Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

steroids, love, and the freak within.

strongchick

Well-known member
Don't you wanna be loved for who you are?

I was at the gym today, saw myself in the mirror, and I thought, 'wow you've come a long way.'

I also thought 'one more year til I can legitimately start an Anavar cycle'.

And then I thought...why? Because I love the iron? Because I love me? Because I want to look like a comic book character? Yup.

Why? Why not just be loved/liked/hated/whatever for my healthy self?

Doing AS would give me an artificial edge...but do I want it?

Or do you want to be the 'genuine' you?

There is something so wonderful about being loved intensely by someone who would walk to the end of the earth for you, just because you are you. Understanding that, do I want to be with someone who was immediately attracted to me for my physical appearance? Do you?

sigh.
 
In the world we live in physical appearance is everything.

Like it? Nope. But we must compete or we'll never stay ahead. Thus, a good image is everything.
 
from what i've seen of you you look great... but do whatever you feel is good for you.

i personally won't ever be a triplev or bikinimom but that's by choice... and i'm just interested in being fit and doing what i can for that for now. i want to look more toned/muscled than i currently do.

yup, i'm a weirdo on here. everyone else is going for more.
 
I hear ya on that.

It's quite frustrating. I've been through it time and time again.

It all comes down to why you do it.

Do you like to be challenged? I do. and BB is the challenge for me. Lift for yourself not others, that's when it gets frustrating I found.

*arrrgh. . . lost with words. . . too much studying. . . exams.*

BUT ppl are usually attracted to each other by physical appearance, I just try to not make it the basis of a relationship, nowadays anyways.
 
RyanH said:
In the world we live in physical appearance is everything.

Like it? Nope. But we must compete or we'll never stay ahead. Thus, a good image is everything.

Stay ahead of what? Just being fit is appropriate for what you speak of...
 
RyanH said:
In the world we live in physical appearance is everything.

Like it? Nope. But we must compete or we'll never stay ahead. Thus, a good image is everything.

why is everybody so convinced that if you dont look beautiful or godlike that you cant achieve things in life. sounds like self perception problems to me.
 
spongebob said:


why is everybody so convinced that if you dont look beautiful or godlike that you cant achieve things in life. sounds like self perception problems to me.

If you put Person A against Person B, two individuals with similar resumes, Person A will win if she looks better than Person B.

It's that simple.
 
I want to look like Super Woman. Maybe that's why I feel twisted.

This goal is NOT considered normal.

In fact, the look I wish to achieve (like a taller, slightly fuller version of the black girl who was a fitness chick on Survivor (Australia?))
...well...I saw an interview of her and the interviewer said "gee, you look normal in street clothes" which sounded to me like a putdown.

I dunno. I'm confused.
 
smallmovesal said:
from what i've seen of you you look great... but do whatever you feel is good for you.


Thank you. I feel alone in my pursuit, maybe that's why I'm second guessing my commitment.
 
RyanH said:


If you put Person A against Person B, two individuals with similar resumes, Person A will win if she looks better than Person B.

It's that simple.

No argument here. But my personal life is not a competition...or is it?
 
RyanH said:


If you put Person A against Person B, two individuals with similar resumes, Person A will win if she looks better than Person B.

It's that simple.

i will agree with you to an extent but its not always the case.

but, anyways i just said that you dont have to be godlike to achieve things.

ok, you may have to wait till the beautiful people get hired, but there's more jobs than there are beautiful people.
 
spongebob said:


why is everybody so convinced that if you dont look beautiful or godlike that you cant achieve things in life. sounds like self perception problems to me.

Maybe eliminating looks from the equation, by having great looks, is the key. One less thing to worry about.

Bill Gates certainly falls into the category of ugly, but successful.

Whoopi Goldberg.

That Carrot Top dude on 1800whatever.
 
strongchick said:


Maybe eliminating looks from the equation, by having great looks, is the key. One less thing to worry about.


id rather worry about it. but i dont put alot of time in thinking about it. i just wish people wouldnt get so hung up about it.

we all have something that we would like to change about ourselves.
 
I think Ryan is right. There was a book recently, _Survival of the Prettiest_.... living in this world can be a different experience for those who meet beauty ideals and those who don't.

