So my housemate had an experience last night which helped me pinpoint exactly why I am skeeved out by swingers. At least, by people in the Portland swinger scene.
A woman contacted him on OK Cupid and explained that she and her husband are poly, and she is looking for a new boyfriend. So far so good, right? That is pretty much Portland standard. They chatted a bit, and she asked him whether he'd like to meet the two of them for a drink. Sort of an unconventional date, but I was like, hey sure whatever, why not? Then he asked me if I knew where the Bungalo bar is, and I was like, oh, are they swingers? Because that place hosts a lot of swinger events. He assured me that they were not, so I wished him luck and off he went.
Texted me an hour later with "They are totally swingers! I'm out of here."
So he came home and told me about how it was a swinger event, and for the brief time he was there he had to fend off several people who were aggressively hitting on him. We laughed about it a bit, he went to bed, and this morning got up really early to go fishing in a remote spot on the mountain.
When he came home from fishing, he told me that when he returned to cell range he had EIGHTEEN texts from the woman, inviting him to another event, telling him how lucky he is to be part of the group because they don't usually invite men, and how he'll have more fun at this one because her ladies like him. She apparently also told him that the whole group got kicked out of the next bar they went to because "they didn't like our lifestyle" and patrons were complaining about them making them uncomfortable.
Lady, it's not your lifestyle that was making people uncomfortable. Nobody fucking cares about your lifestyle. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that it was your behavior.
So in short, this woman:
-lied to my housemate about the nature of her relationship
-lied about what she and her husband were looking for
-deliberately misled him in order to get him to come to a swinger party
-did not pick up on the fact that she had put him in an uncomfortable position
-did not recognize that leaving after one beer was a signal of non-interest
-EIGHTEEN TEXT MESSAGES?
And that's when it crystallized for me. The thing about the swingers I've met is that they just plain don't respect other people's boundaries. Maybe they can't see them, maybe they don't care, but the net effect is the same; they tend to assume that the absence of no is yes, and that underneath no is yes if they just keep pushing. And they seem to think it's cute, and edgy, and that the reason people don't like them is because of their lifestyle, rather than because of their behavior.
For the most part, nobody gives any fucks if you have a lot of sex with different people. People start giving fucks when you lie, pressure, manipulate, and cross boundaries in pursuit of having a lot of sex with THEM.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
ITT: Privilege is more prevelant than you think.
Swingers repel me, and not just because they all look like Keith Richards had a love child with Sally Struthers.
It's the actual lifestyle. I am not against polyamorous-type stuff, but swingers seem to rely on the abrogation of relationships to get off. Which is not okay, IMO.
Fortunately for them, of course, they don't need my approval.
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Feel free to split that shit if it's off topic.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.
Right on. The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:35:09 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.
Right on. The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:35:09 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 01:25:27 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:13:54 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 25, 2015, 12:44:34 PM
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
I disagree. A lot.
Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.
It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).
There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?
Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.
* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this
** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.
Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
I have no idea what you're trying to say there besides the fact that it's condescending.
Right on. The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
I tend to celebrate difference, and yes, that makes me quite alone. For one, because monogamy admits the victory of love over any imaginary division we so delicately contrive.
Ive heard of connections between sex addiction and swinging, which could explain the different behaviour of poly to swinging.
If this doesnt make sense i can elaborate.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 25, 2015, 07:19:50 PM
Ive heard of connections between sex addiction and swinging, which could explain the different behaviour of poly to swinging.
If this doesnt make sense i can elaborate.
Hm that actually kind of does make a certain amount of sense.
It's very different from polyamory, and the funny thing is that as a woman who has been openly poly for the last ten years I get approached by swingers a LOT, and somehow they don't seem to understand the difference -- like, a strange inability to grasp that actually I DON'T want to have sex with everybody all the time, and that I DO want an emotional, romantic connection with my partners. I can't tell you how many times swingers have tried to recruit me for group sex, which for me is an absolute turn-off, and when I say I'm not into that they react as if I'm merely suppressing my real desires to kowtow to societal expectations, and like I just need to be worked on a little more to get me to give in to my secret inner desires. Remind you of anything?
And yeah, as it happens, every member of the swinger community I've ever met has been white, and for the most part, straight except for the standard complement of married bi girls who want to have FMF threesomes.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
Just ignore him, he's an idiot with nothing to say.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
Just ignore him, he's an idiot with nothing to say.
You're right, lesson learned.
So, one of the local swinger-type groups had a thing happen where even though the whole group
and the guy involved are all about informed enthusiastic consent, a new member still had a pretty rapey experience, because there's weird pressure about "fitting in."
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 08:17:10 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
Just ignore him, he's an idiot with nothing to say.
You're right, lesson learned.
So, one of the local swinger-type groups had a thing happen where even though the whole group and the guy involved are all about informed enthusiastic consent, a new member still had a pretty rapey experience, because there's weird pressure about "fitting in."
Eek, that is really unfortunate. :(
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 08:02:06 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 25, 2015, 07:19:50 PM
Ive heard of connections between sex addiction and swinging, which could explain the different behaviour of poly to swinging.
If this doesnt make sense i can elaborate.
Hm that actually kind of does make a certain amount of sense.
It's very different from polyamory, and the funny thing is that as a woman who has been openly poly for the last ten years I get approached by swingers a LOT, and somehow they don't seem to understand the difference -- like, a strange inability to grasp that actually I DON'T want to have sex with everybody all the time, and that I DO want an emotional, romantic connection with my partners. I can't tell you how many times swingers have tried to recruit me for group sex, which for me is an absolute turn-off, and when I say I'm not into that they react as if I'm merely suppressing my real desires to kowtow to societal expectations, and like I just need to be worked on a little more to get me to give in to my secret inner desires. Remind you of anything?
And yeah, as it happens, every member of the swinger community I've ever met has been white, and for the most part, straight except for the standard complement of married bi girls who want to have FMF threesomes.
Like, lets go back to definitions:
Polyamory and swinging generally are under the same umbrella term of "non-monogamous", but this happens for totally different reasons.
