Neverland

People have a lot of misconceptions about narcissism and tend to think that it's the same as vanity. Although that can coexist with narcissism, it can be any quality that a person thinks makes them entitled to special treatment. Although I've seen many a supposed beauty who could measure their narcissism in selfies/hr, I have seen many narcissists who think their intelligence entitles them to special treatment and the world should just bow to them. They live to be told how brilliant they are while other people do the work. I have even seen narcissistic mothers who live to be told what a wonderful mother they are or how special their children are.

Narcissism's main indicator is a need for narcissistic supply, to have their specialness constantly reinforced by others to attain an illusion of superiority. That feeling of superiority then creates a sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy for others. But there's one source of narcissism that doesn't get talked about. It's the kind that creates the Brock Turners of the world... and that the sheer fact that they are a man.

Unfortunately there are plenty of world religions providing this narcissistic supply, saying men are made in God's image and women are to serve men. The result is it churns out narcissistic males who feel entitled to sex, entitled to women, entitled to special treatment for being male, and a lack of empathy for women which explains why the medical profession takes women's pain, issues, and concerns so lightly. It's why we have a double standard and women's emotions and suffering are treated so unempathetically. But while other forms of narcissism may fade like beauty, intelligence might lessen with aging mental capacity, and a narcissist (who themselves are the only people who can cure a narcissist) might take new stock at their life and reform, a man will always be a man and there will always be an endless supply of rhetoric and a network of enablers and womanizers feeding that narcissistic supply through religion, media, and judges offering lighter sentences for violent crimes against women.

While not all men are narcissistic, there is a structure in place that has created an epidemic of narcissistic men who feel more entitled than ever to sex and women. The media encourages it. Being a womanizer is met with fist bumps for exploiting women while being a responsible mate is regarded as being "whipped". Peter Pan complex (which is the same as narcissism) has created a generation of man-children who never want to grow up. They want their codependent Wendy playing mom and taking care of things while they have their Tinkerbell mistresses. 

Narcissism is a serious disorder that destroys one's capacity for making meaningful relationships. It can compound other disorders and make them even more destructive. But therapy doesn't often work for narcissists because they often enjoy it and just manipulate therapists instead of dealing with their issues, because that would mean admitting they aren't as awesome as they think they are and they tend to withdraw or quit in situations where they don't have control or narcissistic supply. Emotional vulnerability, self awareness, compassion, and nurturing are all weaknesses to a narcissist, or in other words, considered "unmanly" and qualities they exploit in they're victims i.e. Women. Instead they collect their jars of hearts and continue being Lost Boys. 

The problem is they have created a Neverland here full of double standards, male privilege, and lamentations of women where women are blamed when men make bad choices and can be hurt without empathy using phrases like "20 minutes of action", as they destroy a woman's life. We need more men like the two who had empathy that pulled Brock Turner off his victim. So please don't feed the narcissists. It's like feeding bears. They stop searching for healthy relationships and start expecting others to give them things or go through the garbage until they become a nuisance to everyone. Hold them accountable and stop using phrases like "boys will be boys". You are perpetuating male entitlement which leads to worse things. It's more than just teaching consent and empathy. If you tell boys they are special for being boys, they become entitled and lack the empathy to respect consent. 

If anyone should be entitled to anything, it is respect, and that is earned by giving it, by acting responsibly, through caring and self discipline. Entitlements are just excuses for people to act like overgrown 3 year olds. Respect has to be earned, but its foundation is stronger and not as fragile as a narcissistic ego that needs supply. It's unshakable as it is strengthened every day in action through strong character. That's what makes a man instead of a Lost Boy.

Neverland

People have a lot of misconceptions about narcissism and tend to think that it's the same as vanity. Although that can coexist with narcissism, it can be any quality that a person thinks makes them entitled to special treatment. Although I've seen many a supposed beauty who could measure their narcissism in selfies/hr, I have seen many narcissists who think their intelligence entitles them to special treatment and the world should just bow to them. They live to be told how brilliant they are while other people do the work. I have even seen narcissistic mothers who live to be told what a wonderful mother they are or how special their children are.

Narcissism's main indicator is a need for narcissistic supply, to have their specialness constantly reinforced by others to attain an illusion of superiority. That feeling of superiority then creates a sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy for others. But there's one source of narcissism that doesn't get talked about. It's the kind that creates the Brock Turners of the world... and that the sheer fact that they are a man.