Some statitistics from that book:

The annual U.S. expenditure on beauty/diet products exceeds both 1.) the entire federal budget for education, and 2.) the gross national product of Ireland.

CRAZY, right? Fools for love. Howsoever we think we can get it.

I mean, in the original Grimm's version of Cinderella (not the Disney), the "ugly stepsisters" CUT OFF THEIR TOES AND HEELS TO FIT IN THE GLASS SLIPPER. (I always thought that could be a metaphor for anorexia. Or those torture-chamber heels boys love us to wear! ;) )

Babbling, sorry. This is my opinion: When you look good, you most definitely have POWER. And it's an ego boost to attract those looks and that flirting. The ego gratification is good but MOMENTARY. It can't add anything to one's deeper happiness.

IN FACT, the guys who respond to our outer fabulousness ;) usually end up being such mistakes if we let the ego boost dupe us into getting involved with them. I know that from experience!!
 
Last edited:
i only like chicks in high heels when thier butt-nekid, other than that i cant stand em'

there just another part of being fake.
 
yeah, buksoon, there's no end to the strange things people do to be attractive.

My value system is changing a bit, yet again.

I lost quite a bit of weight over the past year, and replaced some of it with muscle. 20-somethings harass me now, whereas for about 3 years, they didn't.

So my ego isn't really boosted much, because I cringe at the shallowness. People only tolerate my brain side so they can stare at my figure longer.

Okay...that's depressing...sorry.

Anyway, now that I'm somewhat more attractive, I'm getting really selfish and wary of people. 'Genuineness' is getting scarce...
 
i'm doing it for me. i want to be weird & powerful (moreso). i don't care if i am attractive. if i really cared about being attractive, i would be on a diet right now.

besides, for me at least, after you know someone for a couple weeks looks aren't that important, as long as they aren't hideous.
 
RyanH said:
In the world we live in physical appearance is everything.

Like it? Nope. But we must compete or we'll never stay ahead. Thus, a good image is everything.

Yup.
 
i saw a Seinfeld rerun today...whatshername is at the gym, and she's trying to get this guy to ask her out on a date...but he's not biting...then she finds out he wants the blonde workout bunny.

Whatshername is a perfectly attractive girl...right in front of him...but he wants the trophy.


Shallow. Disdainful. Why even bother with men? Women are so much more real.
 
that can't be right. the GNP is 7 trillion.

there are ALOT of ways to get ahead in life. if you are taller, you get more money & respect. if you are more aggressive & goal oriented, you get more money & respect. if you speak with a clear accent you get more money & respect. looks are just one area.

buksoon said:

The annual U.S. expenditure on beauty/diet products exceeds both 1.) the entire federal budget for education, and 2.) the gross national product of America.

CRAZY, right? Fools for love. Howsoever we think we can get it.

I mean, in the original Grimm's version of Cinderella (not the Disney), the "ugly stepsisters" CUT OFF THEIR TOES AND HEELS TO FIT IN THE GLASS SLIPPER. (I always thought that could be a metaphor for anorexia. Or those torture-chamber heels boys love us to wear! ;) )

Babbling, sorry. This is my opinion: When you look good, you most definitely have POWER. And it's an ego boost to attract those looks and that flirting. The ego gratification is good but MOMENTARY. It can't add anything to one's deeper happiness.

IN FACT, the guys who respond to our outer fabulousness ;) usually end up being such mistakes if we let the ego boost dupe us into getting involved with them. I know that from experience!!
 
strongchick said:

Shallow. Disdainful. Why even bother with men? Women are so much more real.



hahaha. maybe when you get in your 30's or so. but when you are a teen or young adult, women are soooo immature & laced with front.

men are immature, but at least they restrain their immaturity to only involve sexuality. young women are immature about everything.

thats a generalization though, it doesn't apply to everyone. i have a few female friends with psychological depth and many young women here qualify as people. but overall, at young age, a man friend is usually more real & deep than a female friend.
 
Last edited:
there are immature 40 year olds that i've worked with... it's not necessarily an age thing. it's how you've chosen to grow within yourself during your life IMO.
 
strongchick said:


Shallow. Disdainful. Why even bother with men? Women are so much more real.

i dont see how two women ever make a relationship together, without killing each other. women are too jealous of each other. talk about insecurity problems.
 
smallmovesal said:
there are immature 40 year olds that i've worked with... it's not necessarily an age thing. it's how you've chosen to grow within yourself during your life IMO.


hell yes. i've met immature 30 somethings & mature 15 year olds. i don't consider you immature or anything, but generally speaking i think it's safe to say that young women are more shallow than young men.
 
spongebob said:


i dont see how two women ever make a relationship together, without killing each other. women are too jealous of each other. talk about insecurity problems.

