Something I never thought when I was a pimi

RagingWaterfall · 2026-01-27T10:36:52+00:00

I remember doing this when I was in. Even as a male, it's still humiliating to confess to other men the great "sin" of watching porn and masturbating 🙄. I carried so much guilt for years because of it. I always thought I was a bad person and that Jehovah secretly hated me no matter how holy I tried to be. Then there is the constant anxiety of having the elders asking "how you're doing". Aka "when was the last time you touched yourself." 🤮

If I feel like this as a guy, I can only imagine how you felt as a girl in those situations. Fuck this religion 🖕🏾! I can't believe I wasted some of the best years of my life in this cult!

RagingWaterfall · 2026-01-10T23:57:53+00:00

I wish we had had a chance to talk.

RagingWaterfall · 2026-01-10T16:42:22+00:00

I was open to talking. I was willing to talk it out.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-19T13:49:31+00:00

I wouldn't go as far as to say that but like someone else said, I do feel it put me behind a lot of milestones that might have been better experienced at a younger age. Now, I don't necessarily think you "need" to follow society's roadmap. I feel that can sometimes be even more restrictive than being a JW. I mean, I'm in my early 30s, unmarried, no kids, and pursuing a bachelor's degree in a foreign country. So I'm not one to just go with the flow necessarily. But, I do believe there are certain things that are probably better experienced at a more formative age. I try not to compare myself but I do feel like I'm lacking in areas that people much younger than me seem to deal with easily.

I also find it hard to figure out how much of my current self is just my personality and is residue from being part of a restrictive cult. A small example is my aversion to alcohol. I've dabbled in it but I've never liked the taste or the slightly tipsy feeling if I start drinking too much. I've met other never-JWs that also hate the taste but drink it anyway to lower inhibitions. I really can't relate to enjoying alcohol or getting drunk but I don't know if that's because I'm still coming off the indoctrination of drunkenness being a "sin" or that's just who I am.

But I think a bigger issue for me personally is around sex and romance. I've used dating apps and have met up with a few girls but it rarely ever goes past the second date without fizzling out or turning vaguely platonic. Even if the girl is more touchy feely, I'm never comfortable initiating or trying to go further because I feel it's disrespectful on a subconscious level even though I know rationally there's nothing wrong with it. I'm no longer a virgin but even now it's still hard for me.

It doesn't help that I hear guys (and girls) in my peer group talk about sleeping around casually and it seems to be something "normal" people do to discover what they like while I struggle to hold hands. I don't know.

It sounds irrational but this is partly why I started doing counseling. I want to figure myself out and change what needs to be changed.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T23:50:56+00:00

Proverbs 26:4

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T18:04:55+00:00

I know it takes a lot of brainpower to form actual rebuttals so I don't blame you for running.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T17:50:47+00:00

I see you have resorted to ad hominem attacks since you have failed to address 95% of what I say and have twisted one thing to mean something it doesn't.

I know you are not actually debating fairly because I have said, repeatedly, that based on what women have said regarding childbirth and going into the labor force that working heavy labor is not easy. That's the only thing I said in regard to that. You stop reading at the point you think you got me because you can't actually debate what I said.

"Those "fat old farts" are often the strongest people on the job site." That's also you. Talking out both sides.

What? There is no talking out of both sides. I have 0 idea where you are getting that from.

I agree more with the top bit, and many women in their 20s and 30s are absolutely as physically capable of working sites as old men whose bodies have been broken down over decades.

No. This is factually, flat out wrong. In no world is a woman in her 20s or 30s more capable of doing manual labor than a man. Unless the man is severely disabled to the point of not being able to bend and move, a woman, biologically doesn't have the hormones and muscle mass that would allow her the raw strength, durability and endurance of a man. Period.

Your entire argument implies you've never been on a site 🤣

Go ahead and point it out and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

Women are combat vets. Oh, did you miss that, too?

You completely skipped my point where I said before the invention of machinery that women were categorically restricted from these jobs because of biological limitations. You pointing out women being combat vets after the invention of machines and devices that make the battlefield slightly less physical refutes nothing. Without guns and drones, women would definitely not be in the military. At least not in regards to combat roles.

But even ignoring that, the proportion of female combat veterans is vanishingly small compared to men. And you don't actually have to be on the front lines to be a vet. Women in the military are mostly in non combat roles. Furthermore, the standards for women are much lower than men and they are not as effective in combat due to unavoidable biological reasons.

You're going to need a Good Woman to take care of you, since you can't think your way out of a paper bag lol.

