Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Turtle’s Encounters with Some Vampires!
Source: UncleBob's Treehouse
URL Source: http://uncabob.blogspot.com/
Published: Mar 23, 2011
Author: Turtle
Post Date: 2011-03-23 11:03:56 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 3394
Comments: 68

While there does exist the occasional psycho lunatic who really does drink people’s blood, these people are so rare it’d take several lifetimes to meet one, unless you go out of your way by becoming an FBI profiler.

What are much more common are what I’ve heard described as “emotional vampires,” and I’ve met several of these. They’re known as Personality or Character Disorders, and fall under various headings such as Antisocial, Borderline, Narcissistic and Histrionic Personality Disorder.

They all have certain traits in common. The main one is: it’s always someone else’s fault. It’s never their fault. This trait has been noticed for thousands of years, which is why in the story of the Garden of Eden Adam says, “The woman made me do it,” and Eve says, “The serpent made me do it.” It wasn’t their fault. It was someone else’s.

Because it’s always someone else’s fault, they always portray themselves as victims, even if they don’t realize it. In fact, they can be quite good at convincing people they ARE victims. Because of this, if you first meet someone and they try to pluck at your heartstrings with stories of the awful things done to them, immediately put your guard up.

Think about it this way: what kind of person would immediately tell you such intimate details of their life? And if they do it to you, don’t you think they do it to everyone?

They lie. Oftentimes they don’t even know they’re lying, because to successfully lie to someone else you first have to successfully lie to yourself.

They can be quite charming and manipulative, to the point you don’t even know you’re being manipulated. If they’re telling you stories about the awful things that happened to them, the first impulse of many men is to protect them and fix them.

Ha ha! Suckers! You’re being manipulated! They don’t want to be fixed! They want attention and to suck your innards dry, then cast away the empty husk that used to be your life!

They can make you feel special. You’re not. You’re interchangeable with the rest of the suckers. Again I’m going to repeat: if they’re telling you intimate details of their lives, why wouldn’t they be telling them to everyone?

They are deficient in gratitude, not to mention guilt, not to mention empathy. Since to them it’s someone else’s fault, why should they feel guilty or grateful or empathic? That’s why they never say, “Thank you.”

The worst emotional vampire (she appeared to be Borderline/Histrionic) I ran across some years ago told me, in the first hour I talked to her:

“Men are responsible for all the problems in the world.”

“Some of my relatives tried to molest me when I was in my teens.”

“None of my relationships work out because all the men have baggage from past relationships.”

“None of them will accept my career.”

The best one of all was…”This is about me, not you!”

Nothing was her fault. It was always men’s fault. And if it’s someone else’s fault, then it’s okay to emotionally abuse them. And sooner or later (and usually it’s sooner) they start to emotionally abuse people. Sometimes it becomes physical abuse.

If you meet someone who immediately becomes intimate (by telling you intimate details of his or her life), who immediately treats you as if you are special, who makes you want to immediately protect or fix them, and blames their problems on other people, STAY AWAY!

I’m going to repeat this, too: for many men their first impulse is to fix, protect and save a woman like this. You can’t do any of those things for her. She’s not so easy as a flat tire.

Some people unfortunately fall in love with these people, ignoring the warning signs – which are always bad feelings about them; anxiety, tenseness, and guilt (wondering if YOU have the problem and not them). The reason you’re having those bad feelings is because your soul is being sucked out!

These people are relatively common and wreak in the lives of every person they come into contact with.

This is a free warning, courtesy of Turtle!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.

#1. To: Turtle (#0)

I knew one of those. In fact, I'll tell you her name. She is rather well-known in anti-NWO circles.

Her name is Pam Schuffert.

None of this was romantic in any way. I met her one on one. I donated money to her many times.

I was a fucking moron. TO those that question my use of the word "was", well I was even worse back then.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   11:15:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: PSUSA (#1)

I met her one on one. I donated money to her many times.

I was a fucking moron.

LOL!!

Of course, she MADE you donate money many times.

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   12:17:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: abraxas (#8)

Of course, she MADE you donate money many times.

Did I say that? No. It was my fault.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   12:21:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: PSUSA, Turtle (#9)

Did I say that? No. It was my fault.

This sense of personal responsibility does not correlate to Turtle's narrative of de ebil women MAKING de men care and donate money and continue to come back for more multiple helpings of crappy treatment despite obvious warning signs.

Four words Turtle will never utter: It was my fault. lol

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   12:26:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: abraxas (#10)

Women do know what buttons to push. Next to men, they are masters at it.