You need one woman to be at least somewhat dominant, and one to be somewhat submissive, or at least willing to switch roles as appropriate. The jealousies can get in the way...of any relationship, however.
 
nordstrom said:
that can't be right. the GNP is 7 trillion.

there are ALOT of ways to get ahead in life. if you are taller, you get more money & respect. if you are more aggressive & goal oriented, you get more money & respect. if you speak with a clear accent you get more money & respect. looks are just one area.


I did not mean to imply that looks was the only way, or even the main way. That was not my point at all.

Also, I wasn't talking so much about "getting ahead"; I was talking more about the American habit of locating self-worth in outer beauty, and assigning virtue to it and falling in love with it, etc.

Edited to add: that was a total typo earlier: it's the GNP of Ireland, not America! Dumbass *pointing to self* :)
 
Last edited:
buksoon said:


I did not mean to imply that looks was the only way, or even the main way. That was not my point at all.

Also, I wasn't talking so much about "getting ahead"; I was talking more about the American habit of locating self-worth in outer beauty, and assigning virtue to it and falling in love with it, etc.


i know it wasn't. my post was a response to the quotes/statistics submitted in your thread, and this thread in general, that looks are everything (ryanH & frackal agree, the study you quoted says we spend more on looks than education, etc.)
 
spongebob said:


i dont see how two women ever make a relationship together, without killing each other. women are too jealous of each other. talk about insecurity problems.

Ha. You don't think men are jealous of each other? You know that men get off on "who nails the most chicks" and "who can shoot a gun best."
 
strongchick said:


Did you just break up with a woman or something recently? Got caught flirting or something?

no, women are just green with envy.

oh man, especially in the work force. you ever notice that? they'll be good friends one week and then all of a sudden(over something silly) they wont even be on speaking terms.
 
strongchick I totally agree with you a few years ago I lost 45 lbs and before that like no girls would talk to me.. but once I got stronger and thin I had quite a bit coming my way and I had know idea what to do lol but I did start to realize how fake people are but im the same way with looking at people too.. so what can I say, not many people are attracted to really over wieght people, thats just life!
 
RyanH said:


Ha. You don't think men are jealous of each other? You know that men get off on "who nails the most chicks" and "who can shoot a gun best."

thats bragging rights under "competition".

women have a special hatred when it comes to being jealous.

i just dont see men acting jealous of each other.
 
Strongchick!!!

http://www.aps.edu/aps/sw_depart/~Tighe/poets.html#MPiercy

You have to go to that site! When I was writing my post, I kept thinking of this poet, Marge Piercy.

She has a poem called "The Turkey Vulture" about this species in nature that lacks any means of defense. So when predators come, what it does is VOMIT ON ITSELF. The predator is sufficiently repulsed, and goes away.

I kept thinking of that poem when I was trying to explain why sometimes it's good NOT to manifest outer beauty. A certain kind of guy leaves you alone.

Some of these guys who flattered their ways into the pants of traditional babes--I'm grateful as hell they saw me and kept walkin'!!!

ANYWAY!!! This poem that I'm sending you to is YOUR poem. (Mine too, we have this one in common.)

She has others... I'll pm you.
 
spongebob said:


thats bragging rights under "competition".

women have a special hatred when it comes to being jealous.

i just dont see men acting jealous of each other.

then you have blinders on. Men are extremely competitive which is inheritently going to lead to jealousy.

The two go hand in hand. where you have competition you will have jealousy.

Hence, men are jealous, intensly jealous. Whether its in bed, in the political arena, in our nation's courts, or in the gym, men will always judge himself in comparison to his peers.
 
Oh, this poem isn't "The Turkey Vulture." I couldn't find that one. This one is more specifically Strongchick.
 
spongebob said:


thats bragging rights under "competition".

women have a special hatred when it comes to being jealous.

i just dont see men acting jealous of each other.

