Re: Mind Control and Abusive Relationships
Date: August 31, 2008 12:17PM
STERLINE INSTITUTE of RELATIONSHIP; the epitomy of Abusive and Controlling Relationships. The group advocates abusing women in general, and in particular, those who are not part of their organization (Family of Wommen). The control and abuse runs the gammet from simply mistrusting the "devious" female sex and women's "inability to love", to starting relationships with women with the sole intention of using them only for sex, to bullying their wives if they don't cow tow to the "male power", cheating is condoned as long as the guy "isn't stupid enough to get caught". (Justin Sterling's teachings.)
I wound up, unwittingly, in a “short-term recreational" relationship (definition below) with a Sterling Institute of Relationship (SIR) guy. If anyone reading this is considering getting involved with an SIR guy, a Mens’ Division guy or any other such SIR affiliate, please read and then run in the opposite direction, and don’t look back.
When I began dating this guy, he told me a bit about this men’s group he was active in, and in which he held a leadership position so I went up to the official SIR web site, read about its mission, and thought it was a good thing; it worked with my somewhat traditional (though not medieval) view of men and relationships. After he unceremoniously dumped me, a friend advised me to Google SIR so I would know what kind of guy I’d been involved with, and what his so-called “men’s organization” was REALLY about. (That’s how I found Rick Ross.) I only wish I had done this earlier. I could’ve saved myself a lot of pain and self doubts. There were warning signs which I patently ignored.
First off, he was a first-rate liar. On our 2nd date, he told me his marriage failed because his wife never allowed him to have sex with her; they never consummated their marriage because she’d been traumatized by rape. He didn’t realize the extent of her problem until they married. (He wanted to wait until marriage before they had sex. Sounds charming, but? ) As a result, he said he didn’t have kids. The next day I Googled him and found his family tree online. There I learned he did have a child with her, a son. So he lied on both counts. But because I was drawn to him, I figured the dissolution of his marriage and estrangement from his son must have been terribly painful, and he hadn’t felt like discussing the facts until we knew each other better. My thought was to wait and eventually he’d feel close enough to confide in me, which of course never happened. I never brought it up.
There were other signs. He always talked about men growing up “feminized” (He grew up with 3 brothers, no sisters, yet he was sure –paranoid – that his manhood had been compromised), how women were “devious”, how men were just lovable “jerks”, prone to bad behavior, complained about taxes like some old cranky man (think Grandpa character on the Simpson’s “Back in my day, we didn’t have ______, and we LIKED it!") Yea, I hung out with a guy like that. Ew!
During the six months we were involved, when we did get together, I admit he could be affectionate, smart, an interesting conversationalist, and the sex was great. But he kept me at arm’s distance, after a couple months he began going home in the middle of the night, never allowed me inside his home, never invited me out with his friends (I suppose they all knew I was just a STR girlfriend), never introduced me to his family, etc. Several times I asked him if he was really interested in me, or if he wanted a meaningful relationship with me. He always answered yes, but looking back, I have to admit, his reply lacked conviction. Actions speak louder than words. After discovering (too late) the level of his dishonesty (no intention of developing a committed, caring relationship in the first place) it all made sense. And it was hurtful. I felt used by a guy who touted all this "honorable man" stuff. What a load.
But remember, unbeknownst to me, he was simply practicing one of the Sterling boys’ most offensive, but time-honored nasty tradition of using women in what they call a short term recreational way. (Would be nice if the Sterling boys were honest about that upfront. There might be gals who don’t want a commitment, just recreational sex a la Samantha of Sex in the City. More power to those who are can be like that. Then they could leave the rest of us who yearn for something more alone to pursue that.
Below is a description, straight from the Sterling Institute/Mens’ Division rule book - this is what the Sterling leaders present and advocate in their weekend initiation:
Short Term Recreational (STR)
• Defined as basically--for sex only, without involvement. You should get out of a STR relationship at the first sign of trouble, but with the following exceptions--
1. "If she gives good head"
2. "If she swallows"
3. "If she takes it up the ass".
It’s amazing that our relationship lasted as long as it did. Apparently I was just “practice” until someone better came along, which didn’t take too long. I believe he’s now in what the Sterling boys call a Long Term Committed relationship cuz I know the new gal is allowed inside his home. But I bet she’s not allowed to feminize, i.e. touch anything. ;-)
Long Term Committed (LTC)
• You should never get involved in a LTC relationship until you are totally self-sufficient which means you can go without pussy. You should never get involved in a LTC relationship until you have succeeded in STR relationships. (Meaning until you’ve used and dumped a few unaware women. – my addition – WISERNOW)
When we broke up - over the phone - he coldly said he wouldn’t give me any of his time. Yea, I was such a time suck; I made a point of rarely calling him, giving him plenty of time and space. I was sensitive to the fact that he had a business to run and other obligations. I’m not one to insinuate myself into someone’s life without an invitation. We didn’t get together more than once a week. His tone was dismissive and mean which was unnecessary. I understood it was over without him having to talk to me in such a harsh way. We haven’t spoken since although I have the misfortune of catching glimpses of him (rarely) since we live in the same neighborhood. Nothing like having to physically face your mistakes occasionally. But he's become easy to ignore.
I take responsibility for not ending things when there were so many indications that this relationship was extremely sick. My only excuse it that I was in a vulnerable state when we met and thus allowed this self-centered, negative person into my life. What bothers me the most is that I was kind, thoughtful and generous with him. I never got pushy and stupidly let things “take their time”. In the end he threw me away like yesterday’s newspaper. Maybe he was feeling some trouble brewing (like I might voice my need for a loving relationship) and needed to bail. This was afterall a Short-Term Recreational fling, and he had to uphold the definition, without my consent or knowledge. (It certainly isn't recreational for the women.)
Happy ending: Soon after, despite misgivings about getting involved with anyone ever again, I met a *wonderful* MAN!! He’s never needed to spend hundreds of dollars on a weekend “seminar” or countless hours in mandatory meetings w/ moronic, immature, women-hating guys in an effort to learn to be a man - he just is one. He’s masculine, funny, generous, caring, smart, athletic, successful, handsome and wild about me. We’ve been together for over a year. Maybe I needed to experience a horrible relationship to truly appreciate a great one.
But remember, friends don’t let friends get involved with SIR guys. Please spread the word to women you know. Guys associated with The Sterling Institute and its Mens Division are, for the most part, dishonest and self-centered with no qualms about hurting and using women as “short term recreational girlfriends”; not the kind of person a gal would want to let into her life. I don’t know how any sane, self-respecting woman would knowingly want to be intimate with a guy who she knows accepts and advocates using and tossing women (sisters) aside as if they had no feelings or value.