IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs.
— THX1138

You don't seem to mention what you think is wrong with it. — Terrapin Station

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind. A thirteen year old shooting up for the first time and dying of an overdose because his friend Wayne -- who's only two years older than him -- has been using for years and knows how to measure and administer, what can go wrong? Something like that can be made much less probable with protocol in place, that is what I see wrong about laissez faire drug use, it seems right to instead offer higher fatality drugs in a drug shop (let's call it). You must be of an adult age, and a licensed professional measures and administers, lowering the risk of unnecessary fatality.

You can't smoke in many establishments to prevent second hand smoke, can't actively drink or already be drunk while you drive or are a teacher instructing children, etc. Makes sense that restrictions be especially applied to partaking in recreational heroin, cocaine and crystal meth given the symptoms.

Unless you also don't agree with the restrictions on smoking and/or drinking (you seem to allude to not being up for placing any sort of restriction/regulation in the least bit, I could be wrong).

is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — Tim wood

No. That's simple enough.) — Terrapin Station

IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs. That would be reckless. Even alcohol use and smoking have regulations set in place, for the "right" reasons.

But that's the point, they have regulations, which means they have their place in society. Because society still refuses to apply the same kind of moderation to other substance use, there's no opportunity to put circumstances in place to determine how to most appropriately make drug use inclusive. To me, this is why drug use currently contends with unchecked corruptability and is resoundingly epitomized by worse case scenario (by the worst cited cases). In hindsight, going about it in a "it's the principle of the matter" way defeats the purpose, especially when you take the link of statistics tim wood himself provided into account.

Like anything else, there needs to be a middle ground, a grey area. Otherwise, mutiny insues when there's no room for trial and error, or even being allowed a chance of incorporation.

I think my answer to your question (which because of the way you wrote it I do not completely understand) lies in my post you quoted. Yes, subject to legal controls. There is very little most of us do that is done in a vacuum or in isolation. All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. I call that community. And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. Whether or how are different topics. But the right is there. And for the most part, for the good.

That covers duty to others. There is also duty to self. There's a morality there as well. And within certain bounds, also subject to law. — tim wood

I truly believe your motives are founded in noble intention, tim wood. Still, I think there are blind spots and a bit of rigidity here.

I say this from personal experience. Being an individual born in the US, I find that for me it is difficult to feel connected to the community I find myself in the middle of, to feel unified with this society. Does that make me a terrorist? I don't want to terrorize anyone. It's not like a switch with the only two settings being "camaraderie" or "contrarity to camaraderie." I'm somewhere in between, and to many aspects of little to no pertinence to me, downright indifferent and aloof. I am, however, not antipethetic to aspects of society I find not particularly relatable to me.

I agree with you in that there ultimately is a responsibility we have to one another. I guess were I deviate from this considering your take is in the implied nature of how in practice.

I come off as conspicuous and unapproachable, yet, non-threatening and self-possessed. I live off the road your residential neighborhoods is situated off of, but I am homeless and am trespassing on the city property further out and parallel to you and the other families dwelling there. What am I? A nuisance? A trespasser? An ignominious character that serves as an example for you to relay to your children as a cautionary tale of some grim alternative? Am I a person? Am I symbolic, to be objectified? I'm not your neighbor, am I? I'm in the "wrong" aren't I?

Maybe buy a drone with a camera and scope out my concealed lifestyle, for the sake of community vigilance, a preemptive assessment. Maybe do some mild tracking if you happen to be driving back home and notice me on my bicycle off to do who knows what when not dwelling in the woods barely half a mile away from your proprietary home and those of the neighboring peers you've come to bond with, value and look out for.

And maybe one day, your spouse is crossing the street and I happen to be riding my bicycle on the other side of the road. A car is speeding right through because the driver is too busy arguing with his girlfriend in the passenger seat and is blind with self-contained rage. The road is hilly and your wife and I don't notice them until the car is flung over the arched road with a reverberating roar of it's engine. My instinctual reaction is to veer of the sidewalk and shield the woman who is a perfect stranger to me.

I'd do that, and to be honest, I don't entirely know why, but I know I would.

So yeah, I may not be uber ideal on paper nor the authority on morality, productiveness and don't manage to properly dispose of debris I tend to accumulate in my makeshift abode. I don't have resentment toward the American dream or those whom are living it much closer to their ideal than I am.

Yet at least two or three times a day, my presence is an allergy to those in the community approximated to me, and the methods employed to gage me (so to speak) do make me feel cancerous. The gawking and mockery make me feel "wrong."

Maybe insight to answering this question can be found by asking others: Why is it no longer immoral to observe the eighteenth ammendnet of the United States? Why should there be a twenty-first ammendnet to repeal the initial ratification of the eighteenth ammendnet? Why was the eighteenth ammendnet ever proposed in the first place? Hm...

Moreover, was it ever immoral for citizens whom disagreed the eighteenth ammendnet to disobey it before it would be repealed by yet another ammendnet, considering it would eventually go through a change in legality?

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood

Maybe it's a matter of relevance? Some people are known to huff glue, paint and cleaning products. It's not common enough to merit legal relevancy though -- people in the US can do this legally. I bet if the practice become prevalent, citizens would make complaints, lawsuits would ensure ("my kid wouldn't have huffed fumes if your school didn't leave paint idly lying around, and everyone knows huffing is how kids resort to trying to get a high now; this needs to be addressed and scrutinized.")

The specifics differ, but the overall issue would remain: there's something that people are using to alter their state of consciousness aimed at euphoria and it's believed the risk outweighs the perks. You don't see parents getting worked up over the rush their children get out of consuming pop rocks or the hightened energetic output they get from caffeinated beverages, not to the extent of feeling it moralistically poses a threat to the wellbeing of the nation's kids.

What makes ruling the use of drugs in this manner immoral while there are other ways -- arguably less effective and more harmful that are still an option to anyone looking to try to get in some way high -- not immoral to also make a legal acknowledgement of and enforce safety measures of regulation out of the sheer risk and known instances of use? Because it doesn't catch on, it's ineffective, so, it doesn't merit regulation? Or maybe because there isn't a sub-cultural identity to huffing chemicals?

Do you personally find that if huffing chemicals was as pervasive as the use of heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, etc. that it would be immoral not to make using it this way punishable by law for the moral of posterity?

some of us have a sense of humor and some do not.

carry on. — Arne

I didn't take what you initially said at face value. That was the point (I added on to your sarcasm, at least, I thought so).

