At the risk of annoying people...woman here!

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

Is it, though? Is it always or even mostly a result of their own insecurity?

A couple of day ago I found out that a guy who made my life hell is now a CEO, more or less. He destroyed me in the past and used that to build himself up and to set up a very good life.

People putting people down is probably something inherent in humans. We put people down to make ourselves feel better and mask out insecurities (sometimes) but I bet a sizeable amount realized that it's a magnificent tool to create social hiarchies and to take out the the "competition" with flagging them as something [which can be almost anything depending on time and place]

Maybe the reason why this works so well is that everybody realizes to some degree that being different is almost always bad?

since i don't know you very well death,i'm gonna assume you're good guy,and the guy who made your life hell is an asshole.

an asshole ceo is still an asshole;and while many might not believe in concepts like karma,or what goes around,comes around,i do,and let me tell you,you can be king of the universe and seem to have it all and appear happy as can be,but still be miserable in reality,and only he,or he and those close to him know that.

in short,assholes are never truly happy.

Whether it's a group lunch in a fancy restaurant, a football game, a battlefield, or even an online forum for guys with small penises, human interaction is an endless war and competition of egos. If you're not a winner, you're a loser. 1-And there is no sweeter marrow in life than the knowledge that you're better than someone else at something, that you are superior to someone in some way. In the words of Henry Kissinger, it is the "ultimate aphrodisiac".

The only true camaraderie is between like and like - winners with winners and losers with losers. All antagonism is between winners and losers, those with power and those without.

2-All this BS about people covering up for their own insecurities when they put someone else down is a load of crap perpetuated by losers who use it as a coping mechanism to convince themselves that they are somehow "better" than their tormentors.

1-it does feel good and an aphrodisiac etc. to be (or to know that you're) better/superior at something(s) than someone else or better yet,better than many,or even better than everyone,but that doesn't mean one should ridicule or belittle or humiliate or be mean to or.... to the ones he is (or thinks he's) superior to,because a truly confident and strong person doesn't need to put others down in order to rise.

2-in most cases they are better than their tormentors,and it's not bullshit;and as i said earlier,a jerk is nothing more than a jerk,even if he/she has lots of money or a big dick/big tits or....

I do believe there is always hope, Death. I have also wondered if there could be something evolutionary in "preying on the vulnerable." But I also think we're smart enough to rise above that, if we can be sensitive and aware.

irma,don't tell me you believe that evolution garbage too.

preying on the weak/vulnerable is an animal trait,in animals it's just instinct,in humans it's just simply something the lowlifes do.

btw irma,the way you quote without including the quotee's name,makes things more difficult to follow.

I understand what you're getting at, and society does have the power to influence to a certain extent how the mob views success (power). In our society, it is usually wealth. You're speaking of contingent rather than definitive representations, but that's why I use the general terms "success" and "failure", or winner and loser.

Yes, success is really how the person defines it within his own sphere of reality, and it can be anything from having a lawn that doesn't have a single weed to being able to obtain women, money, influence - all these things our society equates with success and power. It really is up to the individual's own value system as to how he defines it. But the point is that this individual has succeeded in the realm of life that he has set out to conquer, however he has defined it. Some people are just incapable of doing this, myself as a case in point. I fail no matter what I do, and I do believe that our bodies, our families, our past is the mechanism by which that ability to succeed or fail is inborn within us when we come out of the womb. A congenital lack of confidence is a screaming indicator of an inherent lack of good fortune, and people sense it instinctively. This is the subconscious basis for teasing, ridicule, hostility and antagonism.

My question is why? People see the outward manifestations, and I know that I am a failure at anything I do. But no one goes any farther than that. Everything that I've seen leads me to believe it's all just a racket, a lottery, and I really think that's why people who are successful (in whatever form that takes) rub it in the face of failures - they know somewhere deep down inside that they have something that could just as easily not been granted to them and there was nothing but the thinnest of margin of sheer luck separating them from me.

actually klingsor,i think it's the other way around,those of us who are aware of the fact that life is a roller coaster -and one can just as easily be at the bottom as he/she is at the top- we tend to be more empathetic,understanding,and compassionate.on the other hand,those who have it good and easy,and are simply shallow individuals,don't bother thinking of such things,and they just believe that they got the good stuff because they're better and deserving,and the the reason that the less fortunate people don't,is because they're unworthy of the good stuff.and that -in their mind- justifies them treating the less fortunate people like crap.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

