That Penis Size Debate site

I think his motivation is idolatry. Religious people will recognize idolatry as the violation of the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.”

He idolizes large penises and thinks everyone else should. Some people worship trees. He worships cocks.

I think his approach probably come from a deep feeling of humiliation he once or repeatedly experienced or imagined over his penis size. The way he managed that feeling of humiliation was to embrace it. It’s an example of what shrinks call “identification with the aggressor.” Simply put, if you’re a wimp who suffers under the boot of others, your response may be to become the boot.

People who get picked on often become bullies. An oft cited and controversial example of identification with the aggressor is when African Americans overcome underprivileged beginnings and end up members of the Republican Party.

IDENTIFICATION WITH THE AGGRESSOR

Many parents are familiar with a wide variety of children’s games in which the children pretend to be wild animals or or even imaginary viscious creatures. Maurice Sendak’s famous children’s book, Where the Wild Things Are is a perfect example of such games. This kind of play by children psychologically allows them to do several emotional tasks at once.

First, the play allows them an expression of instinctual energy in a setting that is generally not particularly destructive or dangerous. With parents benignly watching over the play, children can literally get away with "monstrous acts" and if they are too rambunctious, they are easily controlled (as Max’s mother does in the book).

Second, and just as important, the child through this play can transform their own intense anxiety about being attacked by "monsters" into an identification with the monster. In children’s games, this is a pleasurable experience, and helps to lessen the normal kinds of fears and anxieties that are a part of childhood.

Thus we can see the origins of what has become known as the "Stockholm Syndrome " or Anna Freud’s concept of "identification with the aggressor ."

By taking on some characteristic of a thing which causes extreme anxiety, a child is using that identification (or introjection as it is sometimes called) as a means of reducing his or her anxiety by morphing from the passive role to the active role. With psychological identification, instead of being the object of a threat, you become the one making the threat.

In children this is considered a normal part of the development of the "superego" as children learn to master their anxiety. In fact, this capability of identification with another is essential for normal psychological development and when it is not brought about by excessively traumatic events in a child’s life (i.e.,during the safety of play) the child can develop normally. The healthy result of this process is an introjection and assimilation of others leading to normal human relationships and empathy and understanding of other people.

When the process short circuits for any reason (i.e., abuse, trauma etc.) then more primitive alternatives come into play, including projection and full-blown paranoia. ShrinkWrapped has more on this phenomenon from an earlier post.

Roger Simon links to a site that quotes a recently released hostage in Iraq:

"I was treated very respectfully and courteously apart from the fact that I was detained against my will and threatened with beheading," Sands told The Associated Press on Saturday. "I was not beaten, starved or treated badly."

This was said of the people who threatened to behead the hostage in question.

In fact, it is not too uncommon for some people in such a hostage situation, particularly where their lives are at stake, to fully and completely identify with the side that is threatening them.

I was just watching an episode of Firefly (interestingly titled "Bushwacked") where the sole survivor of a Reaver attack is rescued by the crew, but he has been the witness to such horrors that he literally transforms himself into a Reaver in order to cope with the trauma. Reavers are what is left of a human being when all civilizing mental processes are stripped from their minds; only the primitive and animalistic part of the human remains. Thus they are capable of any atrocity.

If you have been reading some of my posts on psychological defense mechanisms (here ), you will realize that "identification with the aggressor" also involves the use of a particularly primitive defense called "projection", where one’s own unacceptable feelings or behaviors are placed on another individual or group. Thus it is not at all uncommon for those who are sadistically traumatized to become sadistic themselves and carry on the trauma and to project their feelings of helplessness and trauma onto others as they create more victims. This mechanism explains why some abused children go on to become abusers themselves when they are adults. It also explains why someone of Jewish heritage would admire a Hitler and hide their ancestry; or why people in general might find themselves hanging around with and even imitating people who despise them or even might want to kill them.

Identification with the aggressor is only considered normal when it is innocuous —as in children’s play.