Since I'm not getting a response and lashed out earlier, maybe you guys can check up on Kippo, make sure everything is okay. I feel like such a jerk now.

I do not get the impression at all that he was patronizing you or gaslighting you, I saw him as an individual who expressed sincerely how he felt. The coincidence is not that extraordinary, this thread has turned into a discussion about mental health issues, he identified with it, he replied at the time he did because Wallows had just posted beforehand and so this thread appeared at the top of the forum. Keep in mind that other people have feelings too and that not all their thoughts and feelings revolve around you, just relax mate.

If you are in a situation where you do not feel safe and you feel threatened, that paranoia is a normal defense mechanism. At this point I think the two things that would help you most would be to find some community in which you can feel welcomed so you stop feeling so isolated, and a home so you can feel less unsafe. There must be some social workers who can help you with that. — leo

Yeah, I agree. I was paranoid and simultaneously, I think Kippo is wondering about his own state of mind. Kippo reached out to me in a PM and by then, I calmed down and realized I made a miscorrelation and apologized. I'm not feeling that paranoid anymore. I hope Kippo will be okay, kinda went MIA in the middle of our PM.

There's nothing more that I can say here given those statements. I suggest addressing them honestly with your county psychiatrist.

Still, I hope you get a home or abode to stay in given the unfortunate predicament. — Wallows

It's well deserved. Sure though, I can always get on meds. They won't prescribe me anything for my anxiety anyway. I'll probably merit all the side effects that the rest of my body will be prone to for my brain's inadequacy -- digestive problems, tumors, kidney failure, brittle bones, shakey hands -- all that jazz.

I also have to accept that I musrt give up posting on the internet altogether. So adios. — Kippo

Here is a perfect example. Now, believe it or not Wallow, the common elements between Kippo' s post and the post I made right after were not influenced from Kippo's post to my own, as the time stamp would suggest. I was in the middle of writing my responding post when Kippo posted his/her response while mine was underway. Now Kippo, I'm not saying I know you have insight on my activities, cyber, physical local or otherwise, but, my paranoia is urging me to accept you have at least some cyber knowledge of my ongoings, since the coincidence is too convienent. I also get the impression you are both patronizing me and gas lighting me in doing this.

I'll lay out how my own sense of morality (in consideration and relation to being dwarfed by the moral of others not receiving my stance neutrally):

What I do accept:

• I am a non-offending pedophile (no statutory rape required to have an inherent attraction to sex involving minors, though admission as opposed to denial and suppression means forever being ousted, even if one decides to not embrace and rationalize their inclination after copping up to it; I of course have decided to not treat my self discovery in this much more sympathetic way.)

• I am a non-serial rapist (it only takes once)

• I am a domestic abuser -- both physical and psychological (the physical abuse went on for two months under the guise of "S&M", the psychological lasted for three years; I believe my victim allowed for this because he is developmentally delayed and also because he like myself was raises in an impoverished environment that happen to permit this kind of abuse, which he has now normalized and subconciously seeks out.)

• I am an animal abuser (both physical and sexusl -- non-serial with the exception of one cat -- mostly during my childhood and adolescence; isolated incidents in adulthood that I can count off one hand.)

The consequences I agree are fitting:

• non-treatment for my mental illness, especially meds that would help with my sleep pattern and anxiety (I don't deserve this.)

• being homeless (no one should have to reside with me. Why put anyone in this position?)

• being looked into and reported to individuals in the community that have the misfortune of having to put up with my me being approximated amongst them (I tried resisting this before and was in denial of this stipulation; I get why I deserve it now.

• having said individuals ridicule and mock the aspects of my decided upon "mores" as a why of "weed control" in the absorbent garden that is community.

• not owning pets.

The allowances that I feel my self control can still afford me:

• communing with others (like certain members of this forum) whom are willing to hear me out and contemplate my situation (I don't accept that I should altogether cease communicating with others, I believe I've been a good enough boy to at least still be spared that privilege, especially since I'm being upfront here.)

• the freedom to be in public (all the situations in which I raped or abused -- with the exception of animals -- were in a context of mutual relationship or some established romance; I've never just plucked the first person I see that I become attracted to and take 'em right then and there.)

• the freedom to relocate.

Let's say I can accept being Schizophrenic. To be honest, I can. I certainly accept I'm mentally ill in some form, just always questioned if Schizophrenia accurately identified my particular condition.

Alright, I'm hereby knighted Don Quixote, fighter of windmills.

Now what? Does being identified as Schizophrenic mean I deserve help? Why? Am I a good enough person to be helped? I struggle with henious thoughts. Does anyone really want to help someone like that out? To what end?

I have my just desserts. I'm Schizophrenic because my body's inability to regulate it's cerebral hormonal production is unbalanced and my brain doesn't have sufficient gray matter to reach a potential that can override my affliction. If I were at least more decent or talented, I'd deserve to be reached out to, to be aided. I'm not though. I have trouble being In most work environments. I'm not even cut out to be a piece of sh** who at least has a commendable work ethic.

In a cosmic way, my fate is fitting, wouldn't you say?

The US's compromise with prostitution (another controversial yet pervasive issue) are brothels.

Although prostitution's "immorality" in and of itself cannot be rationalized to being "wrong" due to high risk fatality (seemingly, for the most part), perhaps use of designated "unnatural" drugs can be introduced, measured and monitored in such a controlled environment. Does anyone think the compromise can be applied?

I do not believe in drugs for non-recreational purposes. :smile: — Arne

Let's hope you never break an arm or ever need major surgery. Guess that bottle of Captain Morgan will just have to do the trick. :joke:

Abandoning universal rights to privacy and free speech requires first granting them...

The US cannot abandon them for it has never granted them. — creativesoul

:razz:

(My mistake, took me a sec to figure out how emotes work on this forum :sweat:)

I have a thorough analytic answer to the OP's question and also want to share further material I found to add to the topic for others contributing to this thread.

https://images.app.goo.gl/KJeWFze2bh3azuND7

(This video also serves to underscore and clarify some of the not seeing eye to eye going on between Pattern-chaser and tim wood, at least it does to me)

If we take ethics to mean the general rules of "right and wrong" held by a given society as contrasted by the diverse sense of "right and wrong" arrived at by respective individuals within said society being considered their morality by terminology, this may help clear up the confusion close-ended umbrella terming is causing here. The distinction being that ethics are society's overall "right and wrong" guidelines, morality being each individual's adopted choice of "right and wrong" (this "individualistic" morality can be -- and predominantly often is -- perpetuated to be shaped via religion, or other types of "group" school of thought, of course, though others choose a less mainstreamed, less definable stance in their personal morality, remaining open to maintaining an amorphous view with only certain definable inclinations/aversions being their definite drawn lines in the sand.) The commonality being that both ethics and morality both operate in the scope of "right and wrong."