It's a shame that we have to be on guard all the time to keep that from happening. Otherwise they can catch us off guard.

Our fault is in letting it happen. It's their fault for launching the offensive in the first place.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   12:36:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: PSUSA (#12)

Women do know what buttons to push. Next to men, they are masters at it.

It's a shame that we have to be on guard all the time to keep that from happening.

Sheesh, what a sad commentary on personal relationships.

IMHO, if you don't have trust, you don't have a relationship. If you have it, no need to be "on guard all the time" and on the look out for subversive manipulation.

Of course, if your focus is constantly on button pushers, you will invite button pushers into your life.....even those who may not be button pushers become suspect button pushers and surely, if you read deeply into every action, you will find evidence of button pushing to validate your preconceptions.

Who is launching the offensive in the first place?

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   12:47:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: abraxas (#14)

Who is launching the offensive in the first place?

Look up the divorce stats, and look up who initiates the divorces the most. Get the percentages. Then get back to me.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   12:50:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: PSUSA (#16)

Initiation of a divorce does not reveal the factors leading to a divorce. It merely determines who is plaintiff and who is defendant in the legal action.

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   12:56:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: abraxas (#19)

Initiation of a divorce does not reveal the factors leading to a divorce.

Oh please.

Since when do there need to be "factors"?

lol

Now, let's see if you will answer my question, instead of dodging it.

You talk about "trust". That is usually femspeak for "let me jam this knife between your ribs".

Trust requires trustworthiness. It's not a given, it's earned. And even then it's stupid to trust someone 100%.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   13:24:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: PSUSA (#20)

Since when do there need to be "factors"?

You talk about "trust". That is usually femspeak for "let me jam this knife between your ribs".

Generally, there are factors such as these: affairs outside the marriage, inability to communicate, no shared goals, lack of commitment, abuse, indifference, lack of respect, disputes over finances, death of a child........

It's not a matter of "need" for factors, it is acceptance of the reality that there are factors. So, your ex-wife filed divorce for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and you were COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS to any factors, reasons or problems? Is this your story? lol

I've been expecting this one......as you must find a way to validate your preconceptions, even if you have to pull idiocy such as "femspeak" out of your ass to do it.

No woman has any "trustworthiness" in your jaded mind and why would any woman waste her time playing games and jumping through hoops to prove herself "worthy" of you, especially when, even if they somehow and someway prove themselves, they still can never be fully trusted in your jaded eyes? It's a no win situation.

Trust is YOUR choice to give or not and generally, lack of trust is another relationship killer.......perhaps it was a factor you opted to ignore?

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   13:44:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: abraxas (#21) (Edited)

Is this your story? lol

Oh hell no! No way will I ever get married. It's all risk and no benefit. The only ones that benefit from marriage are women. They also benefit from the divorce.

Trust is YOUR choice to give or not

There better be a damn good reason to give it. I'm certainly not going to do it just because she has a really cute butt.

Now, are you going to answer my question? Or are you going to throw another tantrum?

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   13:54:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: PSUSA (#23)

he only ones that benefit from marriage are women.

Now, are you going to answer my question? Or are you going to throw another tantrum?

If you talk to couples who have been married for decades, you find that the relationship is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, as it should be.

Don't trust for cute butts........but don't play head games with her simply because you have trust issues.

I've thrown no tantrums.......completely rational in my discussion with you. Quit injecting emotions into this discussion that are not there. I thought that was supposed to be something de evil women do.

I answered your question in that who files is only relevant to who is the defendant and who is the plaintiff in a legal action. You seem to place a great deal of emotional significance to it that isn't justified in any rational way. Plus, you irrationally deny any possibility of factors that lead to divorce, in lieu of blaming the person who files the action to begin the proceedings. Is there a point to that?

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   14:02:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: abraxas (#25)

I've thrown no tantrums.......completely rational in my discussion with you. Quit injecting emotions into this discussion that are not there.

Uh huh. Right. Let's review:

Is this your story? lol ...as you must find a way to validate your preconceptions, even if you have to pull idiocy such as "femspeak" out of your ass to do it... in your jaded mind ...your jaded eyes...Of course, she MADE you donate money many times...etc.

If you talk to couples who have been married for decades, you find that the relationship is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, as it should be.

This was back when men were men, and women were damn glad of it. It's a different story now. Now men are pussies and women try to act like men.

You seem to place a great deal of emotional significance to it that isn't justified in any rational way.

If that is the case, then prove me wrong. Answer my question. Just to refresh your memory it's "Look up the divorce stats, and look up who initiates the divorces the most. Get the percentages."

