thelastpsychiatrist.com - Taboos Are The Ways Christians Try To Control Us. Adnotated.

if I told you the A stood for adulteress, would that turn you off? My husband said the same thingⁱ

Of the manyⁱⁱ emails I received about the taboos post, only a handful were not of the form, "you are a right wing Rush Limbaugh douchebag." Wrong at least two times. You fail.

Here was one of the nicer ones:

So, you're saying to not publicize all your wrong-doings, because there are small pockets of people to support you, no matter what you've done. But, you seem to love Tucker Max (or at least his jokes?) who has basically done that for his ENTIREⁱⁱⁱ life. What gives?

The person who wrote that is a woman in the sciences whom I've emailed a few times^iv, i.e. if she misunderstood the post, it was my fault.^v So:

So, anywhere you can get support, including the NYT, by all means go. This isn't about getting support, and these individuals aren't getting support.^vi They don't care what you think. That's not what they're doing.

You don't need me to tell you what's right and wrong and anyway I'm hardly an expert on morality. But what I am an expert in is the psychological tricks we play^vii, and their consequences to you. You may be able to live with the consequences, but they exist nonetheless.

Guilt, unlike shame, was always about You vs. Yourself.^viii But what's changed is that You -- the guilty party -- has found a loophole in the system. That loophole hurts everyone.

I.

What did Epstein do wrong? Incest and infidelity.^ix He did both, right? What's happened in the press? The incest's severity has completely erased the infidelity. At no time does Epstein have to confront the internal guilt of infidelity^x, because he's battling an incest charge. I don't mean publicly -- I mean privately, he never faces himself about infidelity, only incest.

Now incest -- terrible, we all agree^xi, but should the law really be monitoring the sex lives of consenting adults? Of course not. "Incest is wrong," I might say, "but we have no business policing it." What just happened there is that "Epstein" has managed to get me to partially support him. I may hate him, but irrelevant- "he" interprets my partial support as part of a global judgment of him, and thus has mitigated his guilt by converting it to shame, and the shame is lessened because some people are partially supportive.

I realize that HE didn't do this on purpose or consciously (though his lawyer is), and HE does not care about my support. But it happened nonetheless. That's the whole point of the media's involvement, our generational solution to the problem of guilt. This is what we will all be doing, the internet as confessional and for the remission of sins. Whether we do it on purpose or not, once a private guilt that (should) gnaw at you gets exposed as a public shame, and the public/whatever newspaper you have at your disposal/your facebook friends/etc start taking sides, that internal guilt is obliterated. Epstein still has to deal with the shame and social and legal repercussions, but not guilt.^xii

What's the result? The result for Epstein isn't my interest, it's his life and it's not my right^xiii to keep his guilt alive for him. But now, FOR SURE, incest is no longer a taboo, it is no longer a matter of guilt, but of shame. Everyone is free to decide whether they can take the shame; everyone has become a Nietzschean superman^xiv, deciding for themselves if there are any taboos. Which, of course they were always free to do -- but they had the good sense not to try. Now it is possible to ask "am I free to have consensual sex with my adult daughter?" -- which, of course, you are free to do, and which, of course, you are never free to do. It's that simple.^xv

Do you think it's a coincidence that 2010 had three big adult incest stories, but 2009 had none? They were occurring in 2009, but the gates of that taboo have lost their sentry: guilt^xvi. So now incest is a matter of shame, not guilt.^xvii If you can take the shame and your daughter's hot, enjoy.

Many in the comments accused me of being an old codger, a "these kids today are immoral" uptight Rush Limbaughlite. If you think that, you're missing something truly important: these aren't kids. These are middle aged professionals who have kids.^xviii I expect -- want -- a little Nietzsche in the 20 somethings of the world, to fuel them to do something with their lives. But these are people who should know better. Instead, they've convinced themselves, after 4 decades of life, that they deserve to be happy, that their happiness is more important than anything.^xix

I'm not free of guilt. But the difference is that whatever guilt I have I don't let infect other people. If I am incesting or cheating on my spouse, I would still have the human decency NOT to try and publicly mitigate that guilt by conversion to shame because I know that if I succeed then it becomes okay for someone else. I may have the "right" to do whatever I want, but do I have the right to make it okay for others?^xx How I deal with guilt has an effect on how someone else will. What could I ever say to console my daughter if her husband cheats on her^xxi, when I'm in the NYT saying cheating is a matter of "finding a soul mate?"

Every one of our actions has a blast radius, and there are other people in it. KABOOM. Count the bodies.^xxii

II.