Seems to me Pattern-chaser is more making a distinction of morality from overall general societal ethics, while tim wood is protesting that such a distinction is perhaps disqualifiable, and that the bottom line is "right and wrong" is inherent, axiomatic. This is what I've understood.

Perhaps partaking in drug culture (both the ones considered natural like shrooms and cannabis as well as more fatalistic varieties, like heroine and cocaine) may technically be unethical -- as reinforced by the legal system of society -- but, not necessarily immoral (since drug use may not go against their individualistic sense of "right", therefore, not being "wrong").

Despite the negative arguments made in opposition of recreational drug use by others, perhaps opposers entail that in the process of manufacturing the product, much curroption occurs and is in a way enabled by it's demanders being inconsiderate in not being discouraged by the grim grander scheme; but in turn, drug users can postulate that if the product were legal, this corruption could be resolved, and requiring drug users to instead deprive themselves in order for society to appease the majority is in and of itself curropt. Drug users might go on to further argue that the risk of overdose and the normalizing of potentially fatalistic and certainly health hindering drug use should be considered legally ethical -- like the known elevated risk but non-illegality in stunt driving, handling dangerous animals, combat sports, smoking, drinking, having a grossly unhealthy diet, etc. and that then habitual recreational drug users could finally be able to climb out from under a sense of shame and disapproval many of them otherwise contend with. As a significant perk, the selling and distribution of said drugs would be taxed and boost the economy.

This would, however, drastically change open norms and have further ripple-effect ramifications in other aspects of society, the whole if/then concern comes into play.

My double-think in the above example was posed with all intention. The point being that there are concerning reasons for why the complexity of what seems as undermined issues (like "why not legalize all drug use if people are going to sneak around to get high either way?") aren't so easily given into and do present quite the conundrum. Depending on one's personal idealism, the changes that would be brought about -- along with the notions and allusions it would become open to in turn potentially find to newly be counted as acceptable -- could be a "good" or "bad" thing, ethically and/or morally. After all, Slavery in the form that was established here in the States has been outlawed, biracial Black and White couples can now be legally married, as well as can homosexual couples (these are resulting effects I personally find are "good").

Still, I agree the further out consequences of such a sensitive but wide-spread and relevant issue is significant.

It will pass.
Don't feed the fire and it will pass faster.
Don't just vent your problems, go do something that actually makes you happy. — Shamshir

I wish that were true. I'm just talking on a forum concerning philosophy. Outside of this environment, I feed no fires. I hardly ever leave my little wooded site, other than to get food. I stay out of others' way. I feel so drained though. I'll get by, I always manage to.

I have no business deeming the ways of society, I guess. I'm too compromised. All I want is tranquility. Let people procreate mindlessly and bring children into the world some'll ultimately end up neglecting and/or abusing. Someone like me is just the resin left over from that poverty and ill equipped parentage.

So it seems I'm a pedophile now. I've also been implicated as a rapist (though I did force falacio on an ex-boyfriend seven and a half years ago; I reached out to him, he's since accepted my forgiveness for what I subjected him to that night). If that weren't bad enough, I had an unhealthy relationship with a developmentally disabled man in his early 50's who wanted to get into S&M with me when we first met. Although it was the intention, I still consider what I did to him abuse, a way of excusing beating him for the anger I had repressed over the years, so, I guess that makes me a physical and psychological abuser as well (I should have known better than to go along with someone so helpless; like my ex-boyfriend, this man has also forgiven me. We both realized I couldn't handle being with him and that we were incompatible). I don't really want to be any of these things. I just want to feel something good every now and then. I've abstained and do not interact with other gay guys anymore. They seem to be very cause driven nowadays and see me as some local equivalent Harvey Weinstein. I'm not a serial rapist and have never molested a child.

As far as my anti-social personality, what's to be expected from the kind of life experiences I've gone through? I'm tapped out, constant degradation and put downs have taken their toll on me. I just don't have it in me to trust many people with more than my groceries or a bit of anonymous advice.

Venting is my breather. I just want to get out of here. Thankfully, I've maintained enough self control not to be a criminal (for all that's worth). I can leave, probably will even after having much time to consider it. It'll take me at least two years to get ready anyway. If I still feel the same way by then, that's all the oxygen rich meditation I'll need to know I'm making a much considered decision.

Well, just coming out clean. I lived in denial of my diagnosis for some 10 years. Taking my antipsychotic was a chore. But, finally coming to accept my diagnosis was a relief in many ways. Anyway, the internet is too full of armchair psychologists and psychiatrists. It's pretty hard to come to terms with such a profoundly (flawed) view of oneself, and when I see people asserting such nonsense that can't be assessed in a 10-minute dialogue legitimately, is when I cringe. — Wallows

I'm not in denial of being schizophrenic, moreover, mentally ill. But, you've gotta be aware that being considered mentally ill (to whatever degree, even when accurate to an extent) can leave certain individuals open to others' excuses of prejudice and accusations. It's no life to go on always constantly being the individual others collectively turn into a carnie, including cops.

I struggle with henious thoughts. It seems they believe it's just a matter of time. No unringing the bell, no way to have them dismiss their "spidey-sense" toward me and leave open any condition in which to sensibly be able to re-acclimate in the open world anywhere I go. Leave the country? I know Spanish, maybe I should just get out of here. Somewhere people are too busy with their own issues and economy to go about behaving like smug upper-handed douchebags whom sadistically enjoy the luxury of contemplating my pathetic existence while they're spieling over Mai Tais.

I'm thoroughly fed up. People act like I'm on America's Most Wanted. Honestly, I think it might as well be illegal to be both dull and troubled in this masters of the universe setting.

I realize I never replied to you, sorry about that.

I agree that we have similar points of view, this is probably due to the fact that I have been through a lot as well because of others, a lot of injustice and suffering, and I too refuse to accept being treated that way, even though back when i was a kid I didn't really know how to defend myself psychologically. Those who haven't been through that wouldn't really understand.

If you don't consider yourself as sick, or crazy, and don't see the label "schizophrenic" as defining you then that's good, that diagnosis doesn't mean in any way that you are less worthy as a human being.