Unfortunately there are plenty of world religions providing this narcissistic supply, saying men are made in God's image and women are to serve men. The result is it churns out narcissistic males who feel entitled to sex, entitled to women, entitled to special treatment for being male, and a lack of empathy for women which explains why the medical profession takes women's pain, issues, and concerns so lightly. It's why we have a double standard and women's emotions and suffering are treated so unempathetically. But while other forms of narcissism may fade like beauty, intelligence might lessen with aging mental capacity, and a narcissist (who themselves are the only people who can cure a narcissist) might take new stock at their life and reform, a man will always be a man and there will always be an endless supply of rhetoric and a network of enablers and womanizers feeding that narcissistic supply through religion, media, and judges offering lighter sentences for violent crimes against women.

While not all men are narcissistic, there is a structure in place that has created an epidemic of narcissistic men who feel more entitled than ever to sex and women. The media encourages it. Being a womanizer is met with fist bumps for exploiting women while being a responsible mate is regarded as being "whipped". Peter Pan complex (which is the same as narcissism) has created a generation of man-children who never want to grow up. They want their codependent Wendy playing mom and taking care of things while they have their Tinkerbell mistresses. 

Narcissism is a serious disorder that destroys one's capacity for making meaningful relationships. It can compound other disorders and make them even more destructive. But therapy doesn't often work for narcissists because they often enjoy it and just manipulate therapists instead of dealing with their issues, because that would mean admitting they aren't as awesome as they think they are and they tend to withdraw or quit in situations where they don't have control or narcissistic supply. Emotional vulnerability, self awareness, compassion, and nurturing are all weaknesses to a narcissist, or in other words, considered "unmanly" and qualities they exploit in they're victims i.e. Women. Instead they collect their jars of hearts and continue being Lost Boys. 

The problem is they have created a Neverland here full of double standards, male privilege, and lamentations of women where women are blamed when men make bad choices and can be hurt without empathy using phrases like "20 minutes of action", as they destroy a woman's life. We need more men like the two who had empathy that pulled Brock Turner off his victim. So please don't feed the narcissists. It's like feeding bears. They stop searching for healthy relationships and start expecting others to give them things or go through the garbage until they become a nuisance to everyone. Hold them accountable and stop using phrases like "boys will be boys". You are perpetuating male entitlement which leads to worse things. It's more than just teaching consent and empathy. If you tell boys they are special for being boys, they become entitled and lack the empathy to respect consent. 

If anyone should be entitled to anything, it is respect and that is earned by giving it, by acting responsibly, through caring and self discipline. Entitlements are just excuses for people to act like overgrown 3 year olds. Respect has to be earned, but its foundation is stronger and not as fragile as a narcissistic ego that needs supply. It's unshakable as it is strengthened every day in action through strong character. That's what makes a man instead of a Lost Boy.

Gay Marriage

Recently an Oklahoma judge did his job and did it right. What do I mean by that?

Many people today want the government to be this all sustaining entity in their life.  They want to blame it for all their woes, and feel entitled for the government to take care of them.  In short, people are wanting the government to be their god.  This can be seen by those wanting the government to take on responsibilities that fall strictly in the domain of the church. 

By nature of the separation of church and state, the government is to preside over legal matters that concern property and infringements on the rights of its citizens, ergo any human regardless of cultural or religious differences that is considered a citizen of the United States of America by birth or oath. 

Morality and ethics are not the domain of the government but of religion and philosophy. Therefore the government separated itself to leave those concerns to the discernment of the various religions within its citizenry. If gay marriage is a religious issue, its validity would be up to each church and each religion to decide it's own stance within that congregation. Just as the government cannot dictate a religious stance to change and allow a marriage, a church cannot vote morality into governmental law, only its own church law, and only to those who willingly submit to put themselves under the law of that church. Should the church and those willingly joined in that church decide against it, then they are allowed to proceed as they see fit, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, which would be illegal and the government's domain to protect a citizen from lasting damage.  But if there is a church that wants to marry gays, then so be it. It is the prerogative of that church, and It's still not the business of anyone outside their congregation.

However the courts can only address marriage so far as it is a legal contract willingly entered into by two adults of sound mind. It is an agreement between two individuals to follow the terms of the contract and contracts are of legal government concern to enforce, so long as it is valid within the law and has an exit clause.  Two people willingly participating in a contractual agreement are not a religious concern, because they have submitted it to the governing body of the legal system as opposed to the governing of the church, and "the government shall make no law concerning religion". That means FOR OR AGAINST. If it's religious, then government cannot make a law against it. If it's not, then the government has to treat all citizens equally under the law. PERIOD

Law is not about feelings. It's not about morality or ethics.  It is not a god to declare what is right and wrong, morally or ethically. It can only judge what is in accordance to its laws, and presently the denial of a section of humanity rights is violation of their basic human rights.