Would you trust Epstein or Tucker Max to babysit your five year old daughter?^xxiii It's not an idle question, there will come a day where you will be asked to choose between X or Y and without any kind of architecture to guide you you will choose what my idiot generation has chosen, which is to choose nothing -- "I'm not letting my child out of my sight" and you'll end up like those parents at the park who use their kids as human shields to avoid connecting with any other parent.^xxiv Result? Your kid doesn't get kidnapped by the Unabomber but he has learned you think all people are evil. Enjoy their adolescence.^xxv

"Not a fair comparison, Blackbeard, we're talking about consenting adults. Who would you trust to chaperone your 24 year old wife, Epstein or Tucker Max?" That question is a lie. That question really worries about who would be more successful with your 24 year old wife, and of course that's not a comment on their trustworthiness but on your wife's. If she can't keep some alternative penis out of her vagina then the problem isn't the penises.^xxvi

But to answer the question, of course I would trust Tucker Max more because I have a sense Max's limits are at X point -- has he slept with all his friends' wives? has he cheated on his wife? (1) -- and David Epstein's limits are only his own physical limitations. Nothing but the law contains Epstein, which is not any kind of containment. If I'm right he does not feel guilt -- that means anything, including eating a baby, is possible. "Are you saying he'd eat a baby?" No. But what's stopping him?^xxvii

III.

There are a few people commenting who doubt the relevance of guilt, or the need for it; who openly decry it as a tool of the Christians or the establishment as a means of social control. I haven't tracked the IP addresses, but I'd wager big money^xxviii that those are the same people who want to think Goldman Sachs is evil.

I'd also wager gigantic money that none of these people are carrying around any terrible secrets. None of you supporting Epstein are in the market for adult incest.

What infuriates you is the idea that anyone or anything has control over us. You don't like to be told they aren't allowed to do something. "As long as it doesn't hurt anybody, I should be allowed..." You want complete freedom -- which you will use to conform to very ordinary standards of living that you impose on yourself.^xxix

But this isn't a moral issue that I am describing, it is an architectural problem: the very thing that allows you to exist in a world of complete freedom is those internal controls and not the social controls -- laws and shames -- that you think bind you.

Shame will never be enough -- when your identity is "strong" enough nothing shames you, not a sex tape or a prison term, you'll take that scarlet letter and put it on a tight tank top and wear it ironically, not to mention hotly.^xxx

The laws will never be stronger than you. Wall Street may need more regulation but it won't reduce the corruption at all.^xxxi If they want to find a way around the law, they will. Always. The more laws you have, the less relevant guilt becomes. The laws are exactly the same mechanism as Epstein's shaming: externalizing the rule affords you the opportunity to explore the grey areas. The only thing that will stop corruption is people not wanting to be corrupt.^xxxii

The new factor is our access to the media, our connectivity. No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to completely block out the judgment of others -- and you won't want to if that judgment is to your benefit.

I am not trying to stop progress or technology, I'm telling you to be careful with your lives. Riddell and Epstein may have dodged huge psychological bullets, but those bullets hit the rest of us right in the face.^xxxiii

---

1.^xxxiv Maybe this isn't the place for a textual analysis of I Hope The Serve Beer In Hell, but he's not so much disrespectful to women as a master of a kind of dialogue with them, one that both of them are completely aware of.

"You're a slut."^xxxv
"No I'm not! and I'll prove it by sleeping with you."
"Whatever. Let me get my coat."

At least within these kinds of interactions, labeling him "disrespectful" or "sexist" misses the woman's active participation in this kind of dialogue. It's a game, she knows it's a game, she's seen this game before, and she wants to play that game.^xxxvi Interestingly, it's probably correct to say that your missing the woman's active role in the game reveals an implicit assumption of male dominance in social interactions, i.e. you're kind of a sexist.^xxxvii

1. The original image (meanwhile disappeared off the author's own site) consists of (a very small version of) the above shot of E. K. Grindemyr, doctored by him such that the panties became red with a barely legible white cursive capital A overimposed. I opted to merely describe rather than attempting to figure out what the fuck exotic font he used on the basis of three by four pixels, and otherwise trying to retrace his insanity with my own hands, because seriously now.

   I'm not even sure what the fuck point he's trying to make, but I hope it's not something like ''let's all agree not to fuck other people's wives''. [↩]

2. On the face a dubious claim, but whatevs. [↩]
3. The ENTIRE life of an adolescent ain't that entire just yet. Meanwhile that very same entire also includes a stint as a Max Keiser clone, "investmentfinanceexperting&advice" on no basis whatsoever, as well as shipwrecking into a marriage-with-children thing to eat at the inlaws' table, because gotta eat... there's a whole list of lulz lined up in the "entire life" of some anodyne organ donor, besides that one time in game 6 when he scored or whatever it is he did. [↩]
4. That's more like it, ie
   

   Are niste prieteni si niste cunostiinte care-l si citesc. Ei nu sunt cititorii lui care intimplator ii sunt si cunoscuti, sunt prietenii si cunostiintele lui care intimplator il si citesc. Daca miine nu l-or mai citi tot aia or fi.