If you feel that the meds you are prescribed and your therapist help you, then me questioning your diagnosis of schizophrenia wasn't implying in any way that you should stop doing what helps you. And if you don't feel weighed down at all by the label of schizophrenia I don't really need to expand on why I think that the basis for making a diagnosis of schizophrenia is shaky from a philosophical standpoint.

But basically, feeling bad and having beliefs that contradict those of the psychiatrist are enough to be diagnosed as schizophrenic, and in your case the belief that you ought to get rid of the demon inhabiting your body (your sexual orientations) seems long gone. Then being homeless doesn't help one feel safe, and based on what you have experienced in the past it is not surprising that you constantly question the intentions of others. And on this point, if the therapist and the meds help you feel more relaxed and at peace then that's all that matters, the diagnosis of schizophrenia seems unnecessary. But again, if that label doesn't weigh you down then that doesn't matter anyway. — leo

Truthfully, I believe the reality of my situation is a bit of both. It's almost like the "Which came first, the egg, or, the chicken?" paradox. I have been handed over to psychiatrists since I was in kindergarten because I was very energetic, rambunctious and differed from my other classmates in a school setting. My single parent, only child mom took advantage of the handout, ran with it and milked it for all it's worth (SSI, food stamps, government housing, etc.) I've been diagnosed as one thing or the other ever since, treated differently by classmates, teachers and family.

Was I destined to be Schizophrenic, or was I conditioned to be? Maybe both? Maybe mental illness was a genetic predisposition but could have be reduced in exacerbation by better nurturing and a more constructive approach?

I'm "a soon to be 31 year old homeless man living in the woods "whining" about why it's so difficult for me to be in a social setting boo-hoo-hoo, who just wants to be felt sorry for."

... that's it? That's all I am? It's really that simple and so confidently factorable?

I don't accept that. I'm not sorry to say that seems like a cop out for my mom, my educators and family. A nice convincent pink slip of an allowance. Sorry, but I do feel cheated, and now I don't know what to make of anything.

Who knew it could be so damn difficult to be loved and supported, instead of tolerated (at best), and constantly written off. It's whatever man, as usual, I'm of course supposed to be the source for cause of being treated like a dread and liability.

That doesn't seem right to me, no matter how I think it over.

I'll admit I do believe I have some form of hormonal/structural cerebral abnormality (my personal assessment when comparing my behavior to that of others in general). Is it specifically Schizophrenia, is that accurate? Has it always been able to be classified as such, will it always be? If the former is yes, then my misdiagnosis of conduct disorder, to ADD, to clinical depression, then OCD and to then finally arrive at Schizophrenia as the final diagnosis-destination doesn't exactly instill reassured confidence. But yes, some deviation in my mental process seems evident, sure.

If your primary concern toward me is authentically in regard of my mental wellbeing, Wallows, I appreciate your effort, even if I don't for the most part agree with how you perceive it and in turn, find is the most appropriate solution. It more seems to me that like the vast majority of individuals whom become aware of my condition coupled with my personal point of view, you are concerned more toward the safety of others moreso than my search for a spiritual enlightenment.

It seems you take the meaning of the word "weapon" very literally. I don't know if like me, you are an American citizen. If you are, I can't say I'm all that surprised by your stance.

Guns, knives, grenades... these tools are merely extensions. Humans are the true weapons when they are used.

As far as you hypothetically only being able to feel "annoyed" and being non-offendable, I envy the fair-weathered alloted conditions that at worst still have you consistently maintaining these reactions.

In my case, it's like I'm caught in a swarm of houseflies I can never outrun. Constant buzzing... constant non-lethal, debilitating noise.

Count your blessings.

Not really, because I don't really buy the idea of "psychological weapons," especially with respect to people who are more or less strangers. If someone is judging, taunting, etc. me, I don't see it as my problem. It's similar to why I'm not offendable. I might want someone to not bother me because they're annoying or whatever, but I'll simply take whatever measures I need to in order to get them to stop interacting with me. — Terrapin Station

Well, I guess we don't see eye to eye on this, then. Even if someone were to peer into my virtual activity and not periodically convey they have in whatever direct or indirect format they'd want to do that in, I'd still be offended. I'd equate it to a passerby casually sticking their hand down my pants and copping a feel of my genitals or sliding it over my butt cheeks to feel them out. Even if I'm unconscious when this is done, it's rapey... it's just wrong.

Can't really say I care if big corps do this -- as they already do to the vast majority of us. Their goal is to sell me on things based on my observed interests. It's not about penance, targeting nor exposure.

When a less impersonal party is looking into and targeting me specifically with the intentional purpose of psychologically messing with me, that's altogether different in purpose and effect.

And yeah, annoyance is the most strongly felt emotion their invasion overall brings out in me now. At first, I felt more alarmed, dissected, and resentful. I felt especially angry that while there are others out here with confirmed charges of being assaulters (often remorseless and ready to deny owning up to the nature and regularity of the long list of messed up crap they do to others), ironically enough little ol' insignificant, uninteresting me ends up pulling the short end of the target practice stick and disproportionately have to be subjected to this shitshow while wife beaters are greeted with smiles and given 31st, 32nd chances in life amongst public society all because aside from having been monsters to their victims, they have an endearing personality and attractive visage.

The sense of morality and the priority people collectively (and seemingly subconciously) have toward aggravators that they see fit to treat with the least tolerance and forgiveness seems miscorrelated and incongruous to me.

So I'm dull as hell. So I give people the heebie jeebies unintentionally by the very sight of me. So what? You're telling me that having a remarkably failed personality warrents not only rejection but oppression while some guiltless monster strolls along passed me and is seemingly exonerated for their offenses all because they've managed to charm the jury? Is this really the warped twilight zone world I exist in?

Am I the only one who sees how this is harassment and shouldn't be downplayed, and that in fact there are others that it really is dangerous to not scrutinize for the pattern of their behavior and the much more likely potential of threat they pose?

Weapon - noun. Any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon. Anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.

Let's see, someone would have to look into my private online conversations, identify the things discussed of the most sensitive nature to me, devise a way to passive-aggressively and covertly convey to me that what I shared with a friend in what is supposed to be a private conversation has now been collected, shared with who knows who else and ultimately judged by others whom my past doesn't at all concern (unlike you and others, no anonymity nor constructive approach to my wrongdoing) to then proceed with psychologically gaslighting me with consternation, veiled threats and taunts.

That to me is a weaponization of intimate, private information I've shared with only one other individual. The only way this could all go down without my private information being intercepted is if my friend himself is in on it and gives out entrusted info, but he lives all the way out in Oregan and I in the South-East. There would have to be some organized group bullshit going on to do all of this. My friend is like me, not many friends, is open-minded, is very considerate in reasoning past transgressions out and doesn't take a "lynchmob in the 2010's of cyber justice" appproach to my screwups.