Is competition ever motivated by jealousy?
 
littleflex said:
strongchick I totally agree with you a few years ago I lost 45 lbs and before that like no girls would talk to me.. but once I got stronger and thin I had quite a bit coming my way and I had know idea what to do lol but I did start to realize how fake people are but im the same way with looking at people too.. so what can I say, not many people are attracted to really over wieght people, thats just life!

im just curious, when you lost the weight, did your personality or confidence change for the better?

people unconsciously pick up on this. in other words, ive seen not so good looking people get good looking people, just in the initial meeting. it was there confidence.
 
musclebrains said:


Is competition ever motivated by jealousy?

sure with women. LOL. i just dont see it with men that much, and i know for sure it doesnt drive my competitiveness. if i lose at something to someone, i will praise thier win whole heartedly. i may have a desire to improve myself but not out of jealousness.
 
Frankly, I can't really relate to people in their 20s taking steroids, but I don't have any objection to it. As I explained in another thread recently, my DOCTOR prescribed my first cycle, completely out of the blue with no request from me, blowing away a 20-years-old belief that steroids are bad for you.

It is easy to pathologize body modification but, in my view, the way the culture is imagining the body has changed dramatically in the last 25 years or so. This roughly parallels the rise of feminist discourses about the social construction of the body, overthrowing the essentialist conception of the body as godgiven and self-contained.

Body modification, the restructuring of the body, is ubiquitous -- from cosmetic surgery to tattooing and piercing and everything inbetween. Moreover, chemistry is being used to alter all kinds of bodily experience, from Viagra for impotence to the not-far-off technology of regrowing bodyparts from stem cells. We even arguably have new kinds of bodies -- like the cyber body.

In other words, the "natural body" is a nostalgic conceptualization. The choice to not use drugs to alter it is certainly rational but you can't reasonably predicate that on the assumption that there is a "natural body" and an unnatural one any more.
 
musclebrains...

what then accounts for the change in body perception over the decades? I mean, why is it that our view of what is beautiful is so utterly different now than in the past? Granted, a pretty face is still the same, but certain things such as coloring, body size, body shape, etc., have changed dramatically.

You speak of chemicals and body altering...is it because we CAN do this now, that we do it and appreciate it?
 
Re: Strongchick!!!

buksoon said:
http://www.aps.edu/aps/sw_depart/~Tighe/poets.html#MPiercy

You have to go to that site! When I was writing my post, I kept thinking of this poet, Marge Piercy.

She has a poem called "The Turkey Vulture" about this species in nature that lacks any means of defense. So when predators come, what it does is VOMIT ON ITSELF. The predator is sufficiently repulsed, and goes away.

Oh my goodness! You are a twisted, original thinker!

I'm on dial up at home (excite@home went bankrupt, drat!), so I'll view the sites from work tomorrow...
 
i feel weird and out of place here because i'm 5'5 and under 110 lbs. i'm just trying to keep some muscle on me and have some nice shape.
 
This is an interesting thread. Im debating myself whether or not to do a anavar cycle. Personally, id like to put on a few pounds so I can look more "beefy".

At one point I thought "what would my friends think?". But then I thought, "Who cares!"

Its really up to you. Youve got to decide when social and cultural projections of the "ideal women" are *telling* you how you should look, instead of *suggesting*.

Why? If you base your self esteem on conditional factors like ur external appearance, you'll never reach a peaceful state of self acceptance.

Which is why I disagree with musclebrains that all body modification, pharmaceuticals to steroids, are ubiquitous. The motives for bodymodification vary, and lie on a continuum. On one side, pharmaceutical drugs, stem cell research, and gene therapy all act to improve the substandard health of individuals to ensure a normal level of biological functioning. On the other side, steroid use for purely aesthetic purposes is motivated by the attainment of an idealized look, driven more by vanity then anything.

So to say theres a "natural body" that shouldn't be manipulated in anyway, is clearly refuted by medical therapy interventions. But to deduce from this that all body modifications then, regardless the motivation, are justified, is not true.

The Harvard convention outlawing gene therapy that augments brain size proves this. If we let our aesthetic and personal idealized conceptions of the "perfect human image" dictate our actions, we can end up in some precarious places. (just wanted to argue with you musclebrains :)

But then again, it all depends on ur own subjective morality. Moderation is probably the key since infrequent use of mild steroids isnt going to upset existing social order!
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna be 20 lbs heavyer next summer with 1/2 my current bf%. Provided I can get over my needle phobia anyway. :D

I don't worry much about my motivations. I've made good gains since I started lifting, and now I want to take it to the next level.

