I feel a strong sense of inferiority because I'm a virgin. I'm not attractive to most girls. There were girls who showed me attention, but I didn't like them because they were ugly. There were times when I could have had sex, but I didn't because of my faith, which considers it a sin. Although I didn't feel any desire for these girls anyway. Nevertheless, I just have this feeling in the back of my mind that everyone who has had sex is stronger and cooler than me. They are taller and more mature than me. This applies to girls. I'm cool with guys who have had this experience. This feeling is especially strong for those who have had group sex and orgies. I don't feel like a complete man. it takes courage to have group sex and orgies? If so, how much?

For most of my life beginning in adolescence I've entirely struggled with being immersed socially. I currently (and for the most part always had) have no friends nor do I really exist for anybody and vice versa. I'm still young so I have a lot ahead of me in theory, but I'm deeply worried that in the end I'll be in the same place I've been in for all of my supposedly most crucial and developmental years. While maybe a part of my problem is avoidance/self-esteem/etc, I'm practically absolutely certain that I'm just socially incapable and weird as a person at a material level. I'm not sure what I'm expecting here, whether it be a way out or just a guarantee that I might never act on. Responses are much appreciated

Found these: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H6JGNSGS?binding=kindle_edition&ref=dbs_dp_rwt_sb_pc_tkin

Haven't bought any, so can't judge by the content. Does anyone know if it's him?

He just tweeted out a vid from a year ago lol

https://x.com/thelastpsych/status/2097089217549517108

I remember reading a post from the TLP about a concept I think called medium chill which is essentially doing the bare minimum, not going after a promotion, not going too hard at work etc, and he was criticizing how detrimental it would be for the family for parents to basically opt out of hard work at the most profitable stage of life

I might be paraphrasing it or not remembering it too well but I'm certain it was a post of his that I have tried to find to no avail.

Does anyone remember it? Id love to find it again

Fine, I'll stop pretending that my sexual (redundant) desire for cocky frat guys is rooted in some evolutionary-psychology garbage. There's a bit too much circumcised cock and beer bellies for fantasies born purely out of a natural-evolutionary algorithm, and less spears and Sentinelese hunter-gatherers than you'd expect.

So who's fantasy am I aping? Am I copying the sexual fantasies of my peers? I don't think I am, my peers (other guys) aren't sexually attracted to men (which I was dismayed to find out, the hard way, in middle-school). Am I copying the sexual fantasies of women? I think if women's primary sexual fantasy involved bending guys with tight assholes over the edge of their bathtub, I'd have noticed by now.

Who am I aping? Well, I know the answer to that, I'm adopting sexual images from the media as my own desires, there's quite a plethora to choose from (and therein lies the real problem). How am I deciding who to ape? If I can't even desire on my own, through what mechanism am I deciding what desires are worth desiring?

Hello all, first post in quite a while. Few TLP mentions as per.

He also tweeted about the Odyssey, unsurprisingly, if you haven't seen.

Look, if you don't know it, look it up on twitter.

If you're too lazy: An Argentine named Gaspar Nunez posed as a producer on Instagram accounts (ArgentinaCasting, GianCasting). He contacted young women (18-22) offering cash payments (typically ~US$200) to film explicit sexual videos. Nunez promised the content would be monetized only internationally and never appear in Argentina. He filmed the videos with them, then viralized the material locally in Argentina via platforms and closed groups.

I argue that most of the "actresses" would not have had sex with Nunez for $200 if there weren't cameras, or if there wasn't a promise of ex-Argy distribution. The camera was the psychological mechanism that made the entire transaction palatable. It acted as an alibi.

If a man offers a woman $200 in a hotel room for off-camera sex, there is no ambiguity. It is traditional prostitution. Despite all modern attempts to destigmatize it, the shame attached to that specific act remains deeply embedded in the human psyche. Most women, especially those who are not desperate, will recoil from that reality.

But the moment you introduce ring lights, release forms, and the promise of "international distribution," the psychological framing completely shifts. It is no longer prostitution; it is "content creation."

By dressing the encounter up as a casting call for geofenced OnlyFans content, Nunez handed these women a socially sanitized narrative. The camera allowed them to engage in an extreme cognitive dissonance: I am not selling my body to this sweaty guy in a room; I am a model acting in a video for an abstract, wealthy American audience. The camera created a transactional boundary. They convinced themselves they were selling digital IP, not their physical intimacy.