Even in the plausible case that my friend is the one going over my head and publically exposing what I share with him (which I greatly doubt is what's happening), what my friend would be doing would also be a breach of privacy, but under much more acceptable conditions over some entitled vigilante self-deemed cyber hero illegally intercepting my sensitive discussions and using it to override my rights while disqualifying any efforts of intimate introspection and healing with public mockery and psychological mind games.

You don't see how this is psychological weaponization of private information?

If it's my friend (again, I have the utmost doubt it is, since even memos I've written to myself on my phone have been tauntingly conveyed back to me in some psychologically mind fkd way), then, shame on me, we all risk confiding personal details with the wrong person and possibly have it blow up in our face if they decide to betray our trust. I've deduced that this is very unlikely the case though, since like I mentioned, it's still happened to me outside this context. A friend blasting my personal details to others would still be wrong, but would be something I would also have to take my share of culpability for and can remedy by cutting communicating with them.

Cyber probing by some intrusive moral (and punishment driven) Robinhood complex a**holes however is something that I definitely don't have much control over and is definitely ethically messed up.

I have a right to use technology and have my privacy treated with as much sacredness as most others' not posting this stuff in public or when doing so, sharing it with general details and with anonymity. Otherwise disregarding that and in an underhanded way leaving the target unable to really defend against what's being done to them is very much a weaponization.

They may then weaponize the information they've gleaned against such an individual.
— THX1138

How would anyone do that? Give a specific example of the info that would have been gained, how it would be "weaponized," and to what end. — Terrapin Station

You may not be as creatively sadistic as some of the individuals whom do this to me. Either that, or this is a loaded question.

It's not all that difficult or unfeasible really. Let's say for a hypothetical instance that I decided to take my phone out or open up my laptop and reached out to have a heart to heart with my high school pal on Facebook or a buddy on Kick. Perhaps I saw an ASPCA Sarah McLachlan commercial over animal abuse and it has me revisiting buried feelings of remorse and self-deprecation ambivalently mixed with emotions of anger and rejection that incited me to commit such horrible acts in the first place.

So, I divulge how I would sporadically hit an unaffectionate adult cat that was given to me when I was thirteen with the handle end of a broom stick for a week and a half and how I'd do this because I associated and magnified the cat's rejection with how everyone else in my life seemed to reject (I subjectively felt) at the point in my childhood. I admit how terribly sorry I feel for having done so but that on the same token, I understand how I ultimately arrived at such a bleak, monstrous moment back then.

The next day, I'll be out and about and stop by a Wal-Mart to buy something to eat and for other miscellaneous purchases. I'm going through the isles when all of a sudden a woman pops out as I'm making a turn, wearing a cat themed hoodie and waving around a broomstick. She contrively blurted out "Ooops.. " and walks away, as she's cackling and strolling off with her friend or husband.

If it was one singular incident like this, I'd chuck it up to just coincidence. But, too many "coincidences" like this example have occurred to me too many times now. At the risk of coming off like having textbook paranoia, this all seems to indicate a pattern.

I honestly don't find it difficult to believe that there are certain people that are perfectly okay with putting me through this as a "karmic penance" of some sort.

What do you suppose makes you so interesting that people would be tracking you? — Terrapin Station

I question that myself.

Candidly judging myself in general, I'm dull in terms of arousing anyone's interest (among other contexts).

I reside in a tent a quarter of a mile deep off a heavily wooded, scantily developed on single to and fro lane road (other than about four residential neighborhoods, a fire station, and recreational park spread out throughout the area I reside off of). I'm 31, homely, kinda wild haired, wild eyed, scruffy looking, overweight, and if I haven't had a chance to fill up my water jugs -- and give myself a nice shock-cold shower and/or slap on some deodorant on a given day, give off an odor that's indicative of sweat and armpit (as unpleasant as the connotation is to most -- probabIy all -- whom are still reading on through the posts of this thread).

I consider it's very unlikely that if I actually am being kept tabs on, that being in any way interesting to my probers is the incentive which suffices furthered curiosity sparked by anything personally interesting about me to anyone with at least average tastes.

Still, no one has to be particularly interesting to be a "person of interest."

Now, I know this is the juncture in which most will think to themselves and relate to others the predictable response of "Ahh... this is telling of the influence his mental illness has on his approach to reasoning out his suspicion." Hey, it may be nothing more than that. If it actually is, I wish it seemed that way to me.

Now, why would I be a "person of interest", you may wonder. That's still one I'm trying to get a more complete idea of, but am for the most part convinced is a significant, if not the significant factor (not if I am a "person of interest", more that I most likely am. I'm just not sure to whom exactly, but do believe it's one and/or more of the group's of people I suspect).

First of all, I think it's quite accurate to consider that male loners in their mid twenties and up, whom display antisocial traits, whom don't agree with a significant amount of widely accepted and reinforced notions of morality (along with a few notions of legality, in my case), being mentally ill, are homeless and out and about have a high probability of being individuals seen as cause of alarm when dwelling in a local area. Even before I myself became this way, as a child I noticed other individuals fitting this criteria always seemed to be looked at contemptiously with distrust, treated with brewing hostility and regarded as a cautionary tale of shame. I'm no exception.

My unideal ideals can be considered radical, but are more so seemingly seen as henious.

What are the blasphemous notions I maintain?

My deviation regarding age of consent is already presented in this thread. My feelings on right to privacy (or at least if someone is going to be subject to having their personal life rummaged through, that the investigation be conducted with the consideration of the rights the suspect -- not convict, suspect -- being looked into.)

I have slipped up and committed acts that did actually infringe on the rights of others in the past. These were breif and momentary in each case, but my tendency to eventually commit another violation of someone's personal rights seems periodically repetitive. Most recently, I moved back from another State to Florida on April of 2018. From then 'til now, I have inadvertently caused bad blood between me and a number of others. I think the most egregious is another homeless guy that I met up with whom felt sexually assaulted by me after we both consensually began to sexually interact. I also had my phone stolen by another homeless gay guy who sold off my phone. I was mortified by the thought of all I had on the SD card on that phone being used against me. I didn't have anything illegal on it (like kid porn or anything like that) though, I did have all sorts of images I downloaded off of Google -- pornographic, artistic and candid takes of all sorts of people posting their images online for both story writing purposes and yes, the occasional fap-to-pics-in-the-newspaper material for the purpose of appeasing my own perversion of material that is otherwise benign and not in and of itself adult content).