That's exactly my point. If you are successful at something, your mind necessarily assimilates this success to your somehow being "better" than the person you have beaten. Most individuals attribute this to what is most obvious which really amounts to nothing more than tautology: I am wealthy because I have more money than you, I am a CEO because I am more ruthless than you, I am a casanova because I know how to please women, I can play sports because you can't catch, etc, etc. This really explains nothing and on a certain level it disturbs some people because they realize the hollowness of their own success and don't really know what this magical "thing" is that determined it. This is never more clearer than with things such as birth defects, developmental disorders, medical disorders, disabilities, and people are never crueler or meaner when it comes to these types of things because now we are outside the realm of what is directly controllable and have slipped inside a realm where no one can answer "why" or provide any determination. Genetics is the closest we can come, but this simply amounts to another tautology and really explains nothing except the mechanism. People realize all this instinctively, if not in so many words.

Realizing this as a "winner", your mind has two options: 1) accept that you have no idea why you were lucky and the guy sitting next to you was so unlucky, in which case you will necessarily attribute it to chance, blind luck, and this will frighten you because you know that is all that stood between you and "that" guy. As humans we hate what we fear. 2) accept that you are better than this person based on some vague, ephemeral notion of karma or morality and believe the unfortunate get what they deserve even if you don't know why, in which case you're justified in treating them like crap. No. 2 is what the majority of people believe, and to me it's the cheapest of the two.

Do I have an answer? No. That is simply how I've come to understand the phenomena of life as it pertains to humans and their interactions with one another. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. That's what angers me because I don't know, and I just refuse to passively stand by and accept the role that's been handed to me. I may be a failure, but it's my choice to keep my pride.

if you know me,you know i could easily answer,but i can't without getting too philosophical and religious,which i know you and some others don't appreciate,so i'm out.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

Well let's do a thought experiment. Suppose that tomorrow morning you saw on the news where some biochemist had completely figured out the mechanism that determines penis size. In fact, he put his hypothesis into experimental action and managed to successfully produce a penis size among a population of bonobo monkeys that had a 95% confidence interval around the size he had chosen to give them (at his discretion within biological limits). He applied this research to humans and within 70 years, every human male on the planet had a penis that was some legally regulated size, we'll say 9x7 just for kicks and giggles.

Now what do you suppose would happen? Would these men be happy? Would sexual dynamics be completely reversed and all these anxieties go away? No. There would be a spontaneous reorientation among women as to what they regarded as sexually preferable. They would find some completely novel way to sort the wheat from the chaff, the boys from the men...some new determinant for their orgasms. The only thing difference would be that instead of a forum for guys with SPS, there would be a forum for guys with, let's say, weak chins or beetle brows or hairy necks.

A 100 more years pass and these defects have been eliminated. Pretty soon the entire male population all look exactly alike to some arbitrary ideal. Who or what determines this ideal? A consensus is reached and 35 Cray supercomputers run an Idealistically Distinctive Physiognomic Generator Program until even this is discarded by some democratically voted ideal and all distinction is gone. There is no longer even anything approaching sexual dynamics because the game has been forfeited, it's simply a biological function the only purpose of which is to perpetuate the species. Men are artificial sex dolls, Stepford Husbands. You could extrapolate farther if you wanted.

1-Here's the issue and why I think religion and philosophy and all of it is bunk: for reality to even "exist", for their to be anything "real" at all, there must be disequilibrium. There must be distinction. Disequilibrium means power and submission, "winning and losing". Apply a force and something must give.2- If you carried this thought experiment through to its logical conclusion, eventually all you would have is a completely static, inert "picture", a frozen gas or moment in time that was just gray, void, frozen and that would eventually shatter and leave nothing whatsoever.

So disequilibrium, inequality must exist for this reality as we know it to even be real. I'm pissed off at the universe because who determines the pushers as opposed to the yielders? I had no choice. 3-This role as a piece of dirt for someone else's shoe was given to me without my consent and without my say so and absolutely no chance to prove myself able to be a "pusher", a winner, in any way whatsoever with the result that people think you "deserve" it, deserve to be a failure. 4-I think that's a very flawed and cruel way to construct a universe. If I BBQ'd and ate a baby in a previous life, why not at least let me know WHY I'm being punished?

1-there must be distinction,but your interpretation of distinction (power and submission) is flawed.i'm not denying there's power and submission in the world,i'm merely stating that there can be a reality where things exist,and are different,without power and submission,or conflict or....

2-why would i carry that thought experiment to the end?