There is nothing "emotionally significant" about stats. Unless you are trying to avoid those stats because you dont want to admit what they show. Women love no fault divorces. They can make a lot of money.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   14:28:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: PSUSA (#26)

Is this your story? lol ...as you must find a way to validate your preconceptions, even if you have to pull idiocy such as "femspeak" out of your ass to do it... in your jaded mind ...your jaded eyes...Of course, she MADE you donate money many times...etc.

Women love no fault divorces. They can make a lot of money.

Yes, I was kidding with you, but apparently your ego is too fragile to take the ribbing. I apologize for hurting your sensitive feelings in response to your attempted "femspeak" insult. And, I do believe you are feeling defensive because you know that I'm on spot with your preconceptions.

It's about 2/3's that are plaintiff's in the filings.......which proves what? The leading factor in divorce is cheating, then abuse, and addictions.

Why would women like "no-fault" divorce states when they get higher rates of spousal support in states that allow for fault? The leading factor in divorce is cheating and in no fault states it makes no difference. Statistically women who file in fault states make more money when they can make a case for fault as in audultry or abuse, so your point is completely moot. This is why the wealthy file in fault states......only the poor go to NV, a no-fault state, for divorce and we have the highest rate in the nation.

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   14:57:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: abraxas (#29)

apparently your ego is too fragile to take the ribbing.

That made me laugh out loud.

Yes, I am the thin-skinned sensitive type. LOL!

It's about 2/3's that are plaintiff's in the filings..

Ummm isn't it 3/3's? I never heard of someone divorcing themselves. But if there's money to be had, women would figure out a way.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   15:20:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: PSUSA (#31)

Yes, I am the thin-skinned sensitive type.

Yes, I've noticed this.

No, it is 3/3's. In 1/3 of the proceeding men are the plaintiffs. This must also have some great significance. Please, tell us all what it is after you tell us the significance of the women plaintiffs.

You sure do whine and snivel when your question is not answered while willfully ignoring all that are posed to you. It's okay to simply say you have no point and no answers, your fragile ego will survive. : )

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   15:33:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: abraxas, turtle (#32)

No, it is 3/3's. In 1/3 of the proceeding men are the plaintiffs.

Now that makes no sense at all. You said "It's about 2/3's that are plaintiff's in the filings.. ". 2/3's of what? Men? Women? The pet parakeet?

You sure do whine and snivel

You are on a roll today! Whine and snivel. lol. Snivel snivel snivel! Whine and snivel! Whine and snivel!

Now what questions did I ignore?

Please, tell us all what it is after you tell us the significance of the women plaintiffs.

Women filing was at about 75% in the 60's when the no-fault laws came into being. Now it's at a 2:1 ratio women over men. Why is that? Could it be that there is a financial stake in filing? Could it be? Please tell me it ain't so! I thought that they wanted equality...

There is no benefit to men to get married. None. Not one single benefit. It's all risk. The only ones that benefit are women. Until that changes, this country will continue to sink.

Women bitch and moan constantly about men not wanting to "commit". Now you know why.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   16:03:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: PSUSA (#37)

It's about 2/3's that are plaintiff's in the filings.. ". 2/3's of what?

Now what questions did I ignore?

Now it's at a 2:1 ratio women over men.

2/3's of all the divorce filings have women as the plaintiff, meaning the divorce was initiated by women 2/3's of the time and initiated by men 1/3 or the time.

All along this thread, simply look at my posts to you and search for question marks. You really aren't very good a feigning naivete.

Do you not realize that two-thirds versus one-third is a 2:1 ratio? Which means that the filings have gone down from 75% in the 60's to 66% now, meaning more men are filing as plaintiff than in the 60's. So, what is the significance? You harp on this point while ignoring requests to specify meaning.

Explain the correlation between the ratio and financial stakes if you can.

abraxas  posted on  2011-03-23   16:20:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: abraxas (#38)

Do you not realize that two-thirds versus one-third is a 2:1 ratio?

No I didn't realize that. That is why I used the 2:1 ratio myself. It was a wild-assed lucky guess on my part.

75% in the 60's to 66% now

That's great progress for 40+ fucking years. Impressive! Most impressive! Who knows, in 100 years it might be 1:1 and you women will finally have true "equality". But I doubt this country lasts that long, in its current form.

Explain the correlation between the ratio and financial stakes if you can.

Alimony. Legalized theft. But I understand why they do it. It's either steal the money and assets from the man, or pay it through more welfare programs.

Marriage is for fools.

.

PSUSA  posted on  2011-03-23   16:33:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 40.

        There are no replies to Comment # 40.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest