Sociopath Community

Destiny talked with him afterward about the video, so I'm going to be playing that in the background and will probably have more formulated thoughts afterward.

But I did want to have an undiluted opinion on the thing first, to see how that might end up being changed or influenced.

There is stuff I agree with Turncoat on here, for example the overall characterization of a one-way & forceful sort of interaction here with Mr. Girl leading. Where he sees something abusive like Mr. Girl is trying to make her feel selfish, I see that as him bringing up a legitimate issue where he's tired of her trying to micromanage situations (like which day for sex, because the month "matters") and complicate things instead of being direct about the matter. Whether or not the attempts at micromanagement are an expression of something valid is another matter. I think in this case, the micromanagement is about what she says later—trying to get him to take a protective role if he's going to be the one in control. That's a perfectly valid complaint she's having.

Overall while the power dynamics are skewed, this seems something both are aware of and willing participants in, and I'm less likely to see a discussion about him wanting to be less accommodating toward her feelings as abusive. Even if his delivery about it is cold. A big issue with what he's doing is that she's under duress and isn't given proper time to think all the things out. Which she expresses at the end with uncertainty about the whole thing, and he incorrectly characterizes that as another attempt at ambiguity in decisions (she probably could have given a more resolute judgment if given proper time).

Is Mr. Girl wanting to just have his gf lay face down so he can fuck her like a doll a bad thing? It's probably a bit insensitive, but I get that he just wants to be able to fuck her and not worry about if everything is alright the whole time. And that beyond that, he's tired of placating and the little games that come along with it. But as the one with the power in the relationship, it's his obligation to take care of the other person. If he wants to placate less, he needs to have better emotional assurances in place for her, so that she's not worrying about being used. He's also seeing the issue in a zero-sum way (it's 90% for me, 10% for you) instead of a mutual exchange.

Tryptamine said: 

Oh, if and when you finish it you may see things a bit differently. He explains what he means that she can't say no, etc.

Dude there is two minutes left in this video and he's just looking worse with every minute. 

"The way you call me, you make people think I'm abusive, without saying the word abusive or by doing anything explicit, it's a very subtle throwing under the bus, but it's happening, and I know it's happenin-" 

"I can't listen to you."

Seriously holy shit, he doesn't even see how his own video does this for him. She didn't even want this to be online. 

Edit: He's recording and playing for us her crying, he's horrible. 

Yeah, they had a real moment there. It gets even better, lol.

Really well done piece of work, I'm glad I watched it, but calling this dude any kind of role model is straight warped. 

Hope it's a skit, but shit like this otherwise happens. 

Destiny talked with him afterward about the video, so I'm going to be playing that in the background and will probably have more formulated thoughts afterward.

That first minute compilation to bait the larger interview doesn't really help his case...

/baited

Edit: Ohgod this interview. 

Tryptamine said: 

Overall while the power dynamics are skewed, this seems something both are aware of and willing participants in, and I'm less likely to see a discussion about him wanting to be less accommodating toward her feelings as abusive.

I wouldn't call this her being a willing participant, I'd say she's confused. 

A big issue with what he's doing is that she's under duress and isn't given proper time to think all the things out.

He doesn't give her the chance to, switching between chill to make her feel like she's being hysterical and aggressive to shut her down on a dime. His aim is to break down her walls to make her more compliant while otherwise seemingly enjoying her suffering. 

Whenever she tried to set boundaries he got aggressive and said she just needs to shut up so he can be happy, then later is like "She never said no". He doesn't let her talk until she gets more emotional, then he uses that as a platform to invalidate her further. He is not presenting a scenario where she's allowed to truly have a voice, in fact, it's his express goal to not have to when he repeats how her feelings are not his problem followed by a variety of ways to say she should shut up. 

He said over and over that she shouldn't talk over how it ruins it for him, then after miles of that rhetoric gets on her case for not establishing strong boundaries. This is straight abuse bordering on gas lighting, and how transparently it's presented by him has been the only reason I have to doubt it's validity, he should see the problem with having this up but seemingly does not. 

Which she expresses at the end with uncertainty about the whole thing, and he incorrectly characterizes that as another attempt at ambiguity in decisions (she probably could have given a more resolute judgment if given proper time).

Whenever she tried to set terms he'd complain that this was her trying to control him. It remained ambiguous because he kept making it out to be a drag whenever she opened her mouth. 

Is Mr. Girl wanting to just have his gf lay face down so he can fuck her like a doll a bad thing? It's probably a bit insensitive, but I get that he just wants to be able to fuck her and not worry about if everything is alright the whole time.