3-now you know my position on that,i believe in free will (the extent of which differs from one person to another),but i also accept that free will is limited by certain factors and forces,including genetics,environment,circumstances etc;but i do concede that those factors were bestowed upon us without our consent or choice;that doesn't mean they're random,or luck,coincidence etc,since i believe in intelligent design,i know there's a good reason and wisdom for everything,even the bad and crappy stuff,even if we don't know what exactly it is in each case,we just gotta do the best we can with what we have,which brings me to my next point:

4-you or any other miserable person isn't being punished,and god (i know you don't believe in him,which you're free to not) doesn't answer to anyone,so he doesn't have to explain to us why this and why that.

and since those who believe in god,usually also believe in afterlife,where everything will be explained,and all wrongs made right.

i know you're gonna try to make a mockery of all this,and questioning this and that,but i said i wouldn't get philosophical and religious,and i kinda did,but i held back,a lot,since this isn't a forum about religion or theology.

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Resolute]

No mocking. It's better than a lot of other things you could believe in, and remember I used to believe it all too until I rejected it.

I've been imbibing so I'm a bit more agreeable at the moment.

No this isn't a forum about theology or religion and I apologize if I stepped overboard with it. I'm just laying out my position for anyone who is confused by the bits and pieces that I post, and if you're affected by this as deeply as we are, then you spend a lot of time genuflecting on real fundamental questions about your reality. Especially if you contemplate suicide frequently.

wow klingsor,i'm not a fan of imbibing,but it seems to make you so much more pleasant and tolerable lol.

i know you're hurting man,but hang in there.

take care klingsor.

[dvnJ22]

if you know me,you know i could easily answer,but i can't without getting too philosophical and religious,which i know you and some others don't appreciate,so i'm out.

I'd like to hear it.

[retsuud]

Well let's do a thought experiment. Suppose that tomorrow morning you saw on the news where some biochemist had completely figured out the mechanism that determines penis size. In fact, he put his hypothesis into experimental action and managed to successfully produce a penis size among a population of bonobo monkeys that had a 95% confidence interval around the size he had chosen to give them (at his discretion within biological limits). He applied this research to humans and within 70 years, every human male on the planet had a penis that was some legally regulated size, we'll say 9x7 just for kicks and giggles.

Now what do you suppose would happen? Would these men be happy? Would sexual dynamics be completely reversed and all these anxieties go away? No. There would be a spontaneous reorientation among women as to what they regarded as sexually preferable. They would find some completely novel way to sort the wheat from the chaff, the boys from the men...some new determinant for their orgasms. The only thing difference would be that instead of a forum for guys with SPS, there would be a forum for guys with, let's say, weak chins or beetle brows or hairy necks.

A 100 more years pass and these defects have been eliminated. Pretty soon the entire male population all look exactly alike to some arbitrary ideal. Who or what determines this ideal? A consensus is reached and 35 Cray supercomputers run an Idealistically Distinctive Physiognomic Generator Program until even this is discarded by some democratically voted ideal and all distinction is gone. There is no longer even anything approaching sexual dynamics because the game has been forfeited, it's simply a biological function the only purpose of which is to perpetuate the species. Men are artificial sex dolls, Stepford Husbands. You could extrapolate farther if you wanted.

Here's the issue and why I think religion and philosophy and all of it is bunk: for reality to even "exist", for their to be anything "real" at all, there must be disequilibrium. There must be distinction. Disequilibrium means power and submission, "winning and losing". Apply a force and something must give. If you carried this thought experiment through to its logical conclusion, eventually all you would have is a completely static, inert "picture", a frozen gas or moment in time that was just gray, void, frozen and that would eventually shatter and leave nothing whatsoever.

So disequilibrium, inequality must exist for this reality as we know it to even be real. I'm pissed off at the universe because who determines the pushers as opposed to the yielders? I had no choice. This role as a piece of dirt for someone else's shoe was given to me without my consent and without my say so and absolutely no chance to prove myself able to be a "pusher", a winner, in any way whatsoever with the result that people think you "deserve" it, deserve to be a failure. I think that's a very flawed and cruel way to construct a universe. If I BBQ'd and ate a baby in a previous life, why not at least let me know WHY I'm being punished?

I'd like to see you write a book!

[IrmaJean]

I apologize about the quote tags. I didn't realize I had been doing that.

I think human behavior is very complex and many different factors likely play a role. I have found some validity in many different psychological theories. I am open to the possibility that evolutionary factors may be in the mix.

[Resolute]

I apologize about the quote tags. I didn't realize I had been doing that.

I think human behavior is very complex and many different factors likely play a role. I have found some validity in many different psychological theories. I am open to the possibility that evolutionary factors may be in the mix.

yes,things were a lot simpler and easier when we were mere monkeys.happy times indeed.

