To clarify, no part of my most recent reply was meant as a response to Madame Zora's statements. i am happy to clarify my position now. i don't understand why people insist on calling it a bruised ego. Why should an angry man have not merely be a rageful Achileos, aware that he is the greatest warrior of the Acheans and thus his sense of outrage at having been slighted was proportionally greater than the other warriors who were forced to pay tribute to Agamemnon. Obviously few are actually Achilleses but mutatis mutande, we can see microcosms of that situation in ordinary events. Accept that it is an assumption to believe that someone who thinks well of themselves understands their position in relation to the whole perfectly well. Let me put it this way, to paraphrase JS Mill: simply because there is a word denoting a concept does not mean it there is something corresponding to that concept in reality. That is, your form of self-esteem is a fantasy that is peculiarly appealing to Americans. It stems from "all men are created equal". The idea that to truly sense your own worth is to sense all other's worth as well and also that in sensing other's worth one will come up with positive findings. I won't bother arguing with your experiences, but i don't think you are looking at a complete picture of the situation. Perhaps the answer is some sort of synthesis of my view and yours, (and i don't say this because i like patching up disagreements, i do quite enjoy polemics). For example, a man who believed he had no right to happiness, or considered himself otherwise valueless, would have no motivation for growing pissy when confronted with an obstacle to that happiness.
I know that when i am depressed i tend to shrink from the world rather than assert myself. My seretonin is down. I don't have the will to stop dropping at 32 feet per second squared down into the trash can. The more pleased i am with my situation, the more willing i am to assert myself. Evolutionarily speaking this makes sense because it allows for 'winners' to be more easily identified. However, one hardly grows angry and aggressive without some sort of provocation, often a threat to securit. The greater one's sense of one's right to happiness and security the more drastic one's response is likely to be. That is, with certain particulars like intelligence taken into account, the intelligent tend to avoid physical bullying because of obvious consequences. They also tend to find solace in abstractions like universal equality. Also, i will use the definition of esteem the Stanford team used, which, rather than being a platitude, asked people to give an honest and confidential assement of their value and ability in various areas. Your experience with the underhung may be result from a view that they are so important that you have no right to stand in the way of their happiness by denying yourself to them. No one, even with healthy self esteem would be pleased with that situation, yet one require a certain amount of confidence to really put there foot down and the force with which they do it is related to there sense of their own rights and worth. Remember, the sexual aspect of their lives is not the only aspect, they may derive a their confidence from other areas. I should also clarify that self-esteem as defined by one's perception of his worth can be artificially doctored, as in the public school experiments. Self esteem is related to performance but it can be found in many other ways as well. the only thing the public school tests proved was that it does not cause performance.
), and all of them seemed completely happy with their equipment, and never once asked "is it big enough for you?" --- only guys with average or above-average length dicks have ever asked me that; and they had clearly fallen victim to the belief that not-having-more means there's something wrong with you. *sigh*