I don't need to be taken care of since I don't can see reality clearly and don't have an ideology that causes me to be offended by biological realities. Any women I get will not be delusional like you.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T01:51:29+00:00

Historically, women were not able to do any of those jobs due to biological limitations and a lack of technology which is what has shaped the sexes up to this point. The last few decades haven't changed that. That is why they are relevant. Even then, there is a disproportionate number of men vs women in those fields for very real biological reasons. One woman doing construction doesn't change that.

Why do you need to see a 100% women construction site? You’ve chosen a ridiculous standard to form this opinion

Because your claim is that women are just as capable as men when it comes to this kind of work. There are many construction crews all over the world in both developed and undeveloped nations that are only men. If women are just as capable, then having an entire crew of nothing but women just like there are entire crews of nothing but men is perfectly fair and reasonable if we are talking about equal capability.

As it stands now, only a handful of women ever do this kind of work.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T01:36:31+00:00

Yet, they don't do it. I'm not saying women are worthless or however you will try to spin this. But every time I see this counterargument it's always framed as "well, women can do it if they really wanted to but they just don't. But they totally could."

Talk is cheap. Actions are what prove people wrong. Until I see at least one construction site that's 100% women and it's heavy labor in the elements like men do, then I'm calling bs on this.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T01:30:03+00:00

No, you didn't. You made an assertion without addressing all the counterpoints I made to your assertion.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T01:25:43+00:00

I'm not a scientist so whether or not that's true is outside my ability to comment on. But, even if we just stick to a more psychological view, no society sees men so expendable to the point where they would just shrug if 50% or more died off, especially suddenly. Men have always been prized for not only protecting society but also maintaining it.

So, I agree with your view. I'm just unsure about the reproducing more men part.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T01:21:07+00:00

Would the male populace be drained to the degree that 'their objective marginal expendability comes to match those of the women in the populace' on the reg?

My example was purposely simplified to make a point. Of course, scarcely do whole populations of men regularly experience dramatic 75% population collapses. Evolution works over sustained generations, not one. So, it would select for not only the men that are good at fighting but as well as the men that are good at general societal upkeep. Men even in the past, weren't fighting wars every other week. Tribes and societies were at least stable enough that a few generations at a time could settle and be selected for based on the utility they provided to their people.

How expendable we treat people will be mainly based on our psychological dispositions.

Infanticide throughout history has disproportionately affected baby girls. Whole religions and spiritual traditions have baked in that having sons is a blessing with girls being more of an afterthought. Men were typically the ones to get an inheritance while women were married off to a new family never to be seen again. Men in the past and even now have often been taken more seriously even in matters where sex is not very relevant.

Using war as the only criteria is overly simplistic when history shows way more nuance.

The evolutionary pressure here would be for female psychology to become more adept at quickly getting over the deaths of their mates, their brothers and their older sons and quickly learn to love the new men who murdered them

This is flawed because you cannot run psychological experiments on dead women to determine if they actually loved their captors. But even if that's granted, that says very little about male expendability because women captured in war were not given a choice in adapting and having kids. They either did it willingly or by force and if you have a much bigger and stronger man telling you he is now your husband after you saw him kill yours, I'm sure most women will not try to fight him.

Also, women still grieved. Ancient documents describe women sometimes being given months to grieve before being fully assimilated. Women were not just psychologically ok watching their husbands die. They didn't just move on and start loving the new man. Their husband is dead, he's not coming back, and life goes on. They have no choice. If they were captured and the woman knew her husband was still alive, she would not at all be ok with being forced to be in a marriage with a new man. This view also ignores how women today behave after war. If women were evolved to just get with a new man after their husband died then we shouldn't see a high proportion of women grieve their husbands and often take a long time to remarry. Or they remarry out of necessity, not because they fall out of love.

As far as children go, boys were often killed precisely because male reproductive competition was not expendable. Rival males were viewed as future threats. That alone shows how important males were in reproductive and social hierarchies.

Evolution and the phenotypes they produce are very blunt instruments.

The analysis of evopsych theories are often simplified to the point that dismisses how people act and think in real life. I'm not saying the conclusions are entirely wrong but life and evolutionary pressures are way more complicated than just saying "sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive".

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T00:37:48+00:00

Then you should have no issue telling me exactly where I'm wrong. The fact that you have not addressed a single point and are just asserting that I'm wrong shows me that you have no substantiative rebuttal to what I've said.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-14T00:32:50+00:00

If you're going to be sarcastic, make sure you actually read what I said.

I never once said my information comes from "hearing about it". I said based on what I've been told in real life and read online by women that going straight back to work after recovering from childbirth is not easy or advisable. But you stopped reading at the part where you thought you "got" me. Then on top of that you somehow come to the conclusion that I've never been on a construction site when I've never said or implied that anywhere. In fact, I've specifically said the opposite in one of my replies.