The history of marriage is not one of just the Bible, but of humanity. Marriage is a universal concept that crosses many cultures, religions, and beliefs. Those beliefs existed long before Christianity.  In fact it was Christianity in the time of Constantine that brought kindness to a contract that was not considered as sacred as it is today. In Rome, should your wife displease you, you could sell her to a whore house. Before that, the invention of the wedding ring was a symbol of the chain a man used to tie his wife to his home until Stockholm syndrome set in and she became his.  Even Charlemagne who was one of the driving forces of Christianity had Pope approved multiple concubines. I am glad that marriage has changed, because it was at one time akin to slavery, which is illegal now. So perhaps all marriage is illegal by that merit? Hmmm... At least by Biblical law slaves could be released after 7 years if they wanted, although some chose to stay with good masters. That was a point of pride at that time to have slaves that wanted to stay. Wives didn't have such freedom.

The point is that things are very different now, and much of our perceptions of marriage are modern constructs that are far kinder than their original version that has been spun in the best light. Do we really want to go back to a time of oppression?

Myself, I am straight, married, Christian, and have a daughter. Every one of those things is a choice that I had the freedom to make, because we don't live under a Theocracy with a state religion that oppresses those who worship differently.  Being that many Americans came here because of that very freedom, it's one of the freedoms that I treasure and so did the Founding Fathers. Oh look!  Even America had more than one dad! 

If you don't like it, then don't do it. It's that simple. It's just not right or just to force others to adjust to your preferences, regardless of what they are. The government is not a god. You are not a god. And those who submit to one are answerable to their own god. Make your own choices and unless it affects you personally, it really is not your concern. One of my favorite Bible quotes is "Mind your own business" in reference to a church that started meddling in people's affairs, which is what's happening today.

Democrats want the government to be their mom.

Republicans want the government to be their dad.

Libertarians want the government to treat them like adults.

Tolerance

tol·er·ate
verb - allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. synonyms: allow, permit, condone, accept, swallow, countenance;

tol·er·ance
noun - the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

The key to understanding tolerance is that by sheer definition it is what you do in regards to something that you are innately opposed to; however, lots of people who demand tolerance of others, are often unwilling to extend tolerance to those who disagree, which in general goes against the very definition. You cannot be tolerant of people who agree with you, only those who disagree. Therefore to label someone tolerant who attacks those who disagree is a misnomer. 

For example, while a person may be pro gay marriage and therefore think that they are tolerant because they are straight, it is a concept that they are actually advocating. Therefore it is not tolerance, for them to advocate for gay marriage. Tolerance would be for those of the opposing viewpoint, which is not often seen as proved by the canceling of Duck Dynasty for expressing what is presently an unpopular opinion. This is not a display of tolerance. This is not advocating a system of peaceful coexistence, which I do not think is the same thing as "tolerance".

Personally I am not a fan of universal tolerance, because there are some things that should not be tolerated. Abuse, bullying, and ignoring the rights of others are all intolerable acts and I don't care what banner you are flying at the time. Bullying people who believe different than you is intolerable. Pressing your beliefs onto other people is intolerable. It is just as bad for people to attack conservatives as it is to attack people who are liberal. It is extremely hypocritical to demand tolerance and not be willing to afford it to your opposing viewpoint.

I'm Libertarian so I ruffle feathers on both sides of the fence; however, while debating with conservatives, I tend to get far less personal attacks than with liberals, who have had a habit of passionately demonizing opposing views. And these were people who advocated "tolerance". What they are really doing is standing in judgement and making the social rules for everyone else by picking and choosing what should and should not be tolerated. Their personal bias becomes the status by which all others must adapt. It sets them up for a mindset of aggressive moral superiority, not peaceful coexistence. This isn't good either, when some feel perfectly justified to bully others because they are Christian or conservative by labeling them intolerant by assumption. That's not tolerant. And it's hypocritical to demand that their opposition respect them without giving the same respect.

I don't claim tolerance, because that would presume that there is something to be tolerated, when as a matter of fact, unless that behavior is directly impacting myself then it's not a matter of tolerance. It's a matter of "not my business". You can only tolerate that which affects you, and the sheer word also lends more validity to one side than the other, a sense of superiority and rightness to tolerate the wrong. The difference are the people who attack others for thinking differently, and those who realize that how another person thinks does not affect them.

That comes with abstract reasoning, being able to separate yourself from others. When you make choices for your own life, and realize that you don't have the right to make choices for other people's lives unless they affect yours, what they do is of little consequence.  If it doesn't affect you, then you don't need control over it. That's freedom of choice, and allowing other people freedom of choice ... which is more than tolerance.  It's better than tolerance, because it doesn't come with a judgement.  It doesn't come with an aggressive undertone.  It's not making a character judgement of right or wrong, it's simply respecting others enough to let them make their own life decisions without someone else having to "tolerate" it.