There are people who are into that sort of thing, but this is more than a synergy problem. 

And that beyond that, he's tired of placating and the little games that come along with it.

You seem pre-equipt to try to make excuses for his behavior, but I don't think this is him being boiled to this point... purely anyway. The way he's talking here is within the framework of someone who does not want to feel corrected. This is a problem with his nature more than just the context of where they've found themselves, completely entitled and prone to outrage over even 11% reciprocity. 

I've seen this same shit out of insecure doms, with their contracts so that they can feel strong, but he is trying to have this happen with someone who isn't even into it and he's making it much more emotionally sadistic. 

But as the one with the power in the relationship, it's his obligation to take care of the other person. If he wants to placate less, he needs to have better emotional assurances in place for her, so that she's not worrying about being used. He's also seeing the issue in a zero-sum way (it's 90% for me, 10% for you) instead of a mutual exchange.

Dude, I don't know what interview you were watching but she's clearly the one who had to do the majority of the placating. 

He's used to running his mouth until she gives into his demands, and he doesn't even seem to see the problem with that. Again this guy has some weird ideas about rape and coming onto people, like questioning if you can simply convince them that they wanted it after the fact if sexual assault suddenly becomes okay. He clearly thinks that wearing them down and being 'convincing' is all he has to do. 

16:52: "If she was really into it, then I wouldn't wanna." 

Oh god I was right. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Overall while the power dynamics are skewed, this seems something both are aware of and willing participants in, and I'm less likely to see a discussion about him wanting to be less accommodating toward her feelings as abusive.

I wouldn't call this her being a willing participant, I'd say she's confused. 

I mean in the relationship in general. In this exchange, yes, she's confused.

A big issue with what he's doing is that she's under duress and isn't given proper time to think all the things out.

He doesn't give her the chance to, switching between chill to make her feel like she's being hysterical and aggressive to shut her down on a dime. His aim is to break down her walls to make her more compliant while otherwise seemingly enjoying her suffering. 

Whenever she tried to set boundaries he got aggressive and said she just needs to shut up so he can be happy, then later is like "She never said no". He doesn't let her talk until she gets more emotional, then he uses that as a platform to invalidate her further. He is not presenting a scenario where she's allowed to truly have a voice, in fact, it's his express goal to not have to when he repeats how her feelings are not his problem followed by a variety of ways to say she should shut up. 

He said over and over that she shouldn't talk over how it ruins it for him, then after miles of that rhetoric gets on her case for not establishing strong boundaries. This is straight abuse bordering on gas lighting, and how transparently it's presented by him has been the only reason I have to doubt it's validity, he should see the problem with having this up but seemingly does not. 

In this conversation though, the topic is that he wants her to give him a piece of herself as it were, where he's just getting what he wants. So it makes sense that he's saying things like he wants her to just shut up, or not do the thing where she's seeking reassurances, because that's what the conversation is about. I disagree that this conversation is abusive, and I think most people would feel differently about it if the genders were swapped. But because it's a man seeming demanding about what he wants in an exchange with regard to not assuaging his partner's feelings about something, it resembles abusive situations enough that people associate it with abuse. If it is abuse, what exactly is the abuse?

Which she expresses at the end with uncertainty about the whole thing, and he incorrectly characterizes that as another attempt at ambiguity in decisions (she probably could have given a more resolute judgment if given proper time).

Whenever she tried to set terms he'd complain that this was her trying to control him. It remained ambiguous because he kept making it out to be a drag whenever she opened her mouth. 

But it was her trying to do that, for instance with the months thing.

Is Mr. Girl wanting to just have his gf lay face down so he can fuck her like a doll a bad thing? It's probably a bit insensitive, but I get that he just wants to be able to fuck her and not worry about if everything is alright the whole time.

There are people who are into that sort of thing, but this is more than a synergy problem. 

Could be, and could be that she just emotionally can't give him what he's wanting.

And that beyond that, he's tired of placating and the little games that come along with it.

You seem pre-equipt to try to make excuses for his behavior, but I don't think this is him being boiled to this point... purely anyway. The way he's talking here is within the framework of someone who does not want to feel corrected. This is a problem with his nature more than just the context of where they've found themselves, completely entitled and prone to outrage over even 11% reciprocity. 

I've seen this same shit out of insecure doms, with their contracts so that they can feel strong, but he is trying to have this happen with someone who isn't even into it and he's making it much more emotionally sadistic. 