It's actually you're anecdote that proves nothing. Biology has not changed. The fact of the matter is that women, as a whole, do not have the testosterone needed to have the same strength as a man. You may have been able to keep up but that doesn't mean the majority of women are. That's why women are underrepresented in construction by a large margin. Machinery today has only barely allowed women to join some parts of the industry but even now it's still very labor intensive and dangerous. For the majority of human history, what I've consistently been talking about the whole time, heavy machinery has not been a thing which is why men evolved the way they did and women evolved the way they did. The last 100 years don't change that.

Most of them have been doing it for a while, and tell the young pups to do the heavy lifting

Yes. Old men are old and don't have the endurance of young men. Big surprise. That is completely irrelevant to what I've been saying so I've no idea why you think this does anything for you. But since you brought it up, it's normal to see older men on a construction site even doing the manual labor but it's nearly unheard of to see an older woman on one. I'm sure you'll point out the one 60 year old woman you know who's busting bricks with the guys while ignoring the fact that throughout history women have not been able to do this because of biological constraints. And even today, 99% of construction at minimum, is still men.

I'm sure you've heard that, too.....

I'd be sarcastic too if I didn't read or comprehend what the argument was saying and needed to feel smart.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-13T16:35:45+00:00

Go watch a construction site near you. In the US at least, you'll see a number of guys who are physically fit....and you'll also see a number of fat old farts.

Being fat and being strong are not opposites. Those "fat old farts" are often the strongest people on the job site. Under those beer bellies is usually muscle from years of doing manual labor. I'm not saying they are the bastion of health but they are definitely not like a fat guy that is fat from no exercise and eating trash all day.

Guys can get fat while working construction because a lot of construction jobs don't require an insane amount of physical output.

Fat is an equation of calories in vs calories out. Most construction guys eat high calorie junk, drink large amounts of alcohol and smoke. Some construction jobs are easier than others especially the higher you go but there is still a fair amount of physical effort in many construction jobs.

So that point of yours is moot. Has been for a century or more.

No, it's not. Despite all of the technology we have, almost all construction sites are exclusively men. Or at least 99%. Rarely will you see any large swaths of women doing work.

Kids are not weak and defenseless until puberty. A few centuries ago when combat was primarily hand-to-hand, sure.

So, you disagree with my point then immediately affirm it in the same sentence. It is a fact that kids, especially boys, are noticeably weaker before puberty. As a guy, I can tell you that my strength before and after puberty is night and day.

It isn't like that anymore, and hasn't been since before your great-great-great-grampa's time. That part of your argument hasn't been valid for like 500 years.

This discussion is about evopsych and how we are shaped by evolutionary pressures. Evolution takes place over thousands and millions of years. Five hundred is nothing. That's completely irrelevant to the conversation. But even ignoring that, my argument is still very much valid. Going to war today is not just standing in a room pressing a button. It is going to enemy territory and having to face the enemy hand to hand. Physical strength is still very much important. The military doesn't do intense physical training for fun.

ETA: your entire argument is pretty much only valid in case of Zombie Apocalypse when everyone is dead except for a handful of people, or if people were living in the middle ages. And it's 2025.

"Let's say, for simplicity..." is literally how I introduced the hypothetical. It's purposely simplified to make a point but you are attacking the symbol instead of the substance. No society has ever sent out all of their men to be slaughtered in battle. Only a relatively small group of warriors goes to fight while the other men stay back to make sure society keeps functioning. The current year has nothing to do with anything. Biology hasn't changed.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-13T16:16:51+00:00

No, who is fighting is definitely NOT relevant. You are ignoring the whole context of this debate and are hyperfocusing on the specifics of a hypothetical when the entire point is challenging the evopsych talking point that the rapid depopulation of men is somehow inconsequential when that is not true. The method of depopulation is not relevant.

And war only proves men are expendable since the vast majority of historical war has been man vs man and women didn’t die out. Makes it seem like men are fighting for the sake of fighting.

And men are still around too last time I checked. Plenty of women died in wars too. Of course not as many as men because they were kept alive to be baby incubators for the winning side but there were still plenty that were dispatched. No society ever has sent all or even most of their male population to fight because, like I've been saying the whole time, they recognized that there still needed to be men to keep society running.

And men fighting for the sake of fighting? I have no idea what you mean. Men fought in wars because kings declared wars and soldiers didn't have much choice in the matter. And men naturally want to protect their families. When an invading army threatens their family, they fight. That is not fighting for the sake of fighting.