Polyamory: Multiple loves... its a quite ambiguous definition but the core is "love for several people" which might or might not imply sex with several people (as far as ive seen it does imply a sexual interaction with several people, but the sex isnt the core, but rather the BOND that is felt for several people)
Swinging: Having a single romantic partner which is interchanged in specific settings or events with another couple for the explicit purpose of sex, with the specific rapport promoting no special bond formed that could endanger each respective romantic couple. The emphasis is preserving the romantic stability of the original couples while allowing casual sex, and from what ive seen, the more serious and methodical swingers only interact with other couples, not singles.
Now, im no expert or experienced but, i see some parallels between the swinging community and the bdsm community in which theres toxic elements that are drawn to it for the wrong reasons (oh johnny such a purist), in which they fail to respect rapport (which is there for a reason) or issues of consent (because its getting in the way of this raging boner, or something).
So what do we get? Doms that dont respect the original contract of practices or safe words, and we get people that get off of the chaos that swinging improperly provides (love avoidance, etc).
There's paralels between sex addiction and drug addiction, which in the scope of relationships in which each is respectively used as a method of avoiding intimacy and tuning out.
TLDR: The swinger method and philosophy is an interesting thing on paper, but there's a bunch of assholes doing-it-wrong
tm to create artificial chaos in their sick relationships or find it a good place to get rapey.
You're probably onto something, there. I suspect that what may tend to happen in swinger communities such as the one in Portland is that once the more boundary-crossing vibe is established, it becomes even more welcoming for people who are prone to crossing boundaries, and a self-reinforcing culture of pushiness starts to emerge in which not recognizing or respecting boundaries is normalized.
Quote from: Hoopla on May 25, 2015, 08:05:57 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 05:00:11 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 25, 2015, 04:09:06 AM
ITT: Privilege is more prevelant than you think.
What do you mean?
Also curious.
It's just that the attitude of the swingers in the OP seemed to align pretty closely with how some people are completely unaware of the unspoken dynamics in a situation.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 25, 2015, 01:43:15 PM
Are you living in a part of the world where the majority of swingers are black and brown? Because that would be wildly different from everything I've ever seen and heard of and would be a useful contribution to the conversation. You only bolded the first sentence, so I assume you're not arguing that the swinging scene in your area is a happy mix of straight and LGBT folks (although if that were the case, that would also be an interesting thing to talk about).
Also, what does monogamy "admit to"?
Just ignore him, he's an idiot with nothing to say.
Point taken. Have fun guys.
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
An ex and I turned down several invitations to swinger parties from this couple. We finally accepted one to a "kid friendly" party they were hosting. Felt a bit ambushed there. Kid friendly just meant that instead of a party with swinging, it was a party about swinging. About the time the host hubby says to me, "No offense, but I've seen your girlfriend's tits," it was time to go. Very, very, much time to fucking go.
I wonder sometimes, if there isn't a great deal of overlap between malice and cluelessness.
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, I can think of some ways. But that's not what I meant by just sex. I'm sure there's no prohibition on going bowling with a couple you swing with. Tupperware parties and the like.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 25, 2015, 11:11:14 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on May 25, 2015, 08:05:57 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 25, 2015, 05:00:11 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 25, 2015, 04:09:06 AM
ITT: Privilege is more prevelant than you think.
What do you mean?
Also curious.
It's just that the attitude of the swingers in the OP seemed to align pretty closely with how some people are completely unaware of the unspoken dynamics in a situation.
Yeah, they seem bizarrely, almost obtusely clueless. It's often hard to believe it isn't deliberate.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:01:29 AM
An ex and I turned down several invitations to swinger parties from this couple. We finally accepted one to a "kid friendly" party they were hosting. Felt a bit ambushed there. Kid friendly just meant that instead of a party with swinging, it was a party about swinging. About the time the host hubby says to me, "No offense, but I've seen your girlfriend's tits," it was time to go. Very, very, much time to fucking go.
I wonder sometimes, if there isn't a great deal of overlap between malice and cluelessness.
I seriously wonder that, as well. The thing with my housemate actually being LIED TO to get him to go was fucking horrifying. The whole "if I can just get them there, they'll realize they like it, once they relax a little" thing is just kind of rapey.
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 03:01:22 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line: given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist. That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy. But there I go, lowering the bar again, right? Just say the word and I'm out.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 26, 2015, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 03:01:22 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line: given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist. That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy. But there I go, lowering the bar again, right? Just say the word and I'm out.
What the fuck is even wrong with you? You just seem to be here to snipe at other people's sexuality and relationship preferences. None of this has ANYTHING to do with "holiness" or monogamy being better than polyamory or any such shit, the whole conversation is about people violating other people's boundaries. Which you seem to be all about, given your posts in here. Fuck off.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 26, 2015, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 03:01:22 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line: given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist. That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy. But there I go, lowering the bar again, right? Just say the word and I'm out.
Sorry to see this. I was enjoying your recent period of lucidity.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 02:01:41 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on May 26, 2015, 10:37:44 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 03:01:22 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 26, 2015, 01:35:55 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on May 26, 2015, 01:09:29 AM
Quote from: Meunster on May 26, 2015, 12:57:58 AM
So what exactly is a swinger?
Urban dictionary just says someone who sleeps around, but I didn't think there's communities of that.
Otherwise monogamous couples who like to have sex with other people. Differs from poly because it's pretty much just sex.
That's weird as fuck. How can you enjoy sex when it's with someone you just met?
Oh, there are swinger clubs, where everybody knows each other. And group sex, etc.
The rule is that you can't get emotionally attached to people other than your main partner. Just fuck them.
Um, maybe it's just my view, but isn't sex without emotions even less pleasuring then masterbation?
Some people seem to be into that. Personally, I've tried it, and it just makes me feel weird and depressed. Like, sex is supposed to be a bonding thing for us humans, it's one of the things that it does naturally, and while it's possible to disconnect the chemical sensations from the person I'm having them with, it seems to be really not good for me psychologically at all.
Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line: given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist. That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy. But there I go, lowering the bar again, right? Just say the word and I'm out.
What the fuck is even wrong with you? You just seem to be here to snipe at other people's sexuality and relationship preferences. None of this has ANYTHING to do with "holiness" or monogamy being better than polyamory or any such shit, the whole conversation is about people violating other people's boundaries. Which you seem to be all about, given your posts in here. Fuck off.