I don't want to be massive, just a bit bigger and a lot leaner.
 
i'm a stick and always will be unless i want to eat like a mofo and stuff... and i'm just not into that.

i'll do the protein thing, but i'm framed small and i look fine this way. i'm just looking to add some muscle.

so please flame me about being skinny as per usual. i don't care.

my routine doesn't involve cardio or a denial of sugar or fast food... heh heh :devil:
 
smallmovesal said:
i'm a stick and always will be unless i want to eat like a mofo and stuff... and i'm just not into that.

i'll do the protein thing, but i'm framed small and i look fine this way. i'm just looking to add some muscle.

so please flame me about being skinny as per usual. i don't care.

my routine doesn't involve cardio or a denial of sugar or fast food... heh heh :devil:

get your skinny ass over here now.
 
Taps said:
I'm gonna be 20 lbs heavyer next summer with 1/2 my current bf%. Provided I can get over my needle phobia anyway. :D

I don't worry much about my motivations. I've made good gains since I started lifting, and now I want to take it to the next level.

I don't want to be massive, just a bit bigger and a lot leaner.


Thats cool man. I suppose it depends on the persons goals, and comfort level with indulging ones vanity. Im not pretending im not vain, because I am!! But weve got to be honest with ourselves. Engaging in steroid use and body building primarly for aesthetic reasons is vain.

The question is: how much vainity can u indulge in before you cant successfully integrate it into ur existing self concept: "Im a good boy/girl, Im not vain!" .....or do you shift the self concept to accomodate the new roid use and say "fuck it"?
 
Last edited:
sorry cash only :D

money.jpg
 
strongchick said:
Don't you wanna be loved for who you are?

I was at the gym today, saw myself in the mirror, and I thought, 'wow you've come a long way.'

I also thought 'one more year til I can legitimately start an Anavar cycle'.

And then I thought...why? Because I love the iron? Because I love me? Because I want to look like a comic book character? Yup.

Why? Why not just be loved/liked/hated/whatever for my healthy self?

Doing AS would give me an artificial edge...but do I want it?

Or do you want to be the 'genuine' you?

There is something so wonderful about being loved intensely by someone who would walk to the end of the earth for you, just because you are you. Understanding that, do I want to be with someone who was immediately attracted to me for my physical appearance? Do you?

sigh.

What was the question again?
 
strongchick said:


Maybe eliminating looks from the equation, by having great looks, is the key. One less thing to worry about.

Bill Gates certainly falls into the category of ugly, but successful.

Whoopi Goldberg.

That Carrot Top dude on 1800whatever.

Carrot top actually has a nice lean body with some muscle definition.
 
RyanH said:


If you put Person A against Person B, two individuals with similar resumes, Person A will win if she looks better than Person B.

It's that simple.

PFT! Don't you guys have job interviews in USA? Is the resume the ONLY thing that counts? If it's really so, that's pretty fucked up.
 
strongchick said:
musclebrains...

what then accounts for the change in body perception over the decades? I mean, why is it that our view of what is beautiful is so utterly different now than in the past? Granted, a pretty face is still the same, but certain things such as coloring, body size, body shape, etc., have changed dramatically.

You speak of chemicals and body altering...is it because we CAN do this now, that we do it and appreciate it?

I would argue that there has NEVER been a "natural" body. People have decorated and modified their bodies the world over since the beginning. Sometimes this is in service to a quite changeable cultural ideal and sometimes it is in service to rebelling against the cultural ideal. Compare the Seattle Nirvana body to the gym bunny body. Sometimes body modification is a way the marginalized enter the mainstream. Thus the "collective" gay male body, once idealized as thin, echoes the prevailing cultural ideal of the Greek statue.

Bodybuilding itself is body modification and while people invest it with health claims, don't we all know the reality is that it's more about appearance? The status of the anabolic body has shifted from freak when I was a teenager to the virtual ideal today (though, of course, the radical is still called freaky). And, in this case, the shift in perspective has been accompanied by a basic reversal in the medical establishment's own perspective, though it supplies itself "good reasons" for giving people steroids now. The point, again, is that there is no body without modification. You put on clothes, you modify your body.