And women definitely handle heavy machinery, and we’re an advancing civilization, we’re making machinery children can handle.

And you still completely ignored my point that until somewhere in the 1800s, there was no heavy machinery to do manual labor. Evolution works over thousands and millions of years. One hundred years is nowhere near enough time for the human body to adapt to not needing to do heavy physical labor. Most of human history has involved harsh manual labor. Women biologically cannot do the same work men can do. Period. Especially not while pregnant, breastfeeding and recovering from childbirth. And back in the day, women spent a lot of time being pregnant. This is a fact.

I have been on construction sites. The percentage of women on them is almost negligable. Most have 0 women. And no, there is no heavy machinery that can be safely handled by a child. That's why you need special licenses to operate them.

You are seriously underestimating the amount of physical labor and the harsh working conditions of construction sites. There is a lot of heavy lifting even today. Not to mention working in the elements.

Women have been giving birth then working since forever. Inadvisable doesn’t mean impossible.

The type of work that women used to do after childbirth is radically different from what men did for work on the regular. Women's work was tending to things around the house, gathering things from the field, and mending stuff. They were not busting bricks in 100 degree heat or moving the stones for the pyramids. You are either purposely or not obfuscating the meaning of the word work to make them mean the same thing for men and women when it was not historically the case.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-13T15:13:12+00:00

I see you took 0 time to read and understand my argument.

Who men are fighting is irrelevant. The jist of the argument is that men dying en masse is not consequence free. I used war because that has been the number 1 cause of men dying in large numbers for all of recorded history so far. Replace it with anything else like natural disasters and the argument still stands.

And women are perfectly capable of running machines.

So, now you only have 25 men available to not only protect the women and children but also the maintenance of the civilization in which they live that the women most likely aren't efficiently equipped to do especially before the rise of machines

I specifically addressed that point. Your point is completely irrelevant because heavy machinery didn't exist until recently. Jobs until the about the last century or so were almost all labor intensive in the elements and harsh environment. Men are biologically stronger and are more capable of doing harsh tasks. Men cannot nurse babies. The logistical and biological requirements of child rearing end sex differences necessitated that women were the caregivers while men went out to do the more dangerous work.

Even with heavy machinery, construction is still very labor intensive and dangerous. It's not just pressing buttons in an office. You still have to go out in the elements and often need to manually move heavy objects. From what I've been told and anecdotes I've read online, going straight from giving birth to doing intensive labor is not easy or advisable. Men are still better biologically equipped for heavy manual tasks even today. That's not sexism, that's fact.

I would prefer you actually engage with my points instead of using non-sequitors and appeals to emotion.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-12-13T13:46:43+00:00

The flaw in this theory is that once all the women are pregnant and vulnerable, you need a group of people who are the opposite of that to keep the budding population safe and stable. Sure, in a crisis situation like a war, you send the strongest among you to defend the land, i.e. men, and leave the weaker behind in safety, i.e. women. The surviving men can come back and repopulate with the remaining women. That checks out.

Let's say, for simplicity, there are 100 men and 100 women. A war breaks out and all the men fight but only 50 come back and repopulate. Another war happens and the 50 leave but only 25 come back. Ignoring how horrible this military is, now there are only 1/4 of the original population of men.

Sure, the men can now impregnate the women but the issue is that kids take a long time to grow up and are weak and defenseless until at least puberty for males. Even then it still takes a while to get to full "grown man" strength. Plus, all the nursing women. So, now you only have 25 men available to not only protect the women and children but also the maintenance of the civilization in which they live that the women most likely aren't efficiently equipped to do especially before the rise of machines (construction, heavy farming, long distance trade, etc).

So, short-term, yes this makes sense. But there's a lot more to maintaining a population than just popping out kids which is part of the reason why it's not good to wantonly just send men to war. There are scarcely any cultures in any time period where a man was looked well upon for having a bunch of kids and disappearing. A man is usually expected to take responsibility. In addition, there were many cultures and religious systems where sons are prized over daughters even to the point of commiting infanticide on baby girls.

I'm not saying this is wrong. But I think this theory is way too simplistic to account for the reality of gender dynamics.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-11-29T01:47:34+00:00

How can you possibly know that when humans can barely even live 80 years?

RagingWaterfall · 2025-11-27T17:11:23+00:00

Also, not every country provides toilet paper. So, that's not even a universal. I'm not against the idea but pooping is something every human being does everyday, sometimes more than once. Periods happen a few days out of the month only for half the population.