When it occurs in adults in real life situations, it can literally transform those who unconsciously use it into the very monsters they fear the most, as they cope with their severe anxiety and dread.

I do not contend that coping in a healthy manner to traumatic circumstances is an easy thing to do. In fact, maintaining psychological health under those circumstances may be very difficult. One must do what one must to survive and get out of the deadly situation. Personally, I would say anything (even lying, if necessary) and do anything—right up to the point where it would betray my own fundamental values, without which I am not myself anyway) in order to survive.

But it is after the trauma—after the rescue—that the hardest and most painful part of coping psychologically will present itself. And to survive psychologically will require not a little insight, self-awareness, and honesty; possibly shame and/or guilt; and most of all, using one’s rational faculty to help understand all that has transpired both externally and internally. In this way, one may permit one’s self to tap into the terrible feelings of fear and humiliation and to deal with them —instead of repressing them, and letting them deal with you and thus, unconsciously control you and distort the reality of what happened to you.

An example of this is the case of the hostage above, who clearly dealt with his fear by identifying with his captors and projecting some of his own normality onto them— as in, "they were so respectful and courteous to me"….

Yes, they were. As respectful and courteous as anyone could be when they are threatening to cut off your head.

I think what is distorted about his site, is that he implies that much less than that is not going to be very satisfying at all for women. Feedback from women themselves generally indicates that penis size is not so crucial to satisfaction, though it plays a role along with other factors that can make it largely irrelevant.

FF

Thanks for not letting this one get past you :) . In truth, the guy who first explained the idea of “identfication with the aggressor” to me used the example of African Americans joining the Republican Party to explain the principle.

The logic goes like this: The Republican Party is largely stocked with rich, white guys, many of whom come from former slave states. They may not be specifically racist (although many of them are), but the effects of their policies tend to favor rich, white guys at the expense of poor Blacks. Consider the initiative to abolish the estate tax while at the same time opposing a minimum wage increase.

Don’t get me wrong. The Republicans have the right to want what they want. But what they want does not generally operate to the advantage of Blacks. Now, given that, why would it be that a Black person, once he climbs up the social ladder with the aid of Democrat-initiated government programs, affirmative action, and so forth, suddenly decide to oppose the very programs and policies that enabled his success? Because he doesn’t want to think of himself as needing help. He wants to think of himself as strong and even privileged. He identifies with the rich, privileged class to escape from the feelings of frustration and vulnerabiilty of the underclass. He becomes the aggressor, in this context, to escape from the feelings of being oppressed.

The PSD guy is doing something similar. He feels oppressed and humiliated over his dick. The way he copes with his feelings of oppression and humiliation is to become the humiliator. Instead of resisting the porn industry funded initiative that “bigger is better,” he buys into it. Even though he is not himself big, he becomes a member of the “big team,” and thereby feels somewhat relieved of his humiliation.

Now, I think the PSD guy is also responding to the “misery loves company” principle. He feels miserable over his dick and wants everybody else to feel that way, too. There’s safety in numbers, and, if we can all be miserable together (or, at least 99% of us), maybe we can all just relax.

My point is that I wish politics weren’t discussed among gentlemen in penis enlargement forums because no one ever comes out satisfied or anything.due to the fundamental philisophical differences behind the beliefs of each 50% of the population, it’s an unnecessary sysiphean predicament :)

I think his motivation is idolatry. Religious people will recognize idolatry as the violation of the first commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods besides me.”

He idolizes large penises and thinks everyone else should. Some people worship trees. He worships cocks.

I think his approach probably come from a deep feeling of humiliation he once or repeatedly experienced or imagined over his penis size. The way he managed that feeling of humiliation was to embrace it.

Yes, there are some women that can bury 9 inches plus, but they are the women with the deepest vaginas accounting for the deepest 5% of the population. In essence, whatever fits the deepest women, will not be best for the majority of women out there. These women with deeper than average vaginas, have a deeper than average pelvis. This guy’s view is terribly slanted.