I think the matter of the conversation is important for what's being said in it.

But as the one with the power in the relationship, it's his obligation to take care of the other person. If he wants to placate less, he needs to have better emotional assurances in place for her, so that she's not worrying about being used. He's also seeing the issue in a zero-sum way (it's 90% for me, 10% for you) instead of a mutual exchange.

Dude, I don't know what interview you were watching but she's clearly the one who had to do the majority of the placating. 

He's used to running his mouth until she gives into his demands, and he doesn't even seem to see the problem with that. Again this guy has some weird ideas about rape and coming onto people, like questioning if you can simply convince them that they wanted it after the fact if sexual assault suddenly becomes okay. He clearly thinks that wearing them down and being 'convincing' is all he has to do. 

If the conversation is about how he doesn't want to placate her, he's not going to be doing what he's explaining he doesn't want to do during it.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Overall while the power dynamics are skewed, this seems something both are aware of and willing participants in, and I'm less likely to see a discussion about him wanting to be less accommodating toward her feelings as abusive.

I wouldn't call this her being a willing participant, I'd say she's confused. 

I mean in the relationship in general. In this exchange, yes, she's confused.

She hasn't left if that's what you mean. 

A big issue with what he's doing is that she's under duress and isn't given proper time to think all the things out.

He doesn't give her the chance to, switching between chill to make her feel like she's being hysterical and aggressive to shut her down on a dime. His aim is to break down her walls to make her more compliant while otherwise seemingly enjoying her suffering. 

Whenever she tried to set boundaries he got aggressive and said she just needs to shut up so he can be happy, then later is like "She never said no". He doesn't let her talk until she gets more emotional, then he uses that as a platform to invalidate her further. He is not presenting a scenario where she's allowed to truly have a voice, in fact, it's his express goal to not have to when he repeats how her feelings are not his problem followed by a variety of ways to say she should shut up. 

He said over and over that she shouldn't talk over how it ruins it for him, then after miles of that rhetoric gets on her case for not establishing strong boundaries. This is straight abuse bordering on gas lighting, and how transparently it's presented by him has been the only reason I have to doubt it's validity, he should see the problem with having this up but seemingly does not. 

In this conversation though, the topic is that he wants her to give him a piece of herself as it were, where he's just getting where he wants.

It's got to be more than that with how pushy he is about how their anguish is not his problem, and how often he talks on multiple videos I've skimmed through for themes about rape fantasies. 

So it makes sense that he's saying things like he wants her to just shut up, or not do the thing where she's seeking reassurances, because that's what the conversation is about.

Except he's not just talking about how he wants that once a month, he's outright acting on it in the conversation and wanted it in the present until she finally hit a breaking point like 18 minutes in which he used to call her controlling and overemotional. 

He takes no responsibility for his own end of things and that is a concerning trait. 

I disagree that this conversation is abusive, and I think most people would feel differently about it if the genders were swapped. But because it's a man seeming demanding about what he wants in an exchange with regard to not assuaging his partner's feelings about something, it resembles abusive situations enough that people associate it with abuse. 

No, it would still be abusive over what I said above. The way he's acting is not a gender issue as much as some people might be able to claim he's leaning on a gender norm, and you can bet there would still be people calling MrGirl horrible if he were instead MsMan from the other camp. 

If it is abuse, what exactly is the abuse?

You do agree that words without accompanying violence can be abusive, yes? As can pattern behaviors when given enough time over how a person is liable to respond to it? 

If so, then his seesaw routine I narrated before that lets him break a person down and border on gaslighting practices qualifies. 

Which she expresses at the end with uncertainty about the whole thing, and he incorrectly characterizes that as another attempt at ambiguity in decisions (she probably could have given a more resolute judgment if given proper time).

Whenever she tried to set terms he'd complain that this was her trying to control him. It remained ambiguous because he kept making it out to be a drag whenever she opened her mouth. 

But it was her trying to do that, for instance with the months thing.

It was the 29th, it was a valid question for whatever horrible fantasies he needs to feel like he's twelve again (his words). 

She clearly did not want it but he had her roped into thinking she's selfish and psychotic if she doesn't placate his needs, words that are strangely projective and hypocritical coming from him. 

If you see that as her trying to control him rather than get terms of the agreement explicitly stated then I don't even know right now. He then following goes on about how she's not establishing boundaries when like, how is she supposed to do that in this structure when even her shutting down is within the guidelines of what he's asking for?

All she can really do here is leave, he is not open to listening. 