   Not really what he was implying, da' noa, hai, treaca de la mine. [↩]

5. Simp. [↩]
6. I suspect ambiguation re "support". If I decide to bomb this dude's house, and the Serb mafia in his neighbourood is providing me with a ride for the purpose, it'd be either the case that they are providing support, in the sense of furthering my goals, or not providing me "true" or "real" support, in the sense of... not furthering his goals. Cuz obviously trebuie sa intelegi, "real" support leads to what he wants to happen, not what actually happens. [↩]
7. I'd say! [↩]
8. Very bizarre, this guy's guilt fetish. [↩]
9. I presume this is a different Epstein from the one running the Clintons' rape island for little kids bought on public funds, as I'm way the fuck too lazy to check. [↩]
10. Maybe the "wife" was in on it ? I mean, it's possible, yes ? If she were, she wouldn't have sent a report card to Ballas of the Internet, right ? Notwithstanding Ballas gets oh so very many emails, nevertheless it's perfectly conceivable a faggoty old pimp's "marriage" is not exactly congruent with Iowa-powered expectations. Right ? [↩]
11. I suspect we very much don't "all" agree all that much, but whatevs. [↩]
12. I suspect that what he's proposing is actually a pretty decent schema to represent and therefore explain a lot of internet-only exhibitionism from otherwise very shy and socially inept shitsacks. I've certainly observed the behaviour he's discussing (though almost universally in below-zero SMV rejects), the analysis makes sense, the whole thing checks out -- though it's usually "I said I'm pigging out on twitter, so therefore my dead diet may be to my shame, but not my guilt. It's not usually incest or whatever, though at least in principle there's no real bar to the extension. [↩]
13. Leaving "the right" alone, as nobody in his right mind gives a flying fuck about rights, that shit's expensive! Why the hell would anyone keep some other dork's "guilt alive for him" anymore than his wife satisfied or his children fed ? Let him do his own fucking work, what the fuck. [↩]
14. Well... of sorts. [↩]
15. "Is she hot" is much more on point than any of this. The rule of hotness in amorous entanglements is like the rule of cool in fiction : it trumps everything else. To put it plainly : the only reason I'm not fucking my adult daughters is that they ain't hot enough to bother with, and exactly nothing else. Yes, coincidentally I also don't have any adult daughters -- well, not of my own making I mean, they're other people's daughters -- but that's just as irrelevant as any other coincidence. Like, I don't have any soda in the house, but I wouldn't drink it even if I had it, so the absence's coincidental to the not drinking. Same principle with the fucking, except of course in the positive.

    That said, we all agree you shouldn't be fucking your own daughters, adult or otherwise. In fact, we all agree you shouldn't be fucking at all. [↩]

16. This seems at best a tenuous interpretation of whatever media nonsense. For one thing, there weren't six, or nine or four in 2011, and there's none in 2020 etcetera. Maybe, just possibly... they weren't happening in 2009 ? Or, for that matter, in 2010, either ? Maybe all this shit on the "news programme" is... made up ? Maybe I wouldn't even fuck my daughter at all ? Or maybe if I did fuck my adult daughter it'd be outside of anyone's purview to find this out, seing how... well, how the fuck is anyone going to ? [↩]
17. What the fuck was the guilt supposed to be about, anyways ? Like, you're such a terrible lay, it's gonna melt her brain and sag her tits, or what exactly ?

    She's not made of soap, yo! It doesn't wear out with use! The cunt's not made of soap and there's no soul, what the fuck else magicks will we discover reading scientists' take on things & sciences I wonder. [↩]

18. Is the problem here that the professionals organ donors are having too much fun ? Because seriously now, if you think fucking your daughter's automatically fun for that reason not only do you sound a lot like the Internet's worst, but maybe the best solution is to actually try it out ? Pro tip : she's not special. There's no "special". Stop chasing chick flicks irl, motherfucking larptards! [↩]
19. Dude, again. What the fuck's happiness to do with any of this ?

    If your happiness is built out of fucking some chick, you're more fucked in the head than she is! [↩]

20. The fuck is he asking me for. Yo! Go ask whoever the fuck "gave you your rights" what you're supposed to do with them. As far as I'm concerned you're more than welcome to shove them, what the fuck. [↩]
21. What ?!