He was the only one who brought up monogamy being better. I don't even.
Just a small compilation for the lulz
1: I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.
2: Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:
3: Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.
4: Right on. The condescension is only proportional to the extent that you may have denigrated my understanding of the subject.
5: I tend to celebrate difference, and yes, that makes me quite alone. For one, because monogamy admits the victory of love over any imaginary division we so delicately contrive.
6. Fine, I think we're ready for that ridiculously over-consumed punch-line: given how I'm not yet equipped to do better, the best I can be is a serial monogamist. That is not to say polyamory beats swinging, I just want to figure how holy a threesome needs to be in order to count for either, or, how fast can I switch between partners before I no longer qualify for monogamy. But there I go, lowering the bar again, right? Just say the word and I'm out.
Conclusion: I think its trying to communicate, what should we do?
Moar liek monotony, amirite?
So, I love all the attention I'm getting (not really)... In my experience, focusing on one partner at a time has yielded best results. Even when a relationship was considered "open", one person (and probably both) would always end up feeling jealous when they had to share. And that messed things up. I don't know if that kind of possessiveness is just infantile egocentricity that can be overcome, or if it's hard-wired to lower parts of the brain.
It weird because on the one, just loving the one you are with would seem ideal, and on the other, if it's so good, why would one be afraid to share it? Again, I think that matter should be one of free choice, but it hardly seems to be that way. I blame the troubadours for extolling the virtue of everlasting romantic love as an attainable goal. It's just toxic. That being said, I served six (6) years of that sentence already and it's been driving me a little nuts, sometimes.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 27, 2015, 12:42:34 AM
I blame the troubadours for extolling the virtue of everlasting romantic love as an attainable goal. It's just toxic.
Go soak your head. It's awesome.
I think he's trying to shit on QG and I for not being monogamous, but it's really hard to tell.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 27, 2015, 03:53:07 PM
I think he's trying to shit on QG and I for not being monogamous, but it's really hard to tell.
On FB, I have people shit on me for being monogamous. He makes about a much sense as they do.
Because it's never enough to be happy with how and who you fuck, you have to make sure everyone else is doing things your way too.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 27, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
Because it's never enough to be happy with how and who you fuck, you have to make sure everyone else is doing things your way too.
I think that's how religion started. "Hey, god told me you can't stick it in her ass. He said it, not me."
Yeah, I think it's basically another version of "I MUST SHAME ALL THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T DOING IT JUST LIKE ME, IN ORDER TO VALIDATE MY WAY AND INVALIDATE THEIR WAY".
IME it tends to be an expression of insecurity, ie. they think they can banish their own questions about whether they are truly happy and whether the grass might not be greener on the other side by making the other side BADWRONG and UNACCEPTABLE. You see it with politicians who harp on the sanctity of marriage while fucking the interns, and with pastors who rail against the evils of homosexuality while sucking dicks in the back of a van the next town over. You also see it with poly people who insist that everyone is naturally non-monogamous and that if YOU were truly enlightened, YOU would be too.
Truth is, nothing is perfect for everybody, and it's also likely that nothing is perfect for anybody throughout the entire course of their life. That doesn't mean that people should change their relationship style or get married or get divorced or start sleeping around or stop sleeping around. Most people, at some point, find something that works pretty well for them, and if they do then sticking with it is probably their best bet. All it means is that at some point or multiple points it won't feel like it's working that great and everyone will be kind of unhappy with the arrangement, REGARDLESS of whether it was a monogamous arrangement or a polygamous arrangement or whatever the hell it might be. It's better for everyone if we all just recognize that and don't externalize it and project our own feelings of uncertainty onto other people or demonize the thing we kinda wish we were doing but have decided not to do.
Shit, I wasn't even aware that swingers and polys had a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. Which sounds stupid now that I say that, seeing as how almost everyone has a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. I guess their philosophies and dogmas remained hidden to me because I haven't met many, and I never really thought about it. I mean, I know people who fuck around a lot and they don't seem to care at all, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Swingers, on the other hand, I have never had the pleasure of meeting.
Swinging makes me a bit uncomfortable. But the closest thing to that that I can relate to is my idea of a perfect relationship:
Two people are partners, a single force against the entire world. They do whatever it takes to better themselves. If it means fucking someone outside of the relationship to get favors that benefit them both, so be it. But at the end of the night (Or in the morning, when the partner returns from fucking the other person), it's their partner they truly love.
But that's probably some fairytale shit. House of Cards (American version) projects unrealistic relationship goals for me :lulz:
More on-topic: Anyone who insists that my sexual orientation or preference is actually something other than what I've decided to express, is a total fuckwad. I don't care what the "science" of sexual predisposition says. My desires don't have to be fucking scientific. I will only be happy doing what I will. Anyone suggesting that I will be happy doing something else can suck a swinging bag of dicks.
How about a half bag of monogamous dicks?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 28, 2015, 04:27:34 AM
How about a half bag of monogamous dicks?
:lulz:
I don't care what kind of bags or dicks they're into. It can be a monogamous bag of half-dicks or whatever. I'M JUST SAYIN, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE SUCKIN SOME SHAPELESS PENILE CONTAINERS.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 28, 2015, 02:16:45 AM
Yeah, I think it's basically another version of "I MUST SHAME ALL THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T DOING IT JUST LIKE ME, IN ORDER TO VALIDATE MY WAY AND INVALIDATE THEIR WAY".
IME it tends to be an expression of insecurity, ie. they think they can banish their own questions about whether they are truly happy and whether the grass might not be greener on the other side by making the other side BADWRONG and UNACCEPTABLE. You see it with politicians who harp on the sanctity of marriage while fucking the interns, and with pastors who rail against the evils of homosexuality while sucking dicks in the back of a van the next town over. You also see it with poly people who insist that everyone is naturally non-monogamous and that if YOU were truly enlightened, YOU would be too.