For a certain demographic, knowing that men thousands of miles away are paying to look at them provides a massive narcissistic hit. The geofencing promise was the perfect poison—it offered all the thrill of exhibitionism and global validation with the illusion of zero local consequences.

Without the camera, the transaction is intensely personal and sordid. It is just her and a schlub. The camera acts as a third party in the room, diluting the intimacy of the act. The focus becomes the performance for the lens, which ironically makes the physical reality of the man in the room easier to disassociate from.

Nunez found women willing to do it specifically because the presence of a camera allowed them to lie to themselves about what they were actually doing.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3630697

Started talking about BotNS which I only just read for the first time last month. Which was weird.

But yeah, he's briefly awake - got look on the Twitters.

I need to know so I can make up my mind whether or not to support the Iran War.

Just reading How To Be A Motherfucking Pimp and the writing style and ideas are heavily reminiscent of TLP (with the addition of AAVE) and the timeline seems to match up. Does anyone have any more information on this? Did TLP pretend to be a black guy for a bit?

First of all, apologies if this received extensive comment elsewhere. I googled around, but I couldn't find anybody mentioning this.

On pg. 72 of the text of Sadly, Porn, we read:

"Admittedly, personal pronouns and adjectives are a fruitful nuisance in this language, and should have been left out. For instance, the same sound, sie, means you, and it means she, and it means her, and it means it, and it means they, and it means them. Think of the ragged poverty of a language which has to make one word do the work of six. But mainly, think of the exasperation of never knowing which of these meanings the speaker is trying to convey. This explains why, whenever a person says sie to me, I generally try to kill him, if a stranger."

This is a slightly amended version of a passage from Mark Twain's "The Awful German Language" (excerpted from "A Tramp Abroad"):

"Personal pronouns and adjectives are a fruitful nuisance in this language, and should have been left out. For instance, the same sound, SIE, means YOU, and it means SHE, and it means HER, and it means IT, and it means THEY, and it means THEM. Think of the ragged poverty of a language which has to make one word do the work of six--and a poor little weak thing of only three letters at that. But mainly, think of the exasperation of never knowing which of these meanings the speaker is trying to convey. This explains why, whenever a person says SIE to me, I generally try to kill him, if a stranger."

Read Twain's piece here.

I wonder what you all think the significance of incorporating this passage into the work is. It does seem to chime with a few repeated concerns: (1) Teach as containing multiple selves or in the midst of identity confusion, (2) "Mark," as in Gospel of Mark, (3) the return to primary sources, (4) the impossibility of decision.

There is at least one other interpolated text: pg. 59, footnote 4, final paragraph is an adapted version of Thucydides, 2.52-53, obviously.

But I imagine there are others I have not found. Thoughts?

a long long time ago, in a galaxy far away, galaxy-brained blogger The Last Psychiatrist rec'd The Economist as the "the realest source of news, for da realest" with stories that are "important...I force myself to go through them like social studies homework."

because of that, i've subscribed since 2019. and yeah—the stories are important—tectonic plates, not talk of the town—and the rhetoric is less annoying (blatant? or perhaps just less offensive to me) than the rhetoric of leading competitors.

that said—it's still a lot of rhetoric. and most of the stories are short, predictable, and depressing. i am kind of sick of it. often browsing feels like tracking the stock market day by day, you know? you gotta be a little bogleheaded to survive in this world.

so i'm wondering how other people on this media-pilled sub get their news. has the meta changed? or is the economist still tops? (or perhaps you osmose your memes through X, the everything site, and peripheral vision banner ads. does that work? do you feel like you're missing out?)

i put together a list of the emotional, cultural, social, cognitive, behavioral, and aesthetic shifts shaping the mood and pace of daily life in the present decade.

Disclaimer: I was never a fan of the late Charlie Kirk. I'm also trying to charitably interpret what I think the intent was behind his statement, not the actual words, which were pretty dumb. Obviously empathy is not a new age idea.