Is Mr. Girl wanting to just have his gf lay face down so he can fuck her like a doll a bad thing? It's probably a bit insensitive, but I get that he just wants to be able to fuck her and not worry about if everything is alright the whole time.

There are people who are into that sort of thing, but this is more than a synergy problem. 

Could be, and could be that she just emotionally can't give him what he's wanting.

Most people couldn't, and he gets really aggressive and entitled about it. 

And that beyond that, he's tired of placating and the little games that come along with it.

You seem pre-equipt to try to make excuses for his behavior, but I don't think this is him being boiled to this point... purely anyway. The way he's talking here is within the framework of someone who does not want to feel corrected. This is a problem with his nature more than just the context of where they've found themselves, completely entitled and prone to outrage over even 11% reciprocity. 

I've seen this same shit out of insecure doms, with their contracts so that they can feel strong, but he is trying to have this happen with someone who isn't even into it and he's making it much more emotionally sadistic. 

I think the matter of the conversation is important for what's being said in it.

I think the conversation shows that there's more going on than his words, and that frankly even his words become rather heinous for a lot of it. 

He's being way too reactive and defensive for the stuff he's asking for, she can't even ask about the month without him flipping out, and apparently they've even tried this before, and he chooses to bring it up again when she's already been pushed and embarrassed on camera? 

I could see a lot more room to defend what he's asking for if he wasn't acting this out of line over it, plus he's already admitted to how her not enjoying it is a part of the pleasure for him so he ultimately doesn't want to fix this, he'd rather rub salt in the wound and put a camera in her face.  

Tryptamine said:

If the conversation is about how he doesn't want to placate her, he's not going to be doing what he's explaining he doesn't want to do during it. 

He's demanding complete placation while not even wanting her to open her mouth, beyond the confines of this once a month thing he tried to squeeze out of it. Again I'd see a problem with this out of either gender if both people weren't expressly into it. 

The dude's kinda fucked up ngl, and it's kind of haunting to see him defended when he didn't even hide much of what was wrong with their relationship in spite of there being multiple glaring edits in the work. I get a strong feeling that he doesn't see the problem with it (and the Destiny interview is just making it worse). 

That she didn't even want to be on camera, the way he twisted that to being about her doing more things to him, this dude clearly has a lot of time to think his own thoughts without the intrusion of others in his mind's eye, and the last thing he wants is to have his train of thought interrupted to the point of social allergy and intolerance to the presence of her voice. He also wants to make her jealous of his sex doll, like, what? 


For the steep price he's asking for, he either needs to find someone who's into that (which he doesn't want) or he needs to be a lot more patient with them. They seriously need a moderator to keep him under control, as he was not willing to listen to her at all and multiple times just spoke over her while being whiny any time she said anything. 

Turncoat said:

Except he's not just talking about how he wants that once a month, he's outright acting on it in the conversation and wanted it in the present until she finally hit a breaking point like 18 minutes in which he used to call her controlling and overemotional.

Why is it wrong for him to express himself honestly on the topic?

Turncoat said:

If so, then his seesaw routine I narrated before that lets him break a person down and border on gaslighting practices qualifies.

While what he was doing did have that effect, gaslighting implies a misleading, whereas he firmly believes what he's bringing up.

Turncoat said:

It was the 29th, it was a valid question for whatever horrible fantasies he needs to feel like he's twelve again (his words).

She clearly did not want it but he had her roped into thinking she's selfish and psychotic if she doesn't placate his needs, words that are strangely projective and hypocritical coming from him.

If you see that as her trying to control him rather than get terms of the agreement explicitly stated then I don't even know right now. He then following goes on about how she's not establishing boundaries when like, how is she supposed to do that in this structure when even her shutting down is within the guidelines of what he's asking for?

All she can really do here is leave, he is not open to listening.

The question wasn't really about what the date so that they could figure out what month it "counted for", it was a suggestion of willingness with overtones of still being uncertain. The exact semantics of the words aren't as important as where they're coming from. The problem being, on his end, that he doesn't want to continually placate in that sort of way, but that's a separate matter from what the interaction itself is.

Turncoat said:

Most people couldn't, and he gets really aggressive and entitled about it.

Mostly agree, although entitlement implies that he thinks he has a right to something. He's definitely being pushy about what he wants, but it never seems expected as given.

Turncoat said:

The dude's kinda fucked up ngl.

Without judgement, I think a lot of people would feel the same about many of the things ordinary people wanted or did if they were open to such an extent and audience.