Truth is, nothing is perfect for everybody, and it's also likely that nothing is perfect for anybody throughout the entire course of their life. That doesn't mean that people should change their relationship style or get married or get divorced or start sleeping around or stop sleeping around. Most people, at some point, find something that works pretty well for them, and if they do then sticking with it is probably their best bet. All it means is that at some point or multiple points it won't feel like it's working that great and everyone will be kind of unhappy with the arrangement, REGARDLESS of whether it was a monogamous arrangement or a polygamous arrangement or whatever the hell it might be. It's better for everyone if we all just recognize that and don't externalize it and project our own feelings of uncertainty onto other people or demonize the thing we kinda wish we were doing but have decided not to do.
That. Right there.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 03:05:34 AM
Shit, I wasn't even aware that swingers and polys had a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. Which sounds stupid now that I say that, seeing as how almost everyone has a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. I guess their philosophies and dogmas remained hidden to me because I haven't met many, and I never really thought about it. I mean, I know people who fuck around a lot and they don't seem to care at all, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Swingers, on the other hand, I have never had the pleasure of meeting.
Swinging makes me a bit uncomfortable. But the closest thing to that that I can relate to is my idea of a perfect relationship:
Two people are partners, a single force against the entire world. They do whatever it takes to better themselves. If it means fucking someone outside of the relationship to get favors that benefit them both, so be it. But at the end of the night (Or in the morning, when the partner returns from fucking the other person), it's their partner they truly love.
But that's probably some fairytale shit. House of Cards (American version) projects unrealistic relationship goals for me :lulz:
More on-topic: Anyone who insists that my sexual orientation or preference is actually something other than what I've decided to express, is a total fuckwad. I don't care what the "science" of sexual predisposition says. My desires don't have to be fucking scientific. I will only be happy doing what I will. Anyone suggesting that I will be happy doing something else can suck a swinging bag of dicks.
I think that most of us have an internal, perhaps unconscious model for how the world "should" work, and in most cases we are shaping our relationships and life choices after that model. Some people formally codify that internal model into an idea for what "everyone should do/really is", and that's where you get folks trying to tell you how YOU should live your life and what YOU should be attracted to.
And yeah, it's generally pretty dickbaggish.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 27, 2015, 03:53:07 PM
I think he's trying to shit on QG and I for not being monogamous, but it's really hard to tell.
No. I really was trying to expand my understanding of monogamy. That's why I definined myself as a "serial monogamist", because I don't believe it's distinction need be considered more than just a difference of degree between both swinging and polyamory. The problem is how people try to antagonize sexuality, the format itself, and monogamy happens to be quite the exception in the limited circles I frequent. So again, yea, whatever, I do not represent the absence of what you respect. This is tedious.
Quote from: LuciferX on May 28, 2015, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 27, 2015, 03:53:07 PM
I think he's trying to shit on QG and I for not being monogamous, but it's really hard to tell.
No. I really was trying to expand my understanding of monogamy. That's why I definined myself as a "serial monogamist", because I don't believe it's distinction need be considered more than just a difference of degree between both swinging and polyamory. The problem is how people try to antagonize sexuality, the format itself, and monogamy happens to be quite the exception in the limited circles I frequent. So again, yea, whatever, I do not represent the absence of what you respect. This is tedious.
This is, indeed, indeed, tedious. Your inability to lucidly and coherently express your thoughts is not our responsibility, and if you don't WANT misunderstandings, you should work on that.
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as
views or
opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact,
views and
opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
I don't think its a matter of 2nd languaging, because when it is that, its usual manifestation is shitty grammar and syntaxis and weak vocabulary and some spelling errors or using words that supposedly translate to mean something but dont (theres similar words in appearance between languages that mean completely different or unrelated things).
This cat's words usually have the problem of deliberate obfuscation and noise, others are supposed to magically decipher the meaning of out-of-context metaphors or he gets wounded when he gets misinterpreted.
TLDR: its always a bad idea to use purple prose along with noise and obscurity to express your message when you are trying to debate or contribute to a conversation that isnt with yourself.
P.S. I dont think he was shitting on anyone's preferences, what i did see was condescension towards QG, but who knows? Its mostly words randomly assembled.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
That sounds very accurate, thanks for that insight into LuciferX.
Now I know why i kept going back and forth on liking him and being annoyed by him.
I also know why I sometimes confused the two of you. (In LuciferX's more lucid moments, I did not intend to insult)
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 03:05:34 AM
Shit, I wasn't even aware that swingers and polys had a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. Which sounds stupid now that I say that, seeing as how almost everyone has a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. I guess their philosophies and dogmas remained hidden to me because I haven't met many, and I never really thought about it. I mean, I know people who fuck around a lot and they don't seem to care at all, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Swingers, on the other hand, I have never had the pleasure of meeting.
Swinging makes me a bit uncomfortable. But the closest thing to that that I can relate to is my idea of a perfect relationship:
Two people are partners, a single force against the entire world. They do whatever it takes to better themselves. If it means fucking someone outside of the relationship to get favors that benefit them both, so be it. But at the end of the night (Or in the morning, when the partner returns from fucking the other person), it's their partner they truly love.
But that's probably some fairytale shit. House of Cards (American version) projects unrealistic relationship goals for me :lulz:
More on-topic: Anyone who insists that my sexual orientation or preference is actually something other than what I've decided to express, is a total fuckwad. I don't care what the "science" of sexual predisposition says. My desires don't have to be fucking scientific. I will only be happy doing what I will. Anyone suggesting that I will be happy doing something else can suck a swinging bag of dicks.
Got a link?
One good pdf and I'm open to most ideologies. I want to expand mind.
Quote from: Reginald Ret on May 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
That sounds very accurate, thanks for that insight into LuciferX.
Now I know why i kept going back and forth on liking him and being annoyed by him.
I also know why I sometimes confused the two of you. (In LuciferX's more lucid moments, I did not intend to insult)
No problem. And don't worry, I caught on to him because I saw aspects of myself in him. And introspection makes aspects like that much more clear when you're observing.
It probably sounds like I'm stroking my own ego, but I think, based on my own experiences, he might be quite a joy to talk to once he comes around. He has lots of potential. Anyone know how old he is? I would look at his profile, but I stopped trusting profile ages a long time ago.
Quote from: Meunster on May 29, 2015, 02:48:37 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 03:05:34 AM
Shit, I wasn't even aware that swingers and polys had a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. Which sounds stupid now that I say that, seeing as how almost everyone has a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. I guess their philosophies and dogmas remained hidden to me because I haven't met many, and I never really thought about it. I mean, I know people who fuck around a lot and they don't seem to care at all, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Swingers, on the other hand, I have never had the pleasure of meeting.