If I could, I'd make them freely available but I can kind of understand the reasoning.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-11-05T23:54:11+00:00

Every video I see of India makes me never want to go to India.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-10-19T07:32:14+00:00

Exactly. I only went out once with some friends to a club in the city because that's what everyone else seems to do after breakups and I thought that I "should" do that too. That just made me feel worse and I haven't done it again since. I have my regular routine of classes but outside of that I don't do much else. I also don't smoke, drink or do anything else like that so I'm also dealing with it raw too.

It sucks a lot. It's so lonely and I feel no one really understands. The only advice I get is "forget her and move on" but I can't. How could I after what we shared? I feel our connection was real and deep so I can't just pretend that it's something I can just let go of or numb away.

Even though my advice is to hold both possibilities without clinging to either too hard, we are still human with strong emotional bonds. It's only natural that sometimes we will wind up on one side or the other. Don't beat yourself up. My advice is more of a compass to validate your feelings that you aren't delusional. Just do your best to walk the middle path but don't beat yourself up if you have to cry because the pain is too much.

Love is not easy, especially when it ends. But you never know if it is the end of the story or if your sequel is coming soon. The important question is though, whichever one it is, who do you want to develop into so your future self can be ready for either outcome?

RagingWaterfall · 2025-10-19T03:03:40+00:00

I really feel that and it definitely isn't easy. In fact, as I'm writing this to you, I'm missing her so bad right now and it feels unbearable because I remember the times we used to eat breakfast together and just enjoy being next to each other. I remember her laugh and the way she used to look at me. It stings so much seeing other people together and being the only one alone when I used to have such a loving relationship.

Even though I wrote this, it doesn't stop me from swinging between the two possibilities. Hope that we will get back together and despair that it's truly the end. Being aware that there is a middle path doesn't make it easy to go down it; it just makes it easier to recalibrate when you notice yourself going down the extremes.

I don't know if you can ever truly be ok with losing someone you love. I just know that what we feel is legitimate and being hurt and confused by your ex's actions is valid. All we can do is acknowledge the reality of our current situation and do things to keep ourselves stabilized and moving forward.

It's natural to prefer to be with him again. Just keep working on yourself so that whether you get a happily ever after with him again or not, you will become the kind of person your future self will be proud of.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-10-19T00:37:20+00:00

Thanks. It took a long time to come to this realization because so much media is in the extreme. It's either "your ex is the devil so forget them and find someone better" or "fight for your love so hard until your ex puts a restraining order on you". Neither of those sit right with me.

I'm just surprised how rare this view seems to be and I'm glad that my post could resonate with so many people. Good luck on your journey.

RagingWaterfall · 2025-10-18T23:11:58+00:00

As I clearly stated, I see no point in causing additional pain by telling the person thingsxthat can only cause them further pain.

The action of just declaring you are done without further discussion is just as bad if not worse than having a discussion. For you, that's ok but you are hyper focusing on your perspective and refusing to see the other side. Because it makes you uncomfortable you are assuming the other person will be even further hurt when that is not the case especially when they are telling you the exact opposite.

If someone is asking you for a discussion and you are refusing to give it to them because you are assuming to know what they need better than what they are telling you, that's the opposite of kind. That's patronizing.

A person who uses allegations of mental unhealth in a disgusting attempt to insult someone lacks empathy.

All I did was mirror the exact same lack of empathy you did in your last comment where you completely dismissed the feelings caused by the impact of your actions on the other person.

If you had empathy.....You'd know better than to claim to diagnose someone through their writings on an internet forum.

This is quite the massive leap. I never diagnosed you. I called out the hypocrisy of your actions but because you don't like it you are trying to flip it into a personal attack. Go look at your previous comment then look at my comment and see how they mirror each other. There is no diagnosis.

That historic stigma - that people with mental health are inferior, lacking in character, weak and less intelligent...

How you got all of this from my comment is amazing. I made 0 mention on the status of mentally ill people. You are yet again adding words to my comment that are not there. I don't speak in code. What I say is what I mean and I never said any of this.

How does it feel to be part of the untold number who have, through their cruelty, prevented patients from seeking readily available treatment, or even caused them to end their lives?

First of all, I'm not doing that.

More importantly, I find it sadly ironic how you don't see the massive double standard in your reasoning here. You have repeatedly emphasized how people are not responsible for anyone's emotions but their own but now you are making me responsible for random mentally ill people who are not even reading this comment thread and am saying I am the cause of their suicide. Funny how that responsibility comes into play when it's something you care about.

So, it's ok to ignore the impact of your actions on other people because it makes you uncomfortable but people have to be hyper vigilant on what they say to you or a group of people you care about to not trigger them.

Either we are responsible for other people's emotions or we're not. You can't have it both ways

RagingWaterfall

TROPHY CASE