You can, like Buddy, pathologize the impulse to modify the body with the term "vanity." That's certainly the attitude of professional psychology -- that you have a body and you have a psyche and that they must somehow be in synch, with the psyche leading the way, valorizing itself above superficial notions of beauty.

In fact, I don't believe the psyche is "inside" the body. You see a rather remarkable split in this. People acknowledge that body modification profoundly affects their psychological state -- and then turn around and say this is wrong, that "self esteem" (whatever that means) should not depend on appearance. And yet the culture and biology modify the body whether we want them to or not. so what should we tell ourselves as we age? "Oh, it shouldn't matter that I am losing my body's beauty because, well, beauty is only skin deep and I am a beautiful person on the inside"?

Fine, try that. What you end up with is avoiding the very real grief that accompanies some transitions of the body (in aging, in chronic illness, in accidents) and then you really cannot find your way to your body. It becomes an encumbrance -- or you become trapped in nostalgia and try to recapture a picture from the past. You lose the capacity to play with your body. We have all seen older men and women whose appearance seizes us, but it rarely is because they "look young." It's because they have learned to play with their status. My grandmother was that way -- a spectacular diva. I see it constantly in the flamencas of Spain -- old women who hike up their skirts and dance with unbridled eros and look like members of an exotic and aged royalty.

One of my more outre writing projects involved my traveling with, um, the last old-style freak show in the country. There, I learned that the beauty of the body is not in conventionality but in playing with oddity, a kind of corporeal counterpoint. Haveyou seen the response of an audience when a freak exhibits himself. It constellates the sublime. The "vanity" of the twisted completely relativizes notions of vanity and beauty.

Summarily -- and I lead seminars on this subject twice a year, and am taking this particular subject up in Feb. -- I think the problem is not self esteem. I certainly don't think the problem can be reduced to "body dysmorphia" and "the Adonis Complex," those most recent pathologizations of pop psychology. I think if anything the problem is our failure to understand beauty in its sublime and monstrous aspects. When we recover the capacity to aestheticize our lives, we'll understand our bodies better.
 
buddy28 said:
The Harvard convention outlawing gene therapy that augments brain size proves this. If we let our aesthetic and personal idealized conceptions of the "perfect human image" dictate our actions, we can end up in some precarious places. (just wanted to argue with you musclebrains :)

No, really? :)

Buddy, if a person is taking a position, he has to engage in a certain level of generalization. As I have said in the past: You seem to operate on the belief that an exception disproves a theory. It does not, since there is variance in any phenomenon.

What I mean is that I don't disagree with the basic argument of your post -- because it doesn't argue with mine. I am quite aware vanity is a real problem with some people, but I think psychological and medical culture -- mainly under the sway of Christianity's rejection of the body or, more kindly, sacralazing it as the temple of the soul -- has historically demonized body modification, even preoccupation with the body, with beauty, etc. The effect of this is to make the body itself a symptom.

An example of the way modernity has demonized beauty is our reading of the myth of narcissus. We read it as a myth about the evil of vanity and named a psychological disorder, narcissism, after it. In fact, if you read the Greeks themselves, they understood the story as being about the necessity of self love, the inadequacy of love that one can't requite until one connects with one's own beauty. Narcissus heals himself, in short, he doesn't perish on account of his action. (To the Greeks, transforming into a flower would be a miracle, since in their cosmology, the dead typically became personality-less shades in the Underworld.)

Everyone is entitled to think of the body any way they want. But I think our undestanding of beauty needs to be broadened and liberalized, not further diminished with the lexicon of pop psychology's "isms".
 
spongebob said:


why is everybody so convinced that if you dont look beautiful or godlike that you cant achieve things in life. sounds like self perception problems to me.

i agree man,i totally bought into all that shit and was only lifting to get reactions from other people on my size and strength,now i realize that what anybody else thinks is irrelivant and aslong as im happy thats all that matters
 
musclebrains said:


No, really? :)

Buddy, if a person is taking a position, he has to engage in a certain level of generalization. As I have said in the past: You seem to operate on the belief that an exception disproves a theory. It does not, since there is variance in any phenomenon.