Swinging makes me a bit uncomfortable. But the closest thing to that that I can relate to is my idea of a perfect relationship:
Two people are partners, a single force against the entire world. They do whatever it takes to better themselves. If it means fucking someone outside of the relationship to get favors that benefit them both, so be it. But at the end of the night (Or in the morning, when the partner returns from fucking the other person), it's their partner they truly love.
But that's probably some fairytale shit. House of Cards (American version) projects unrealistic relationship goals for me :lulz:
More on-topic: Anyone who insists that my sexual orientation or preference is actually something other than what I've decided to express, is a total fuckwad. I don't care what the "science" of sexual predisposition says. My desires don't have to be fucking scientific. I will only be happy doing what I will. Anyone suggesting that I will be happy doing something else can suck a swinging bag of dicks.
Got a link?
One good pdf and I'm open to most ideologies. I want to expand mind.
Could you be more specific? Not sure exactly what you're referring to. I don't remember talking about anything that would be found in PDF form, unless they have the Script for House of Cards in PDF on Kickass.to or something.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 28, 2015, 09:09:28 PM
This cat's words usually have the problem of deliberate obfuscation and noise, others are supposed to magically decipher the meaning of out-of-context metaphors or he gets wounded when he gets misinterpreted.
TLDR: its always a bad idea to use purple prose along with noise and obscurity to express your message when you are trying to debate or contribute to a conversation that isnt with yourself.
Excellent point you've brought up, and I think you explained it perfectly. That was another problem I had. I would turn the paragraphs of information that I wanted to express into a puzzle using out of context metaphors, etc. And if someone didn't understand me, I was hurt and put the responsibility on the reader. I would say this is also what he is doing, precisely.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
Whoa, that was pretty incisive.
Thanks for the insight.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 29, 2015, 07:05:13 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
Whoa, that was pretty incisive.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks. When you spend years breaking your own tendencies down into a science, you start to recognize the patterns in others as well.
When you have the background that I do, and the years of experience in putting others down (As a small child, until about the age of 14, I was an awful bully.), it gets hard to look at yourself on any realistic level without feeling terrible. I have no doubt that he was also bullied and became a bully out of spite. But, the moment you realize your shit stinks just like everyone else's, and you're not actually enlightened beyond any of these "mere mortals," life gets sooooo much easier. And people get so much easier to deal with.
Another thing I realized eventually:
You gotta love the shithead that you actually are, not the one you imagine yourself to be. You got some baggage? You got some dirt? Oh well. No one is perfect. Forgive yourself, and move on. Nothing is irredeemable. I watched my mom tell my child molesting grandfather, that she forgives him for everything he did to her, just before he died. Ignoring your flaws is not a valid method of redemption.
TLDR: If you were ever interested in the process by which a Pathological Narcissist fixes itself, read above.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 29, 2015, 07:05:13 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
Whoa, that was pretty incisive.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks. When you spend years breaking your own tendencies down into a science, you start to recognize the patterns in others as well.
When you have the background that I do, and the years of experience in putting others down (As a small child, until about the age of 14, I was an awful bully.), it gets hard to look at yourself on any realistic level without feeling terrible. I have no doubt that he was also bullied and became a bully out of spite. But, the moment you realize your shit stinks just like everyone else's, and you're not actually enlightened beyond any of these "mere mortals," life gets sooooo much easier. And people get so much easier to deal with.
Another thing I realized eventually:
You gotta love the shithead that you actually are, not the one you imagine yourself to be. You got some baggage? You got some dirt? Oh well. No one is perfect. Forgive yourself, and move on. Nothing is irredeemable. I watched my mom tell my child molesting grandfather, that she forgives him for everything he did to her, just before he died. Ignoring your flaws is not a valid method of redemption.
TLDR: If you were ever interested in the process by which a Pathological Narcissist fixes itself, read above.
I think that element of introspection is really important. Not just "finding yourself" bullshit, which often takes the form of running away from who you are in pursuit of who you wish you were, but actually looking at yourself and going, OK this is what I'm working with. The real me is messy, flawed, and vulnerable. But still, it's who I am, it's what I've got. Are there things I would like to change about myself? OK that takes work, and can only be done incrementally, and it takes a long time, and I'll fuck it up, so I'd better be forgiving of myself.
I think that loving one's self, flaws and all, is really hard and really important. I didn't like myself as a child, and I had a hard time forgiving my mistakes. This really limited my ability to protect my own boundaries or to be compassionate of others, which is something that I still work on. But I couldn't even start until I developed compassion for my own fucked-up past self.
I guess you never stop working on shit, really. People who do get smug and insufferable because they're unable to view their own bullshit.
Yeah. I thought I was the bomb-diggity when I was younger, and then when it was pointed out that I was a selfish prick, it was a (series of ever-escalating) shocks, until I figured out that, yeah, I'm not the person I want to be, I'm the person I am.
But it wasn't until even later than that when I figured out that it's not a switch that gets flipped, it's like a seawall in constant need of maintanance.
Still working on it, and I'm growing more comfortable with that.
When you start appreciating the tendencies you find in yourself, and how you acquired them, you start to appreciate other people and their tendencies. When you understand why someone is acting the way they are, you can even start to like the bad things they do just as much as the good things. I like humanity as a whole. I like the beauty in their successes, just as much as the horror in their failures. War and Peace, two sides of the same coin. The death, and the life. The theft and charity.
I used to be alone in a room full of people of varying qualities. Now, I'm just as comfortable talking to a polite stranger, as I am talking to a wealthy and powerful person, or violent delinquent. I can do business, and relate to people of all walks of life. The only people I generally find uninteresting are those who are mostly emotional. Those who react, almost robotically, based on their emotions. They are the most unstable, yet, predictable of people. Spotting them is easy, and there is generally nothing to learn from them after you've met one or two of them. The only thing that varies between those people are the backgrounds that caused them, and even those aren't complicated, nor do they really vary in large degrees.