At the moment, I struggle with a lot of notions and inclinations all jumbled up internally in my mind.

Now, if you were an authority figure of law enforcement, wouldn't that unsettle you enough to keep an eye out on me? Despite me not intentionally looking to harm anyone, since others account for how I can allow my urges to overtake me under certain conditions, in select situations?

I believe they would and to some level, are.

A computer program can easily log my online activity without someone having to have their eyes constantly glued to a screen, transcribing every little thing I do, search and type. It really doesn't take much effort these days, just enough concern.

No, society isn't all one way or the other. I feel very confident that as the societies within nations concerned with inclusion and comprehension progress and evolve, situations like mine will take a different course for some fortunate members of the whole.

None of us are all around enlightened in all sectors that pertain to functioning well as a network. I may have insight on a particular form of dark ways parents and institutions treat homosexuality as a problem -- to the point of them generalizing it with the onset of coincidental illness -- and erroneously trying to go about in nullifying it, with ineffective tactics of "conversion", hoping that bestowing, condoning and facilitating mortification would all come together to eradicate such a nature, alright.

I can't really say I believe that experience makes me exceptionally empathic enough to safeguard me from still forming ignorant notions of my own though. It does humble me to be much more open to edification, and that I feel grateful for. I still catch myself missing the mark when I put myself on the spot for something a casually remark inconsiderately or an opinion I may find hypocritical of me -- of all people -- to arrive at. But this resulting reflex to look twice, then, look twice again as I'm crossing other complications not pertinent to me when I look from the outside in is to me possibly the best attribute of my person.

If someone is open to edification, then they aren't beyond hope of being doomed to perpetual ignorance.

As far as my aid, yes, my means are redirected from society. My parents, my grandparents, and extended family (as much as I don't care for them on a personal level) have all contributed and continue to contribute to that source of distribution. In a way, when it comes to me, they are quite literally paying their dues when I zoom out to look at the bigger picture (though this isn't the entirity of how ultimately look at it in hindsight, but, do in part feel this way). But, in that respect, I was a match for a kidney transplant my cousin needed four years ago and donated one of mine to her, so, I do feel I've paid the benefit of having a healthy set of kidneys forward to someone whose contribution in turn benefited me. It works both ways with no singular "penance" -- which, to me, is kind of a harsh, close-ended word to denote to this perspective. I more see it as the settling of turbulence in rebalancing... organic equilibrium.

It's just that sometimes there are under-challenged injustices that get in the way of that cyclical undulation. We can all only do our best to understand and support one another.

I respect your attitude or stance towards the issue. But, discounting or downplaying the fact that you are or aren't schizophrenic, per leo's post is not sound advice.

But, let's assume that you're having a moment of clarity here on this forum, and are in fact not schizophrenic, then what's the point to going to therapy or taking the meds? See here's the doublethink manifest. — Wallows

I know you've left, but I back tracked and found I had to address your input here.

I doubt that was Leo's intent. And btw, there are alternatives to managing delusional thinking that do not involve drugs (which I have a feeling you'd very much oppose, seeing how excited you've become in some read into outcome of me going off my meds and... what? -- lol -- It'll probably seem alarming that despite being diagnosed with Schizophrenia by the age of nineteen, I'm now thirty and have only begun taking psychotropic drugs since this past March :scream: :snicker: )

... I really wish people were as prone to pushing medication on the recklessly violent as they are people struggling with delusionional thinking whom have enough self control not to break or damage the people in their proximity. That should be looked into.

Also, it comes off as patronizing when you blurt things out like "let's assume that you're having a moment of clarity here on this forum", like admitting I have Schizophrenia now means I am statically nebulous with only sporadic flickers of lucidity. That's inaccurate man.

Honestly, the point of me going on this regiment of meds and therapy is to do some damage control. I got mixed up with a nefarious bunch some months ago whom proceeded to play on the very themes of paranoia I confided to share with them. Before divulging my personal themes of paranoia to some drug focused heavy users (not the non-corrupt doctor prescribed, over-the-counter type of drug users) of the intimate details over what I was psychologically haunted by, I effectively kept my psychotic PH at a stable 7. But, then these guys started making threats and overtly calling me out (on one part accurate, eight parts made-up info). Soon enough, they perpetuated very speculative and accusatory musings focused on my paranoia to be taken as fact.

I broke down. I tried committing suicide (I won't mention the method, but it did not involve using a gun, blade -- not any weapon -- nor drugs), ending up being involuntary admitted to a psychward. I was released a week later, handed meds, and given a referral appointment to both a psychiatrist and therapist.

While I was in there, I missed paying for my efficiency and have been homeless since.

That's my deal. But I have hope to not be homeless for too long. Oddly enough, being out here has releasesed me of some misconceived notions I held before.

My experience may differ from yours Wallow, in that most of the fellow homeless people I encounter aren't mentally ill at all. A lot of these people have their own personal reasons for in their way embracing homelessness, actually. Like the basis of mental illness, the causes behind homelessness are not cut and dry, or have common singular, all-encompassing characteristics (like all feeling somehow rejected by society, for instance). It's implicitly more complex than that.

My relationship to society in the context of our respective selves.

And sure, I'll be around.

Night Wallow. :yawn:

You're miscorrelating my way of attempting to undo years of put downs in my way of thinking at ten years old with how I presently am at odds with the individuals in society I encounter in public.

Wallow, I do not want to be these people's hero. If you are insinuating I somehow want to be these don't-know-better (nor find it in themselves to try contemplating differently) people's enemy, that's definitely not the case. When it comes to most of society, I don't really want to invest in making a difference -- "good" or "bad". I would like to be in the company of like minded peers whom I can relate to. Thankfully, I'm already off to a good start.

I guess the question is, what percentage of society have the mindset of thinking of the people as a whole in terms of "society"? Why should I then have to? Or be chided for wanting to be as unconcerned about "society" at large, not unlike the vast majority often are? Because I'm schizophrenic, and somehow owe a debt to "society"? lol

Society is what it is. It has evolved and will continue to regardless of my carbon footprint. My eff-you! to society was just like their poor-you's toward me -- not about anyone but themselves/myself. How can I be intent on trying to bend over backward for a society that just wants to be itself, even if I don't have a great opinion of the present societal self.

If anyone understands craving that serenity, it's this guy here. How arrogant and egocentric it would be to feel society owes me or vice versa, that one of us had it right and the other needs to pay penance -- egh. I don't want to be a hero as much as I don't want to find myself in some twilight zone epic.