I understand that variation exists in any phenomenon, which is why I dont understand your beleif that the examples I give are deviations to the theory. My theory or yours?

Im arguing that the motivations for body modification lie on an continium, with subjective morality determining the merit of differing modifications. Harvard convention outlawing genetic modification of human brain size, and the expected banning of embryo phenotype selection, coincide with North America's judeo-christian culture's rejection of various external and internal personal qualities superceding the value of the soul. In addition, the outlawing of body modification by genetic manipulation purely for aesthetical purposes, reveals the dangers that are inherent in creating humans that are genetically/asethetically "superior" due soley to the privalaged class their parents enjoy.

But what sense would this make if my point disproved my own theory? So Im assuming its in refference to your theory.

Its funny, our theorys are alike in some ways. You seem to be arguing that all beauty, irrelevant of cultural norms of accepted beauty, need to be appreciated....

musclebrains said:

I think if anything the problem is our failure to understand beauty in its sublime and monstrous aspects.

Christianity would take emphasis off external aesthetic representations and put value on the soul.

They both share the common goal of self acceptance based on equivocal human worth, regardless of external appearence. Black and white comming together baby, ebony and ivory.

btw --- can you explain *exactly* what you meant in our last discussion about cognitive behavoural therapy being a statistical deviation to the norm, thus disproving my theory?! I dont understand that.
 
Last edited:
musclebrains said:
Frankly, I can't really relate to people in their 20s taking steroids, but I don't have any objection to it. As I explained in another thread recently, my DOCTOR prescribed my first cycle, completely out of the blue with no request from me, blowing away a 20-years-old belief that steroids are bad for you.

MB how were the PSYCHOLOGICAL effects post cycle?
 
OMEGA said:
musclebrains said:
Frankly, I can't really relate to people in their 20s taking steroids, but I don't have any objection to it. As I explained in another thread recently, my DOCTOR prescribed my first cycle, completely out of the blue with no request from me, blowing away a 20-years-old belief that steroids are bad for you.

MB how were the PSYCHOLOGICAL effects post cycle?

He sounds pretty healthy to me.
 
OMEGA said:
musclebrains said:
Frankly, I can't really relate to people in their 20s taking steroids, but I don't have any objection to it. As I explained in another thread recently, my DOCTOR prescribed my first cycle, completely out of the blue with no request from me, blowing away a 20-years-old belief that steroids are bad for you.

MB how were the PSYCHOLOGICAL effects post cycle?

My first cycle, the legal one, was only six weeks of testosterone. I don't recall any particular crash after it.

My second cycle was 10 weeks of EQ, Test and dbol and I felt significantly depressed afterward -- not helped by Clomid-induced emotionality.

My third cycle, same as the second, which ended at the end of August, was followed by practically no effects.
 
buddy28 said:


I understand that variation exists in any phenomenon, which is why I dont understand your beleif that the examples I give are deviations to the theory. My theory or yours?

Im arguing that the motivations for body modification lie on an continium, with subjective morality determining the merit of differing modifications. Harvard convention outlawing genetic modification of human brain size, and the expected banning of embryo phenotype selection, coincide with North America's judeo-christian culture's rejection of various external and internal personal qualities superceding the value of the soul. In addition, the outlawing of body modification by genetic manipulation purely for aesthetical purposes, reveals the dangers that are inherent in creating humans that are genetically/asethetically "superior" due soley to the privalaged class their parents enjoy.

But what sense would this make if my point disproved my own theory? So Im assuming its in refference to your theory.

Its funny, our theorys are alike in some ways. You seem to be arguing that all beauty, irrelevant of cultural norms of accepted beauty, need to be appreciated....



Christianity would take emphasis off external aesthetic representations and put value on the soul.

They both share the common goal of self acceptance based on equivocal human worth, regardless of external appearence. Black and white comming together baby, ebony and ivory.

btw --- can you explain *exactly* what you meant in our last discussion about cognitive behavoural therapy being a statistical deviation to the norm, thus disproving my theory?! I dont understand that.

As to your first point, again, I do not think we disagree. Harvard's action doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a decision made on the basis of a judgment which, as you say, is rooted in a J-C ethic. I disagree with the judgment, mainly. On the other hand, I think what sounds like an effort to avoid a kind of engineered "aesthetic classism" is fascinating but, without knowing more, I can't say more.