I still find problems I have to work on. But I'm getting to the point, on some issues, where I don't know if they're a problem or not. Ideally, one would define something as a problem if it causes incidences. But, if the incidences don't affect me, are they deficiencies in me? If it doesn't burn any bridges, and I get something out of it, but it still causes conflict amongst others (if they know), is it something that needs fixed? I would only think to fix it if it harmed those I cared about. But it doesn't.
My question is, at what point are we just "optimizing" for the fuck of it?
I don't know. I think a large part of the reason to keep re-evaluating is because the people and environments around us change, and sometimes things that worked well for us once stop working so well, but we may be oblivious to that if we aren't up for a little periodic re-evaluation.
Have you ever known an older person who was so set on ways of interacting with the world that worked perfectly for them 20 years ago, but just seem hopelessly rigid and blindly hierarchical and authoritarian now? Contrast that with the older people who seem to adapt quickly, and have an endless curiosity for new information and different perspectives. One is a dinosaur. The other is wise.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 02:21:49 AM
I don't know. I think a large part of the reason to keep re-evaluating is because the people and environments around us change, and sometimes things that worked well for us once stop working so well, but we may be oblivious to that if we aren't up for a little periodic re-evaluation.
Have you ever known an older person who was so set on ways of interacting with the world that worked perfectly for them 20 years ago, but just seem hopelessly rigid and blindly hierarchical and authoritarian now? Contrast that with the older people who seem to adapt quickly, and have an endless curiosity for new information and different perspectives. One is a dinosaur. The other is wise.
Good point. But I personally consider adaptability to be a result of an evaluation or set of evaluations, not a sign of constant re-evaluation. Adaptability is a mindset. I think adaptability can be measured by magnitude of successful changes, but I see it as something that you either have or don't have.
Tell me if that doesn't make sense, because I've had trouble trying to put that into words.
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 30, 2015, 05:07:32 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 02:21:49 AM
I don't know. I think a large part of the reason to keep re-evaluating is because the people and environments around us change, and sometimes things that worked well for us once stop working so well, but we may be oblivious to that if we aren't up for a little periodic re-evaluation.
Have you ever known an older person who was so set on ways of interacting with the world that worked perfectly for them 20 years ago, but just seem hopelessly rigid and blindly hierarchical and authoritarian now? Contrast that with the older people who seem to adapt quickly, and have an endless curiosity for new information and different perspectives. One is a dinosaur. The other is wise.
Good point. But I personally consider adaptability to be a result of an evaluation or set of evaluations, not a sign of constant re-evaluation. Adaptability is a mindset. I think adaptability can be measured by magnitude of successful changes, but I see it as something that you either have or don't have.
Tell me if that doesn't make sense, because I've had trouble trying to put that into words.
You seem to be saying that adaptability is an inborn trait that is not learnable. That is incorrect: inborn temperament tendencies can cause people to be more or less attracted to adaptability, but adaptability itself is learnable, just as temperament is mutable depending on environmental influences.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
YES.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
YES.
I think the "Sold his soul for a bad job" is rant-worthy, but in a new thread.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:46:40 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
YES.
I think the "Sold his soul for a bad job" is rant-worthy, but in a new thread.
I would like to read that.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:49:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:46:40 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
YES.
I think the "Sold his soul for a bad job" is rant-worthy, but in a new thread.
I would like to read that.
Not so much about treacherous underling, as the general concept.
People do it with alarming regularity.
Thing is, the swinger thing kind of relies on the other people not being people. Just disposable fuckbags. There is a diference between this and casual dating, but I need to figure out how to state it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:53:08 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:49:32 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:46:40 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 07:19:07 AM
Recent events at work, involving both my own behavior and that of treacherous underling, have convinced me of one thing. It sounds corny, but when it's all over and done with, all you have is your morality and your integrity.
These are predicated on not shitting on those below you, and not sucking the arses of those above you. This doesn't mean you handle subordinates like hothouse flowers and act like an oppositional-defiant jackass to your bosses, it just means you act like a biped.
When I leave, treacherous underling will get my job. He thinks that's a win. :lulz:
The reasons it isn't a win are as follows:
1. The plant will be shut down at the end of the fiscal year (June 31), or January 1 at the absolute outside.
2. The crew hates him, because they know very well what he's been up to, and Lilly thinks of him as a toadie, and
3. He sold his soul for a bad job. Seriously. I've known this guy for just shy of 10 years, and I always respected the hell out of him. Now he's a backstabbing shit, or at least he would be if he was any good at it. And it's not just me, he's managed to alienate the entire industrial community in Tucson, and the major players in Phoenix.
I realize that this is a drift from the topic even greater than the posts above it, but it's relevant. Give a shit about other people as people, or become something a tad lower than Ted Cruz.
YES.
I think the "Sold his soul for a bad job" is rant-worthy, but in a new thread.
I would like to read that.
Not so much about treacherous underling, as the general concept.
People do it with alarming regularity.
Thing is, the swinger thing kind of relies on the other people not being people. Just disposable fuckbags. There is a diference between this and casual dating, but I need to figure out how to state it.
I think that not only are you completely right, but that however you figure out how to state it, I will be interesting in reading it. I think that you're right, there's a big difference, but the hard part is articulating it in a way that makes it clear that it ain't any kind of slut-shaming, but about treating people like people and not protrusions or holes.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 08:01:37 AM
I think that not only are you completely right, but that however you figure out how to state it, I will be interesting in reading it. I think that you're right, there's a big difference, but the hard part is articulating it in a way that makes it clear that it ain't any kind of slut-shaming, but about treating people like people and not protrusions or holes.
You're thinking the same way I am. Someone who likes to fuck likes to fuck, it's just that simple. But the compulsion to swap partners seems to me to be an expression of absolute contempt for everyone involved, starting with and most especially said partner. Even if they're into it. Especially if they're into it.
I personally would like more an open marriage than swinging... swinging seems like meat barter, idk.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on May 30, 2015, 08:03:45 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 08:01:37 AM
I think that not only are you completely right, but that however you figure out how to state it, I will be interesting in reading it. I think that you're right, there's a big difference, but the hard part is articulating it in a way that makes it clear that it ain't any kind of slut-shaming, but about treating people like people and not protrusions or holes.
