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler (1956) and Superiority and Social Interest (1964).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 9:12 PM, smallguy said:

He wrote a book titled ORGAN INFERIORITY which I read.  It never mentioned, if I recall correctly, the penis.  I wondered if that was because frank discussion of sex was then frowned upon.  

I think it was due to the prevailing attitude toward sex at that time, which emphasized the procreative aspect with regards to the woman. Potency (i.e. contrasted with impotency, which includes both erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation), without further qualification, was understood as the benchmark of a sexually healthy male. Today this thinking is considered outmoded, and the “woke” political police would say it’s a relic of patriarchal oppression when female gratification was considered negligible. Medical texts from that period discuss sex in very frank, yet clinical, terms.
 

Additionally, large penises were generally considered comical or grotesque in the past. I recall a painting from around the 16th or 17th century that depicted a witches’ sabbath in which the devil was portrayed as a goat with a ridiculously large penis, evocative of Priapus. I can’t find it now. But terms such as “satyriasis” or “priapic” and creatures like goats or satyrs represented the animalistic aspects of sexuality, in contrast to representations like the David statue or Greek kouroi. Incidentally, the Buddha, in the scriptural descriptions of his bodily perfection, is said to have had a well-retracted penis. However, big dick lust was known to the ancients, as evidenced by the quote I posted from the Book of Ezekiel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes AND the statement regarding his attitude toward sex as a "symbolic" arena in which to compensate for other areas of inferiority might be key.  Unlike Reich, who I see you discussed in another thread, did not think sex and certainly not orgasm was important in itself.  Interesting that Adler and Reich seemed to split of from Freud in opposite directions!  

Adler seems to be obsessed with "social betterment" also.  Maybe he thought of sex being about rational reproduction and child rearing which you broached with your note regarding "emphasized the procreative aspect with regards to the woman."   Maybe Adler tended to reject the sex obsessed as compensating in an anti-social immoral way for their status and physical defects.  Adler thought compensation through "good works" lauditory, but through striving for power evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 12:05 PM, the_anonymous_one said:

start dealing with women really soon in my life because i have not been doing so and i have made a crucial and strategic mistake in my life by not facing the fear of rejection. i think women are far better in this than men and even if a woman rejects you in the worst manner possible it is not as bad as having some dude mocking you. this is an actual fact and i want to hear other people's views on this. i have never had negative reaction from women but have with other men. i have read about women's terrible reactions against men but i have myself never experienced anyting negative simply because i never put myself out there. the worst a woman has done to me is reject me in silence. that's not too bad. in one occasion i read about a woman who couldn't suppress a cackle when the guy stripped. and she prided herself on being an 'A grade bitch.' another woman says .. why are you so antsy is it because you have an oversized clit. these things are terrible but they are nothing compared to what guys do to each other. we wipe out the entire existence of another human being with a single comment or a look. that is the truly punishable part. i want to hear other peoples view on this.

Yes, I agree with this. 

Any women who have disparaged my manhood did it very gradually as they came to realize I wasn't getting the job of their orgasm done, and certainly they did not target my penis for ridicule or even mention it.  This may well be due to the fact, however, that I was never into picking girls up for a quicky or one night stand, but got into sex with a woman only after long association and mutual regard.  Perhaps, it would have been better to get into sex early on by thoroughly getting over the fear of sexual rejection.  A rejection of you is either a false dismissal (for unstated real reasons) or a true reason for rejection you already knew about anyway.  How bad would it be to be told your penis was too small to satisfy a particular woman?  It would hurt a lot only if you were trying to pretend your penis was totally adequate and, therefore, impossible it might be to small for a particular woman.

Certain men however are into competing for status and position and will use anything they can against you in the most vicious way possible.  Women aren't competing in the same way, usually.  They are more likely to be disappointed, at worst, and often choose not to even show their disappointment beyond failure to achieve full orgasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smallguy said:

Yes AND the statement regarding his attitude toward sex as a "symbolic" arena in which to compensate for other areas of inferiority might be key.  Unlike Reich, who I see you discussed in another thread, did not think sex and certainly not orgasm was important in itself.  Interesting that Adler and Reich seemed to split of from Freud in opposite directions!  

Thanks for sharing. I was not familiar with Alfred Adler or his work, and that he originated the concept of inferiority complex. I don't find psychology very interesting in itself, but it sometimes becomes peripherally relevant in things that do interest me; I studied Reich's theories from their phenomenological (positivist?) aspect, not the therapeutic, and also his writings about fascism held some interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I think Adler was essentially anti-sexual (except for reproduction) like the Catholic Church.  He may have thought any obsession by a man or woman about achieving orgasm in self or partner(s) as a non-productive or even harmful compensation for inferiority feelings in regard to being a "good, decent, caring, self-perfectiing person."  So, the longing of men for the power to attract and induce orgasm in women (or gay partners?) by both men who can and men who can't IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution.   In other words, "our problem" is not that we are handicapped sexually by a small penis, but that we are wannabe power lusters and exploiters.

Can't say I'm accepting this outlook, but it does clarify some issues.  On the other hand, many aspects of the sexual revolution (partially inspired by Reich, Freud & Jung) are disturbing.  Instead of spreading alleged sexual satisfaction to all as originally imagined by advocates, isn't an even more competitive phallocracy among men being created and more severe "sexual looks derby" among women being created:  hierarchies of sexual power that leave more and more people out, especially men.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, smallguy said:

The more I think about this, the more I think Adler was essentially anti-sexual (except for reproduction) like the Catholic Church.  He may have thought any obsession by a man or woman about achieving orgasm in self or partner(s) as a non-productive or even harmful compensation for inferiority feelings in regard to being a "good, decent, caring, self-perfectiing person."  So, the longing of men for the power to attract and induce orgasm in women (or gay partners?) by both men who can and men who can't IS THE PROBLEM, not the solution.   In other words, "our problem" is not that we are handicapped sexually by a small penis, but that we are wannabe power lusters and exploiters.

Can't say I'm accepting this outlook, but it does clarify some issues.  On the other hand, many aspects of the sexual revolution (partially inspired by Reich, Freud & Jung) are disturbing.  Instead of spreading alleged sexual satisfaction to all as originally imagined by advocates, isn't an even more competitive phallocracy among men being created and more severe "sexual looks derby" among women being created:  hierarchies of sexual power that leave more and more people out, especially men.

 

I'm convinced Adler was wrong-headed.  Was he Cathlolic, I wonder?

Surely, the Catholic Church's prohibition of birth control and abortion, makes the pursuit of sexual satisfaction and even the pursuit of sexual compatibility nearly impossible, even within marriage!  This must be by design, an attempt to reverse what the Church saw as the essential evil of sexual competition, phallic worship, etc.  No accident that the sexual revolution began IN EARNEST with the invention of the PILL.  It also advanced prior to that with condoms during the 20s and subsequent war years.   Seems like a futile fight against human nature.

BTW:  After reading about Adler here, I can clearly see that my father used the Adlerian or a Catholic defense mindset to defend against his small penis status.  Without hesitation he rejected the sexual power orientation of his peers as wrong or immoral whenever it raised its head.   Outwardly, he betrayed no sense of inferiority, but I learned better from my mother!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...