As for your point about Christianity, yes, I know that's what Christianity does. I dispute it because, for one thing, I don't think the soul is internal. I think soul is in the world. We are in soul. Soul is not in us. So the world's display -- as in the Greek view -- IS its ensoulment, as is the body to the human.

And, yes, my understanding of beauty -- which is at the foundation of the psychological movement of which I'm a part -- has nothing to do with what is "pretty." It has to do with what arrests the attention. This comes out of the work of esoteric Islam and the discourses of a French phenomenologist of the imagination, Gaston Bachelard.

I don't remember the point I made about cognitive therapy. I will tell you that your, um, enthusiasm about it led me to make some inquiries and, while it seems useful in some phobias, it still doesn't seem that broadly applicable to me. I run a supervision group for some psychologists and we spent a session discussing it. Many had training in it and most everyone had abandoned it. The reason is that, originally, congitive research was about the constitution of meaning and it has instead, in its practical application, come to be another form of behavior modification.

Don't get all huffy and defensive. I repeat: If it works for YOU, fine.
 
last 2 question Muscle Nuts

what were the dosages on the doctor prescibed cycle.

and on the one that you crashed on, waht were some of the symtoms, and how long did they last?

thanks for the info

OMEGA
 
OMEGA said:
last 2 question Muscle Nuts

what were the dosages on the doctor prescibed cycle.

and on the one that you crashed on, waht were some of the symtoms, and how long did they last?

thanks for the info

OMEGA

500 mg weekly of test for six weeks. Incredible, huh? A regular illegal-type cycle. And this was at Kaiser! I can't emphasize how counter to my understanding this was. I'd bought the whole drugs-are-bad-mkay? thing pertinent to roids. I actually called the doctor back to protest, talked to several friends who were doctors -- I just couldn't believe he was prescribing that much. They all told me it was uncommon but not that unusual.

The after-effects mainly were depression and severe emotionality. I presumed the latter was from the Clomid, though I didn't have that at all on the third. I was in Europe when I started the Clomid (both times), alone, and that may have heightened the emotionality. I mean, mainly, grim experiences of sentimentality, weepiness. It was like I was in a bad French movie.

Of course, the big symptom is losing sexual potency. And I lost it big time after the second cycle. Imagine being in Paris with a limp dick! Perhaps this relates to my being (just) over 40.

Basically, for me, a cycle takes almost two months to recover from.
 
musclebrains said:

Don't get all huffy and defensive. I repeat: If it works for YOU, fine.

I wasnt "huffy", I was confused about how my examples are statistical deviations that fail to prove a theory. Obviously, thats a significant claim, so I wanted to know *exactly* what prompted you to say it.

Clearly, you and I differ in achievable personality temperments mitigated by therapy, and realist expectations of what those temperments should be. Since you beleive some personalitys are destined for a meloncholic exsistence, I can see y you would think that statistical deviations = "successful" cognitive theraputic outcomes, wouldnt disprove your theory = immutable predisposition towards relative unhappiness -- since "successful" is really defined by your own personal philisophy of "normal" human temperments. Am I right?

Your responses can be shrouded and cryptic if they dont explicity state your own ideologys and what your reffering too. Im curious exactly what you mean by these blanket statements (re: As I have said in the past: You seem to operate on the belief that an exception disproves a theory. It does not, since there is variance in any phenomenon.). Thats all. Plain and simple. Ebony and ivory.
 
Last edited:
musclebrains said:


500 mg weekly of test for six weeks. Incredible, huh? A regular illegal-type cycle. And this was at Kaiser!


(that is kind of surprising.)


I'd bought the whole drugs-are-bad-mkay? thing pertinent to roids


(who hasn't till we did our research.)


The after-effects mainly were depression and severe emotionality.It was like I was in a bad French movie.


(I felt like a bad French movie)



Of course, the big symptom is losing sexual potency. And I lost it big time after the second cycle. Imagine being in Paris with a limp dick! Perhaps this relates to my being (just) over 40.



(too much info)

:)


just kidding.


thanks MUSCLEBRAINS for the good info.

I am still not entirely sure about clomid as a truly effective post cycle additive.

that's why I sent you that info about a guy who had some really interesting thoghts on recovery. the name is gwl9dta4
 
Top Bottom