    I have to sometime meet this daughter who's consoled by her father when her husband cheats on her. That's some seriously otherworldly shit right there, I thought I had the trophy but apparently not after all. Apparently there's people with even wilder ideas out there! [↩]

22. What are these bodies doing for a living, if staying the fuck out of blast radiuses ain't it ?

    Hurr durr, the world's made of china dolls and you're responsible for all of them, fancy that wonder. "Guilt is how I feel like god, it's been co-opted by my narcissistic needs of self-worship and I really dislike it when others cheapen it by public exposure".

    Pro tip : they'll be fine. They "won't like you", but the thing is... they never did like you anyways. If they had liked you, your arrangements'd have looked a lot different than what they actually end up looking like. Aite ? [↩]

23. I wouldn't trust anyone but her mother and her mother's slavegirlfriendsisters to babysit, what the fuck nonsense is this. [↩]
24. This has nothing to do with anything ; 1950s women didn't do the "babysitting" thing either, nor the social awkwardness for that matter. The two are unrelated, the "babysitting" nonsense started with "careerwomen", tis a 60s an' 70s phenomenon. [↩]
25. Wait... does he mean sexually ?! [↩]
26. Hey, I was gonna say the exact same thing in a footnote ; but apparently his brain works ok sometimes. [↩]
27. Babies don't taste particularly good.

    Remarkably rural Moslem line of argumentation, incidentally. I've searched and couldn't turn up (though I'm sure it's in here somewhere) the place where I grazingly discuss a very similar approach among my friends in Cairo, "ok, you don't believe in Allah, that's understandable, being a Christian" "I'm not a Christian" "What then ?" "Nothing." "But... what do you mean nothing ?" "Just like that, nothing." "But you have to believe in something" "Why ?" "Because... because... if you don't, what's to keep you from doing anything, any bad thing ?" "Nothing, really."

    A poor man's notion of what wealth's like, basically. [↩]

28. Whence this inclination of people who don't have big money to describe their willingness to wager such as they don't actually have ? [↩]
29. Well duh, what the fuck else are you gonna do ?! Or anyone else for that matter. I can beat the girls, any time I want, with whatever I want, for as long as I can muster the energy. Such is my absolute and unquestionable, not to mention unquestioned priviledge -- dut do I ? Occasionally ; somewhat. Not most of the time, obviously. [↩]
30. Quite. There's absolutely nothing "society" can ever do. [↩]
31. So then... what's it need more regulation for ? Not enough pointless bureaucrats being fed as it is ? [↩]
32. Yet corruption is definitely preferable to the alternative. [↩]
33. Honestly, my only takeaway from this pile of contortion is that Ballas has cheated on his wife, a single event which he regrets (in the usual sense), and also is very much affraid he may want to fuck his daughter. To console him, however belatedly : it's not uncommon for fathers to be sexually aroused by the daughters ; it is extremely rare for the daughters to be at all receptive however. In other words : Ballas along with every other simp needn't worry too much about the magical power of their penis to alter reality. There's no such thing ; definitionally the limits on their reality is set by the women they live amongst. [↩]
34. Apparently he perceives the need for footnotes too! [↩]
35. Techncally, "you're inferior, which I will call random words". "No I'm not! Pick any thing in this room -- I will lift it over my head! Mendelbaum! Mendelbaum!

    There's a meta-reason to engage in this dialogue as stated. "Ironically", if you will : for the longest time it's something women simply could not afford, period. That now they can lends the campiness some semblance of cool, derived from the ambiguity of personal positioning -- in order to work it has to be played straight, see, otherwise endless generations of mulas also played it down, or for laughs, or any other way other than straight, because straight was simply economically unviable (to not say impossible). But it also has to be played not-straight, because what the fuck, really ?

    Women generally like men who can well handle ambiguity, in any case much moreso than they like men for any other reason. [↩]

36. Amusingly enough, the people labeling him "disrespectful" or "sexist" aren't discussing the interaction between him and the one woman that he's playing the game with. They're discussing the interaction between those two having played their game and everyone else. The point isn't that he's dissolving to the social arrangements and mental representations of the women he's fucking ; the point very much is that he is dissolving of the social arrangements and mental representations of the women he's not fucking! This argument is flawed in the usual sense of straight-up wanna-be-ism, of course, seeing how Tucker Max very much isn't me ; but this solid objection aside one'd have expected a lot more sympathy for that line of argument from this particular simp, at least given the foregoing blather. [↩]
37. I know, right ? [↩]