Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

by **crystal_richardson_** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:30 pm

creative_nothing wrote:
crystal_richardson_ wrote: To be masculine, at root, is to do what is needed to provide for and protect one's loved ones, as well as look out for their happiness.

What are you willing to provide crystal?

I don't understand your question

It's macho because it's dominance and power. I am talking about women being dependent on men, and men truly loving them in turn.

crystal_richardson_ wrote:
creative_nothing wrote:
crystal_richardson_ wrote: To be masculine, at root, is to do what is needed to provide for and protect one's loved ones, as well as look out for their happiness.

What are you willing to provide crystal?

I don't understand your question

It's macho because it's dominance and power. I am talking about women being dependent on men, and men truly loving them in turn.

Right, but is not this dependence and providing mutual?

If you want to be a howse wife, for instance, shouldnt you provide you husband with excellent meals, taking care of you children and so on...

by **crystal_richardson_** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 4:47 pm

Of course it's mutual.

Men need women. If women are in harms way, sick, or unhappy, it affects men, not only from the sustenance they directly obtain from women emotionally, physically, etc, but through indirect effects on their children, etc.

Men and women were made to be dependent on each other for their happiness.

Civilization trying to make us independent, through technology, through inappropriate kinds of controlling human relations and life, will sabotage our happiness as our core needs get neglected.

There is a need for society, but this is not it.

by **creative_nothing** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:01 pm

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Civilization trying to make us independent, through technology, through inappropriate kinds of controlling human relations and life, will sabotage our happiness as our core needs get neglected.

There is a need for society, but this is not it.

People with healthy attachment to their families are harder to manipulate.

Sad but true.

by **crystal_richardson_** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:05 pm

what's your point?

they can be easier to manipulate, depending on the attachment of the family to society.

if the attachment is strong, then the family is a mere extension of society.

society need not try to manipulate individuals directly.

family is, after all, the first place of influence over individual development.

and society can transmit many of its pathological characteristics through family.

it's ironic when people try to escape family by immersing themselves in society. they are just subjecting themselves to the same stressors; they think it's different, but they are really attracted to what actually familiar.

by **WendyTorrance** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:18 pm

creative_nothing wrote:If you want to be a howse wife, for instance, shouldnt you provide you husband with excellent meals, taking care of you children and so on...

Isn't this a little funny premise.
Your example makes it sound that the wife should please and accommodate, even though family should be the solid base where you stand. Springboard up, side by side.

by **creative_nothing** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:26 pm

People need attachment.

If they cant find in family, they will look elsewhere.

Maybe they will be luck to find attachment at a club(motorcycle, or any sport) or a good ngo.

But others will find it at work, consummerism, drugs or a religious cult.

But yes, what you say makes sense, some people will attach to their family members, specially man to their wifes, and parents to children, who arent attached to them, but more to consummerism.

And even those first attachment alliances I mentioned, will probrably never be as strong as a healthy family(they may be better than a disfunctional one)

-- Sun Dec 07, 2014 2:29 pm --

WendyTorrance wrote:
creative_nothing wrote:If you want to be a howse wife, for instance, shouldnt you provide you husband with excellent meals, taking care of you children and so on...

Isn't this a little funny premise.
Your example makes it sound that the wife should please and accommodate, even though family should be the solid base where you stand. Springboard up, side by side.

I think this was already answered.

I was talking to Crys and about house wives, those that focus completely on children instead of work. But I know social security is a strong force on europe. I was trying to prove that support(providing) must be mutual.

by **AmorousDestruction** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:11 pm

twistednerve wrote:
WendyTorrance wrote:
AmorousDestruction wrote:You totally take that thing out and wave it around. I mean....I would too if I were you.

Contradictory...Ehh, fake pics
lol

She saw more than a pic.

Haha. Not everyone on here is BSing about who they are or what parts they have, contrary to popular opinion.

Our looks are often what keep us so f****ed up. The more attractive you are, the more people are willing to put up with your $#%^.

-- Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:15 pm --

crystal_richardson_ wrote:
creative_nothing wrote:
crystal_richardson_ wrote: To be masculine, at root, is to do what is needed to provide for and protect one's loved ones, as well as look out for their happiness.

What are you willing to provide crystal?

I don't understand your question

It's macho because it's dominance and power. I am talking about women being dependent on men, and men truly loving them in turn.

Ew.

-- Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:21 pm --

crystal_richardson_ wrote:Of course it's mutual.

Men need women. If women are in harms way, sick, or unhappy, it affects men, not only from the sustenance they directly obtain from women emotionally, physically, etc, but through indirect effects on their children, etc.

Men and women were made to be dependent on each other for their happiness.

Well that's some hetero-normative bull $#%^. Good lord. It's amazing that people actually think this way. Again, it's a case of "why do you need to believe this?" To feel needed by men?

by **AmorousDestruction** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:36 pm

crystal_richardson_ wrote:those are very academic answers...you are making this an academic debate

i am trying to talk about our experiences and real world with the help of some concepts sometimes used in academia but this is not an academic debate....

i said entitlement is past down through upbringing, which i've seen first hand.

if you have friends from different social classes which i do, you see the differences in their families. they live in like little separate worlds, with their own set of delusions that reproduces it all

but civilization itself was probably born out of psychopaths or megalomaniacs who led vulnerable people astray, to form cities and more complex and stronger societies eventually overtaking traditional and normal/nonpathogenic groups who were unfortunately weaker

but they become strong in part because they attracted those who didn't quite fit in normal/traditional society.

and so minorities - those who don't quite fit in for whatever reason - are used by the powerful to repress the majority at this stage in human history

again, this is not an academic debate, you can see all of these things at work if you just look around you

and now i have explained at length what i only intended to be a tangential point

Real world argument is code for "I have no evidence to back up my claims". Sorry. I live in a world where arguments are not valid if they aren't backed up by anything but individual perception. You make a lot of grand claims with nothing to back them up. Therefore it's not a discussion at all. It's a egotistical rant or an excuse to talk about all of your beliefs.

by **WendyTorrance** » Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:45 pm

AmorousDestruction wrote:Our looks are often what keep us so ###$ up. The more attractive you are, the more people are willing to put up with your $#%^.

I can not agree, the appearance does not give a lot of privileges. Of course, depends on your age and where you come from.

creative_nothing wrote:I was trying to prove that support(providing) must be mutual.

I understood, it was a little out of context. But there's a little truth behind everything we say.
Mutual + respect.

AmorousDestruction wrote:Real world argument is code for "I have no evidence to back up my claims". Sorry. I live in a world where arguments are not valid if they aren't backed up by anything but individual perception. You make a lot of grand claims with nothing to back them up.

On those grounds, you probably will not be able to look at things from a different perspective, or to change your beliefs.

Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Re: Who here qualifies for the psychopathic side of BPD?

Who is online