As far as I'm aware most schizophrenics would jump at the idea of becoming a hero and recognition from society that they are worth more than they think they are worth in societies eyes. — Wallows

Sigh, and... there it is.

Not everyone wants to be a hero in order to at least not be seen in either extreme -- heroically nor antagonistically. Both ultimatums sound exhausting to someone who just wants to walk down the street, buy some bread and grapes, stroll via the scenic route home, and enjoy a snack while proceeding to continue working on an oil painting with as much care of the rest of the world as any dime-a-dozen non-hero, nay terrorizer. Saying that you believe the majority of Schizophrenics wish resorting to heroism to achieve some status change in society's eyes misses the point. Society needs to stop looking at Schizophrenics being substantially Schizophrenic. Stop doing that. Also, there are individuals whom are more likely to ruin society than us. Try, oh, I dunno, repeat offenders, people whom hurt and rape people and get away by intimidating their victims, neglectful "parents", look into kids that are acting out (hint, hint, it's an indicator of abuse), etc. Stop defaulting to pouring all the societal evils in the Schizophrenic beaker, we have enough to sort through.

If memory serves me right, then I was under the impression that delusions of reference, delusions of persecution, and hearing (often) demonic voices are all typical for schizophrenics. But, this really isn't the appropriate place to talk about these issues despite you, perhaps, wanting to. — Wallows

First of all, just because someone is prone to delusions -- but has enough self-awareness to doubt their paranoia and suspicions -- doesn't necessarily mean they can't accurately infer legitimate torment, not by demons, by what demons are inspirational representations of, the dark side of the Human condition.

In my case, I did not audibly hear demons, and I've never hallucinated. The demonic theme in my delusions was a result of religious suggestion.

It could've been the dragon Grendel of Pagan lore if my Druid mother decided to response what was lying around dogmatically at the time and I would've gone dungeon dragons.

Wa

I respect your attitude or stance towards the issue. But, discounting or downplaying the fact that you are or aren't schizophrenic — Wallows

Wallow, I'm glad you've taken an interest in my thread. You may hold the typical connotative notions between Schizophrenia and Law Enforcement/positions requiring looking out for civilians by "danger scoping" that I'm eager to reasonably brain-pick.

Plus, I have insight that you're probably uber grateful that you were re-diagnosed, for some specific reason, seemingly underlying a desired sense of competence at no longer being considered schizophrenic.

Wallow, do you see Schizophrenics as a class of individuals whom are oppositional to "heroic" types (police, military personnel, firefighters, your general look-out-for-the-good-people-of-our-community position types)?

I believe there's much shame and dishonor in choosing to be a corrupt cop -- which can be found throughout this and outside nations. I don't feel the same way or see how it's at all side-by-side comparable when someone has the choiceless misfortune to be afflicted with a condition like Schizophrenia, however.

I guess it all comes down to being a matter of choice of action, eh?

True, but it ain't no walk in the park either. Those demons in the forest down by the mountain are quite terrifying and real too.

Demonic representations have always been allegorically thought up to symbolize the real evil that plagues Humanity -- their own negative thoughts and dark impulses. That's definitely not unique to Schizophrenia, not by a long shot.

Hah, but, you could never become a police officer or soldier in the military. Just keeping it real here. — Wallows

And I couldn't be more relived to be comforted by that fact. Policing others and taking lethal commands have never been aspirations I've gravitated toward, really.

"And to this day you wear this label, as if you were somewhat sick or crazy, but I see you as neither, from all your posts what I see is someone who has suffered and who has coped to the best of his abilities with what he was facing. I see you simply as a human being who needs support and love, and I'm glad you can find some through talking with some people here."
— leo

I've seen this kind of anti-psychiatry sentiments here and on Facebook. I don't know what purpose telling THX1138 that he isn't really schizophrenic serves here. The doublethink is a cause of distress and anxiety for any particular person. — Wallows

The gist I took from Leo's comment is that not everything I experience is automatically made invalid all because hey, I'm Schizophrenic. That's bogus. Daunting conditions are duanting conditions, and are not extenuated by nor credited to degree of sanity. Sanity (or lack there of) does not have some surreal effect on non-internal happenings that individuals -- whom by coincidence are schizophrenic -- actually physically go through in reality.

If someone throws sand at both a sane person and a schizophrenic, they'll both end up covered in and perhaps also scraped by sand alike -- and if who threw the sand is a stranger to them and yells "you deserved that!", indicating bad intention, it would make sense to feel mutually offended. The difference may be that it might be easier for the non-schizophrenic to emotionally recover from the incident -- but the incident itself is not downplayed or questioned -- especially when there are scrapes that evidence and mark the trauma of the experience -- and it's understandable for both to feel mentally troubled by physical assault.

Plus, I don't feel like I need a record of every incident that happens to me out in the real world to prove legitimacy or accuracy just because of my condition. I percive sight, hear sound, can feel touch just like any other person. Being Schizophrenic doesn't make me that unreliable.

In the respect that the causes of my significant traumas were not Schizophrenic holograms, very much variables in reality imposed on me out of my control and against my will, I affirm Leo's notion.

Schizophrenia isn't my label. I don't consider myself to be sick, nor crazy. Yes, I have suffered, and am coping to the best of my abilities with what I'm facing, which are very much products of reality, but as a side-effect made furthermore unbearable by my condition -- a condition I have, not am. Yes, what I ultimately am is a Human being -- the very designation that happens to be overlooked while being considered by others.

What I believe Leo is underscoring is that Schizophrenia has as much to do with my from-the-outside-in experience mistreatment as having brown hair being the defining factor in seeing light. No one is brown hair, having brown hair doesn't cause nor negate being able to see light. I am not Schizophrenia, having (not being) Schizophrenia doesn't cause nor negate being able to experience mistreatment. Both light and mistreaters are independent of brown hair and Schizophrenia. Light does make it possible to see brown hair. Mistreatment does make it possible to see Schizophrenia. But otherwise, I'm not really Schizophrenia, nor am I brown hair. My mistreatment isn't really Schizophrenia, it's reality, the same objective reality anyone of any degree of sanity is able to percive in practically the exact same way (and in turn, feel about in their subjective way).

