(Clarification to readers: In the Fourth Way School, "identifies with" means "wigs on or about." See Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous.)
Dear MIKE,
I think another way to describe Fat-Skinniness would be to call it "identification with sex".
Not quite. Though this may loosely characterize the Monsterboy with a Tan, with the further specification: an unbalanced predilection for (identification with) "rough, rape-like sex".
The Fat-Skinny Kid is not so much identified with sex, but simply a self-satisfied, dying creature. Here we have a person who who has mastered slow death through ritual immersion in cheap, piggish, creature comforts, e.g., his feeble nuts, his puffy sweaters, his video library, his mother-like girlfriend, his little snacks and his "not being fat". That is to say, the Fat-Skinny Kid identifies with the most basic physical pleasures, regular sex being merely one of them.
But when a person is fat-skinny and has a partner who is -- as you quite compassionately defended to me -- loving and non-superficial, then really, (Question #1) what IS the problem?
The name really says it all. Fat-Skinniness is a visible, outward condition. The person in question is actually quite thin. He/She has an abiding interest in staying thin and fancies him/herself good at doing so. But whenever "staying thin" is your goal, instead of reaching it, you become fat-skinny. A kind of subtle flabbiness overtakes you. Your body looks a bit too small for your head. You are thin in the wrong places. Your clothes hang on you awkwardly.
The Fat-Skinny Kid finds his/her solace in, among other things, "not being fat." But "not being fat" doesn't mean "skinny." This basic definitional error always eludes the Fat-Skinny Kid.
It is actually preferable to be a little fat than to be fat-skinny. For this reason we at whoremanual dot com recommend that you never take on "staying thin" as a personal goal. Just eat what gives you energy and stay active. Obesity comes from not using the energy you take in. Dieters try to limit their energy intake to avoid the necessity of storing it (in the form of fat), but they inevitably end up fatigued and unable to do much.
In what seems to be a form of defiance, the body (under the influence of a mind that is loathe to "get fat") produces a temporary layer of loose, jelly-like fat (the "fat-skinny layer") into which it can quickly ferret energy under a veil of secrecy (the veil being the false consolation: "I'm not fat"). The fat-skinny layer consists of ill-processed low-octane fuel that is basically useless for any real efforts in the realm of mental evolution.
Of course, sex in it's pure form is just the most glorious thing (Monstergirl?)-- yet, in the grand scheme of things, still second to balance.
Not with the Fat-Skinny Kid! Fat-Skinny Kids are too ugly to be good in bed. Fat-Skinny Kids are really gross.
When a person is fat-skinny by their own hand, and CONTENT with it, this IS a problem which falls under the "abnormal" category in Fourth Way terms.
And, Question #2, please juxtapose and reconcile your statement "every time you fuck a woman you give her your energy and deplete your own" with the following:
"By the way, every time a woman gets 'fucked' by a man, she takes inside herself his pains and sins as well as his pleasures and positive energy."
I'm sure you understand the importance to the validity of your fat-skinny construct of being able to account for the above fact.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
R. Shoulderfix
I think you're initial claim is right. But my fat-skinny construct need only account for the physical appearance of energy depletion. Where that energy goes is another discussion entirely. I made the comment about the depleting effect of sex on males because most Fat-Skinny Kids are guys with over-compassionate, non-superficial, mother-like girlfriends. The Fat-Skinny Kid-lady is almost invariably either in a loveless relationship or single. So I wouldn't add your observation to my description primarily because it is not truly relevant to the topic.
I suspect you're making more of a "goose for gander" point. Something like: "not only men can suffer from sex -- so can women . . ." True but ultimately irrelevant to the current analysis (except perhaps for the purposes of quelling the vague hunger -- so prevalent in this poss-u -- to provide male/female symetry in explanations even when it is not relevant to do so). Thanks for your response! (MT)
CLICK HERE TO ORDER ADVANCE/AUTOGRAPHED OF MANUALS II-VI