[Jessie]

Kingslor

A great thought experiment- and engagingly written as usual.

But, imo, I dont think it would pan out like that.

I mean, I agree that if you somehow eliminated small penises and baldness etc then yes, guys would obsess about other things….

… but not like this…. not like small penis

why?

because small penis is SO much more a deal breaker.

It directly effects sex mechanically and emotionally for the woman- being short or bald does not.

loads of things effect desirability:

being short

fat

bald

hairy back

skinny arms

weak chin

fat face

low wage

stutter

low IQ

poor SOH

disfigurment

disabliity

persistant premature ejaculation

persistant impotence

small penis

but only the last 3-4 DIRECTLY impact sex.

Being small is incurable and profoundly impacts relationships- just a fact.

[Resolute]

Kingslor

A great thought experiment- and engagingly written as usual.

But, imo, I dont think it would pan out like that.

I mean, I agree that if you somehow eliminated small penises and baldness etc then yes, guys would obsess about other things….

… but not like this…. not like small penis

why?

because small penis is SO much more a deal breaker.

It directly effects sex mechanically and emotionally for the woman- being short or bald does not.

loads of things effect desirability:

being short

fat

bald

hairy back

skinny arms

weak chin

fat face

low wage

stutter

low IQ

poor SOH

disfigurment

disabliity

persistant premature ejaculation

persistant impotence

small penis

but only the last 3-4 DIRECTLY impact sex.

Being small is incurable and profoundly impacts relationships- just a fact.

seriously jessie,you don't think disfigurement is worse than small penis?

and persistent premature ejaculation,and impotence,made me laugh.

[Jessie]

depends on the nature and degree of the disfigurement…

… mines in my pants…

and you think being small-inadequate is much better than premature ejaculation and impotence….why?

all 3 seem pretty awful to me- for both partners….

if i had to choose one it would be premature ejaculation.

[Jessie]

yeah 9x7 is a little too sizeable- I mean women can and do adapt (even pettie women) but 8 x 6 or even 7 x 5.5 would be a bit more of an ideal size

[Resolute]

depends on the nature and degree of the disfigurement…

… mines in my pants…

and you think being small-inadequate is much better than premature ejaculation and impotence….why?

all 3 seem pretty awful to me- for both partners….

if i had to choose one it would be premature ejaculation.

i wasn't saying those two were worse,just that you phrased it "persistent" premature ejaculation,was sort of funny,or "persistent" impotence,sort of implied (at least in my mind) that the guy was just being stubborn.and also reminded me of a joke.

[Resolute]

As someone who has a hairy back (and, indeed, a hairy just about everything else) I feel I must protest, Jessie.

Having a hairy back was never a problem for me!

i have a somewhat hairy back,and it bugs me,i mean even trying to shave it or remove the hair etc is no fun,but it isn't a serious issue with women i guess.

[Resolute]

You missed out grey hair. Was hearing on the radio the other day that 70% of women would refuse to date a man with grey hair.

and the other 30% refuse to date a guy who's bald.

most women nowadays really don't know what the hell they want.

they hurt themselves first and foremost.

Edited September 15, 2014 by resolute

[Guest Klingsor]

.

[Jessie]

As someone who has a hairy back (and, indeed, a hairy just about everything else) I feel I must protest, Jessie.

Having a hairy back was never a problem for me!

sorry! hehe

well i have heard some women bemoan a hairy back- but hey- electrolysis or razors if its a problem….

but many women love a guy with a hairy chest or full beard…

[Jessie]

If 8 x 6 was the average you'd have men wanting bigger. It would get to the point where women would regret ever making fun of small dicks and the would suck for men also. Not being able to get inside the women completely wouldn't be good.. Then society would reverse the trend and desire a smaller or even small penis. Small penis are even used on statues and big penis was considered ugly.

I dont think that would happen

Women can take 8x6 with arousal with little issue- even small women- just check a urology manual or porn site.

Its only a problem for really big guys like 11 or 12 inches….

If 8 x 6 was the optimal size for MOST women then most guys would be happy with that….

No guy wants a 2 foot penis- that would be awful…

So there is a limit- the graph tends towards maximum desirability or effectiveness.

Ask most/many very tall men if they could be a little smaller and they would like it- unless their height gave them a financial advantage like basketball

[Jessie]

You missed out grey hair. Was hearing on the radio the other day that 70% of women would refuse to date a man with grey hair.

i have heard many women say they find grey hair sexy

but if not- then dye it!!

[Guest Klingsor]

.