I was writing this to a pen pal earlier who is more conservative than I am. I've observed that cultural discourse has weaponized the idea of empathy in a way I find perverse and anathema to what empathy is actually supposed to involve, and I think that phenomenon is really what Charlie meant to talk about when he dismissed "empathy" in favor of what he called sympathy. The distinction he made is that the focus point of empathy is feeling, while the focus point of sympathy is action. We live in such an alienated society that we no longer believe in a sense of duty—a word nobody under 60 uses anymore, which is frankly why even a spiritually 50 right-winger like Charlie didn't think of using it—to others, and actually find the idea of the existence of unchosen duty thoroughly aversive to us, such that empathy has to suffice as the only thing that ties us to other people in our community. Unfortunately it suffices incompletely. The subtle change that happens when we change to a culture of empathy from a culture of duty is that now, everything is about how we feel toward other people as what determines who we are, rather than how we act. That's not to say that empathy isn't important. Of course it is, and if you don't have any empathy, it means that something is probably wrong with you. The problem with prioritizing empathy is that from a properly oriented sense of responsibility toward others, I think that eventually empathy naturally follows, but the converse is not necessarily true. Humans originally evolved empathy to provoke us to help other people, but many people are so self-absorbed that they stop at empathy, which makes it completely useless. Putting a singular focus on empathy manifests as saying that you're a good person because you love and care about other people (and that your enemies are not because they don't), without investing any time or effort at all on the unimportant matter of figuring out how to make sure anyone else actually feels loved, by you; or conversely, fretting about what a bad person you are because you don't love other people, rather than say, deciding that you're going to try really hard to act like you do and letting the chips fall as they may. Either way, you're going to hell.

Thoughts?

He's watching die hard and reading count of Monte Cristo

Hey there. I've been a long-time silent reader, but have never posted anything of substance.
(Probably still won't be posting anything of substance, to be honest, hah)

This sub has always been very valuable for me during a period of my life where I was beginning to learn how to want. That is to say, critical thinking, examining my own life and behaviors (specifically, how it affected the people I cared about), engaging with alternate points of view (or oftentimes, obfuscated ones), value-shaping, and so on.

{So, before moving on to the title-relevant part of the post:
Thank you all, so very much, for having been here. And having all been smarter, braver and more wise than I to propose ideas, suggestions, and interpretations. Of all kinds.
Whether your mark here was large and consistent or small and singular, it was helpful.
(It's nice to imagine that other people might feel the same way, though I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else.)
Sincerely. It is tremendously appreciated.
As far as (online) communities go... this one is pretty alright. Y'know?}

(Except for the mod. Undoubtedly the worst one on all of Reddit. [Jokes! Totally joking! An extra thanks to you, Shipmaster~])

Anyway.

Over the years, there seems to not-infrequently have been a visible (=vocal) shift in peoples' perception of the writing of Alone. There's been several instances of people explaining that they used to find the writing of TLP interesting, compelling, and helpful.
And yet, over the years-- and upon revisiting his old blog posts-- they have come around to finding their previous view to be erroneous or lacking.
Their view now (if I'm not misunderstanding their posts) is that the writing of Alone, in retrospect, reads very differently... and not in a good way. Sad, tragic, hollow and hypocritically narcissistic are a few words to generally describe their matured perspective.

And so, with that said:

Is there anyone here, now, in this sub that does indeed feel that way? (= your updated takeaway and interpretation of his posts is much less positive than it once was?)
And if so, would you be kind enough to explain the how and why?

There's no wrong answer, and I am asking in legitimate good faith and out of genuine curiosity.

What changed?

Cheers. And thanks again, so much, to all of you here.

Was looking at something online and saw -- weirdly -- that The Last Psychiatrist is listed a associate producer on this Ken Burns flick: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1817235/ What gives?

happy sunday, all!

so i’ve been reading more this month and started curating a list of the best pieces i found across newspapers and magazines this week: op-eds, essays, and editorials that i found engaging and thought-provoking.

the list spans every corner of thought: from major newspapers to a catholic magazine, a left-wing journal, and writings on faith, politics, pop culture, literature, and art. my aim was to think well and notice where ideas meet and where they part.

i was inspired by a redditor who said he makes it his business to read across the aisle — often reading the same story from both sides. that resonated with me. we’re all trapped in the algorithm’s bubble, seeing only what ai thinks we should. this is my small pushback against that truman show that i don't want to be a part of.

one of the pieces this week is by a philosophy professor who warns that her students are becoming “subcognitive” by letting ai think for them. that scared me. so i’ve added reflection prompts at the end, simple questions to help us read more critically and think for ourselves again.

since this community inspired the idea, i wanted to share it here more broadly, too. if you’ve read something this week that stayed with you, please drop it in the comments — i’d love to read it too.

→ [the weekly slow reading syllabus — week 1, november 2025]