You're thinking the same way I am. Someone who likes to fuck likes to fuck, it's just that simple. But the compulsion to swap partners seems to me to be an expression of absolute contempt for everyone involved, starting with and most especially said partner. Even if they're into it. Especially if they're into it.
Yep. Trade 'em out before you can start seeing them as a person.
I'm thinking the difference is this:
Casual sex isn't inherently bad. Swinging is based on degradation. It's the entire appeal.
And I have also noticed, while crawling through the seedier back alleys of the internet, that swingers are also sleazy-looking, without exception (in my limited experience). While this is anecdotal, I think it goes to the "bright eyes and bushy tails" thing. They aren't happy people or even decent people, and that affects the way they present themselves.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 07:45:08 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 30, 2015, 05:07:32 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 02:21:49 AM
I don't know. I think a large part of the reason to keep re-evaluating is because the people and environments around us change, and sometimes things that worked well for us once stop working so well, but we may be oblivious to that if we aren't up for a little periodic re-evaluation.
Have you ever known an older person who was so set on ways of interacting with the world that worked perfectly for them 20 years ago, but just seem hopelessly rigid and blindly hierarchical and authoritarian now? Contrast that with the older people who seem to adapt quickly, and have an endless curiosity for new information and different perspectives. One is a dinosaur. The other is wise.
Good point. But I personally consider adaptability to be a result of an evaluation or set of evaluations, not a sign of constant re-evaluation. Adaptability is a mindset. I think adaptability can be measured by magnitude of successful changes, but I see it as something that you either have or don't have.
Tell me if that doesn't make sense, because I've had trouble trying to put that into words.
You seem to be saying that adaptability is an inborn trait that is not learnable. That is incorrect: inborn temperament tendencies can cause people to be more or less attracted to adaptability, but adaptability itself is learnable, just as temperament is mutable depending on environmental influences.
As I feared, I seemed to have been unclear when choosing my words.
I agree, that it can be learned. What I was trying to say was that it is something learned and kept. Adaptability is part of what's required for consistent re-evaluation. I guess, maybe, I misunderstood you at first, and made a distinction that wasn't really there. I'm very, very tired at the moment, and will come back to this tomorrow to clear it up, and refresh myself on my perspective I had at the time.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 30, 2015, 08:09:27 AM
I personally would like more an open marriage than swinging... swinging seems like meat barter, idk.
THIS.One of the worst experiences I've ever had with naked people was an early experiment in "hey, let's try that fucking people who aren't each other thing." The husband had a friend who does porn with his wife (they're both enthusiastic about the work and no one seems to be exploited), and while I was pretty in to the super hot lady hitting on me, not so much her husband. And there was this constant attitude from all sides not me that clearly I
owed the husband some attention, since he was "being nice" and "sharing."
Needless to say this was a relatively short naked experience, although I do get to brag that a porn star complimented my feet now.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 30, 2015, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on May 30, 2015, 08:09:27 AM
I personally would like more an open marriage than swinging... swinging seems like meat barter, idk.
THIS.
One of the worst experiences I've ever had with naked people was an early experiment in "hey, let's try that fucking people who aren't each other thing." The husband had a friend who does porn with his wife (they're both enthusiastic about the work and no one seems to be exploited), and while I was pretty in to the super hot lady hitting on me, not so much her husband. And there was this constant attitude from all sides not me that clearly I owed the husband some attention, since he was "being nice" and "sharing."
Needless to say this was a relatively short naked experience, although I do get to brag that a porn star complimented my feet now.
It reminds me of some nightclub experiences ive heard of... a guy and its friend, or a girl and her friend respectively function as a type of duo, or "wingman"... what allegedly happens is that one of the duo takes the prize and the other takes the bullet, so to speak... because the more attractive part of the respective duosare settled, the other halfs are kinda stuck in the situation, and might start nagging about hopping to another bar or ending the night eventually, so the wingman is encouraged to offer itself regardless of interest to keep the fleeing half of the other duo at bay.
With swingers? What is the warranty that in the trade both partners are as attractive? Maybe one of them provokes a lot of lust to one of them and the other partner is repulsed? Come on honey, take a bullet for the team just this once.
Curiously, I have also been verbally attacked by swingers simply for putting "although I am poly, I am not interested in swingers so please don't contact me if that is your MO" in my OKC profile.
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 29, 2015, 07:01:36 AM
Quote from: Reginald Ret on May 28, 2015, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
That sounds very accurate, thanks for that insight into LuciferX.
Now I know why i kept going back and forth on liking him and being annoyed by him.
I also know why I sometimes confused the two of you. (In LuciferX's more lucid moments, I did not intend to insult)
No problem. And don't worry, I caught on to him because I saw aspects of myself in him. And introspection makes aspects like that much more clear when you're observing.
It probably sounds like I'm stroking my own ego, but I think, based on my own experiences, he might be quite a joy to talk to once he comes around. He has lots of potential. Anyone know how old he is? I would look at his profile, but I stopped trusting profile ages a long time ago.
Quote from: Meunster on May 29, 2015, 02:48:37 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 03:05:34 AM
Shit, I wasn't even aware that swingers and polys had a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. Which sounds stupid now that I say that, seeing as how almost everyone has a philosophy or dogma to justify their actions. I guess their philosophies and dogmas remained hidden to me because I haven't met many, and I never really thought about it. I mean, I know people who fuck around a lot and they don't seem to care at all, but that's probably not what you're talking about. Swingers, on the other hand, I have never had the pleasure of meeting.
Swinging makes me a bit uncomfortable. But the closest thing to that that I can relate to is my idea of a perfect relationship:
Two people are partners, a single force against the entire world. They do whatever it takes to better themselves. If it means fucking someone outside of the relationship to get favors that benefit them both, so be it. But at the end of the night (Or in the morning, when the partner returns from fucking the other person), it's their partner they truly love.
But that's probably some fairytale shit. House of Cards (American version) projects unrealistic relationship goals for me :lulz:
More on-topic: Anyone who insists that my sexual orientation or preference is actually something other than what I've decided to express, is a total fuckwad. I don't care what the "science" of sexual predisposition says. My desires don't have to be fucking scientific. I will only be happy doing what I will. Anyone suggesting that I will be happy doing something else can suck a swinging bag of dicks.
Got a link?