What I notice is that you have good insight and clarity of thought, and I surely don't see your reactions as abnormal considering what you have been through. You have objective evidence that some people have been targeting you, so it's not a delusion to consider the possibility that some of them could target you through technological means. But indeed it is unlikely, and don't focus too much on the possibilities and the what-ifs that you forget to live the present, life is full of uncertainties and we can't ever control them all. — leo

Leo, your ability to convey an unprejudiced third-party perspective (so to speak) to my circumstance is a cool drink of spring water in a mirage riddled arid desert. Your compassion in the form of an adroit and Objective approach means a lot to me. I hope I get to know more of you on PF (I'm guessing this might be the commonly used abbreviation of 'The Philosophy Forum'), because I feel an affinity to you, like we may be kindred spirits.

Most people would write off behaving erratically all because I'm schizophrenic. They forget, I'm also Human, and that any bona fide Human being would come apart at the seams given the circumstances, regardless of mental condition, gender ("She's hysterical!"), age ("They're just throwing childish tantrums"), level of intelligence ("Pay him no mind, he's the village idiot"), etc.

A lot of people have a tendency to complacently downplay others' injustices, especially when they can box them in some distant-from-me categorization. This is dangerous... quite dangerous. I believe there should be a non-dissmissve approach and methodology to considering an issue anyone presents. And, even when one comes to their own personal conclusion based on their criteria of credibility, they should at all times compose themselves with decency and not be so arrogant as to consider the opinion they've reach as absolute, irrefutable nor universal.

In my experience, people with this attitude oftentimes seem to believe that if you don't see how their process of determination is foolproof and how their deduction is unquestionably correct, that failing to agree must mean you're not intelligent enough to realize they've cleverly figured out the only possible answer to a far reaching issue with many implications; like it's ever as straightforward as giving a two dimensional explanation to a three dimensional problem -- seemingly facilitated by broad generalizations and strong, dismissive assumptions.

I may be Schizophrenic, but that doesn't make me as inept in accurately perceiving and confirming what goes on around me, not as much as people casually believe.

This is also why I am a firm believer of maintaining some self-doubt when "God-moding" through issues one can't Humanly concieve all the attributable elements factored in, nor thoroughly ever really know the detailed conditional nature of every elemental puzzle piece.

To jump to the verdict that someone must then be wrong in a closed-ended way is just as (in)accurate. How could you possibly definitively know that they are "wrong"? How is felt emotional abuse and ambivalence something that is handled with a "right" or "wrong" formulation? What anyone feels is subjective. Like art, emotions do not qualify as something that can be classified to being wrong nor incorrect in and of itself.

But again, if the factual occurances experienced resulting in someone's subjective perception bringing forth felt distress and instability are what is deemed invalid, than prove why it's invalid.

If insisting that there's no other possible explanation, one must back their thesis with factual, objective evidence.

Otherwise, it's at best skepticism reinforced by statistical probability. There's a chance such a calculation may be correct -- it may even be likely -- but, there's insufficient proof to conclusively accept that said notion is indeed fact, or to be the case as the only alternative default when involving someone who's schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia is often very specific and systematic in what aspects of perception it tinges -- and even in those instances, schizophrenia can merely be augmenting something that is exaggeratingly -- but not necessarily misleadingly -- being perceived. People know this, and a fractional sadistic few actually do go about covertly exploiting this Achilles' heel. It works because of the cruel paradox that it's attributing schizophrenia that's to blame for it, when in truth, it's those to blame that attribute it to schizophrenia. This isn't always the case, but is a common enough phenomenon that is still astonishingly widely doubted, even with all sorts of pervasive cases of general abuse being cited commonly enough.

Legitimate abuse isn't discriminatory. People whom have identifiable points of weakness that scumbags (parents, coworkers, classmates, siblings, etc.) pick up on are targets of abuse throughout. Why would a schizophrenic be passed up? -- because bullies are somehow exceptionally considerate when it comes to schizos? Anyone who no-joke feels this way is possibly tremendously fortunate to not only not personally experience abuse but also not have enough exposure to others' being mistreated in underestimating abusers' predation.

Worse than the few abusers are the many enablers, which really do seem to apply to being the majority of the population.

Meant seem to forget *ever developing the urge to looking back* on their (parents') own childhood curiosities.

How do you classify this experience in your life? Traumatic? Troublesome? Ambiguous? Pleasant? Good? Have you experienced negative experiences by telling others (your mother, for example - or your therapist) about this relationship? Do you think the relationship played a causal role in your mental condition, or was it incidental?

All sorts of things happen to children. Myriad events in our home lives, school, play, civic and religious organizations, etc. are good, indifferent, and bad. We have all had them (not necessarily sexual). Children are adventurous and explore -- sometimes running into problems that are difficult to solve.

All that just to say, your experiences are not isolated and unique. We all have complicated 'histories'. And yes, children seek out sex with other children. Seems pretty normal to me. — Bitter Crank

I would say my experience felt undamaging (if that's even a word). All the negative input strangling me seemed to dissipate in that instance of connection. It was a dynamic that contradicted all the shame people projected onto me and even helped me fight off wanting to kill myself.

I knew then that it was possible to be loved for who I was. That I wouldn't die never having been special to someone and forever being inadequate, a mistake of nature. At the time, it was something I desperately needed, because up until that point, I felt doomed to be perpetually alone and unwanted, remaining the brunt of the cruel cracks people would make about me.

As far as this correlating to my mental condition, in hindsight it seems apparent to me I was already well underway to developing mental illness (so, incidental for the most part). I actually believe I would have avoided developing certain sexual fetishes but in exchange, would have been sinking further into the abyss of worse disorders or state of mind, being being deprived of affection.

My traumas were not sexual in nature, they were social, mostly tainted with psychological abuse in the form of attacking facets of my identity.

It's true, minors having consensual sex (even as young as I was when I became sexually active) are more common than people (especially parents) want to believe, and somehow seem to forget from their own childhood.

By the way, is anyone helping you with homelessness? Don't know where you live or what your circumstances are. — Bitter Crank

I had a friend stay out here with me for a while. I'm alone now, but it's probably best this way.

Cool, so what are your grand plans in the scheme of things, disregarding everything that has been said thus far, catharsis and all that jazz? — Wallows

Yeah, that's what I'm holding out for. It probably comes as no surprise that I have an interest in the fantasy genre (being schizophrenic 'n all), and I especially like allegorical stories with layers of symbolism and profound meaning, like Paradise Lost and Demian: The Story of Emil Sinclair's Youth.

If I can eventually reach a sufficient state of catharsis -- of stability and consistent enough functionality -- I'd love to pour the aspects of life that I'm most familiar with into fiction. Maybe go as far as having a place of my own, having a car, holding down a job I can manage to do without being unreasonably treated.

One step at a time though.