One good pdf and I'm open to most ideologies. I want to expand mind.
Could you be more specific? Not sure exactly what you're referring to. I don't remember talking about anything that would be found in PDF form, unless they have the Script for House of Cards in PDF on Kickass.to or something.
Quote from: The Johnny on May 28, 2015, 09:09:28 PM
This cat's words usually have the problem of deliberate obfuscation and noise, others are supposed to magically decipher the meaning of out-of-context metaphors or he gets wounded when he gets misinterpreted.
TLDR: its always a bad idea to use purple prose along with noise and obscurity to express your message when you are trying to debate or contribute to a conversation that isnt with yourself.
Excellent point you've brought up, and I think you explained it perfectly. That was another problem I had. I would turn the paragraphs of information that I wanted to express into a puzzle using out of context metaphors, etc. And if someone didn't understand me, I was hurt and put the responsibility on the reader. I would say this is also what he is doing, precisely.
the, they have a dogma to justify it.
Quote from: Meunster on June 01, 2015, 10:53:39 PM
the, they have a dogma to justify it.
Oh, I don't know of a PDF explaining the Swinger-type dogmatic justification. I was defining their "dogma" using what was stated in this thread: Their belief that everyone is actually polygamous.
Does that answer your question? Or am I missing something big/being fucking retarded? Because that happens sometimes.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
Stop being a person and be a thing. Damn, Nigel, do I have to explain
everything?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 01, 2015, 11:59:19 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
Stop being a person and be a thing. Damn, Nigel, do I have to explain everything?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
There you go, being
Nigel again all over everything.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
There you go, being Nigel again all over everything.
Not exactly.
Being
Nigel is being
perceived as judgemental, mean, and insulting
without necessarily being on the same continent.[Edited for typo.]
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 29, 2015, 07:05:13 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
Whoa, that was pretty incisive.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks. When you spend years breaking your own tendencies down into a science, you start to recognize the patterns in others as well.
When you have the background that I do, and the years of experience in putting others down (As a small child, until about the age of 14, I was an awful bully.), it gets hard to look at yourself on any realistic level without feeling terrible. I have no doubt that he was also bullied and became a bully out of spite. But, the moment you realize your shit stinks just like everyone else's, and you're not actually enlightened beyond any of these "mere mortals," life gets sooooo much easier. And people get so much easier to deal with.
Another thing I realized eventually:
You gotta love the shithead that you actually are, not the one you imagine yourself to be. You got some baggage? You got some dirt? Oh well. No one is perfect. Forgive yourself, and move on. Nothing is irredeemable. I watched my mom tell my child molesting grandfather, that she forgives him for everything he did to her, just before he died. Ignoring your flaws is not a valid method of redemption.
TLDR: If you were ever interested in the process by which a Pathological Narcissist fixes itself, read above.
So, I tried looking that up in the V'th DSM and found myself quite nonplussed, what's the problem again?
Quote from: Reginald Ret on June 04, 2015, 11:14:06 PM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on June 04, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 30, 2015, 06:49:15 PM
Apparently, I was being judgmental, mean, and insulting by stating my own sexual boundaries.
There you go, being Nigel again all over everything.
Not exactly.
Being Nigel is being perceived as judgemental, mean, and insulting without necessarily being on the same continent.
[Edited for typo.]
:lulz:
Quote from: LuciferX on June 05, 2015, 07:21:35 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 29, 2015, 07:45:01 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on May 29, 2015, 07:05:13 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on May 28, 2015, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on May 28, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Is LuciferX a non-native English speaker? Because I don't want to shit on somebody for having a poor grasp of a second or third language, I just really really cannot understand what the fuck he's on about.
No, he just takes statements he can't understand as insults, or denigration, because he has ego issues. He also neglects to state his personal views and opinions as views or opinions, and instead, states them as universal facts. This is also because of ego issues.
After everyone takes the opposing side, he remembers to throw in the fact that his statements were, in-fact, views and opinions. He does this, without realizing it, because of the ego issues. You can't have an incorrect opinion or view, so his ego re-writes his paragraphs for him in E-Prime and with extra (Yet, twisted) pedantry.
How do I know this? Because I used to do the same shit. Maybe I still do the same shit. But admitting that you do it and seeing it in yourself and others is the first step to solving the problem. Believe it or not (This is at LuciferX) you don't need other people to help you with that problem, because I know you probably wouldn't let anyone try to fix that problem because you're so hateful towards the idea of someone who isn't you (Because everyone is lesser than you, right?) fixing you.
EDIT: Basically, this makes it seem as though Lucifer is disagreeing one moment, and switching directions the next. And when you're under attack when you have ego issues, you tend to kick your pedantry machine too hard, causing it to spit out the sludge you read by LuciferX half of the time. You start re-reading pieces of what you write, as you write it, and you throw different ideas into it in every cycle, causing loops of concept shittery. It's just what happens when your ego is desperate and you have a decent intelligence. Yeah, I said it, I have no doubt that he's intelligent. He just has some issues he needs to deal with before he'll start making sense.
Whoa, that was pretty incisive.
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks. When you spend years breaking your own tendencies down into a science, you start to recognize the patterns in others as well.
When you have the background that I do, and the years of experience in putting others down (As a small child, until about the age of 14, I was an awful bully.), it gets hard to look at yourself on any realistic level without feeling terrible. I have no doubt that he was also bullied and became a bully out of spite. But, the moment you realize your shit stinks just like everyone else's, and you're not actually enlightened beyond any of these "mere mortals," life gets sooooo much easier. And people get so much easier to deal with.
Another thing I realized eventually:
You gotta love the shithead that you actually are, not the one you imagine yourself to be. You got some baggage? You got some dirt? Oh well. No one is perfect. Forgive yourself, and move on. Nothing is irredeemable. I watched my mom tell my child molesting grandfather, that she forgives him for everything he did to her, just before he died. Ignoring your flaws is not a valid method of redemption.
TLDR: If you were ever interested in the process by which a Pathological Narcissist fixes itself, read above.
So, I tried looking that up in the V'th DSM and found myself quite nonplussed, what's the problem again?
Are you asking what problem exists with the disorder itself? Or are you asking where I see the disorder (Or parts of it) in you?