Lots of Photos of Me

Here.
This was originally posted two years ago, but due to popular request, I am relinking it.
Enjoy. Or print out and use as dart board, bird cage liner or whatever. However you are inclined.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

65 thoughts on “Lots of Photos of Me”

  1. Robert, no offense, but you look average, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that, average is average, but you referred specifically to your “good looks”.
    Anyway, regarding creeps someone wrote this. What’s your take?
    _
    Regarding “creepy” what do you guys think of this assessement?
    Four males with identical behavior, approach a woman in exactly the same way.
    They get four different results depending on their attraction and comfort scores:
    + attraction + comfort — she wants to marry him
    + attraction – comfort — she wants to f*** him
    – attraction +comfort — she wants to be his “friend”
    – attraction – comfort — she thinks he’s “creepy”
    And unless the guy is really good at reading a woman’s nonverbal signals — a skill most men don’t develop until they’ve had significant sexual experience — he has NO WAY of knowing which category he falls into, before making the approach.

    1. I think he’s kind of good looking on the young photos. He’s said things about his looks being admired when he was younger and I’m willing to just about give him the benefit of the doubt based on them.

    2. Some time I will also post a link to photos of myself so you can okay me and we can finalize the marriage arrangements.

      1. Jaan, please do! About marriage, I’m with the MRAs on that – against it, in the legal sense. But am open to LTR.

        1. Steve
          I’ve heard MRAs say that feminism accomplished more for men in the long term, than it did for women.

        2. “The MRAs are against marriage? Why are you?”
          Legal marriage is unnecessary. A lifetime monogamous commitment is beneficial for the children of a couple, but legal marriage is not required for that either.
          If people don’t have kids there’s really no reason for even a lifetime monogamous commitment, unless a particular couple feels that works the best for them.
          In any case the law does not have to get involved.

        3. ‘A lifetime monogamous commitment is beneficial for the children of a couple, but legal marriage is not required for that either.’
          Devils advocate:
          Do couples who are unmarried even make a commitment to spending their lives together as such? Do they actually say to each other, ‘we will stay together all our lives’? Maybe, maybe not, but marriage IS making that commitment. And it is making it is the strongest possible way.
          Formalizing a commitment can make it stronger. Marriage vows represent an extra strong and serious and focused commitment. If I vow to do something, I believe I am more likely to do it.
          Furthermore, the status of being married sends a signal, ‘I’m taken, don’t try to seduce me, I’ve entered my lifetime commitment, off the market’. If society respects the institution of marriage, people are less likely to cheat with a married person than with someone who is just in a relationship. Ever heard anyone say, ‘its not like he/she is married!’. I believe I would be less likely to start a relationship with a married woman than one who is in a relationship or make moves on one. It would be more clear and obvious it is the wrong thing.
          Finally, you said it was for the kids but in which case are the kids most clear about and assured of your commitment? Marriage.

        4. Steve Jaan, “Formalizing a commitment can make it stronger”
          Formalizing does not mean legalizing. Commitment ceremonies are all the rage today!
          Look, I realize you wanna lock me down, but come on, I don’t even like the UK (too many Desis, lol) so you’d have to move to US.
          😉

        5. ‘I’d live in the UK, even in Liverpool. Brings back memories of the MOTHERLAND.’
          EVEN Liverpool. That’s so cheeky.

        6. its all right, don’t apologise. I meant cheeky in a light hearted way. Link me to the Boston building. Is that where you live?

    3. I haven’t the fainest idea if I am good looking or not, but around age 17, females started saying I was cute, and it just grew from there on, with a lot of women and girls say I was handsome until about age 30 or so, after which I did not hear it so much anymore. But I have kept on hearing it up until a few years ago from older women. Even guys used to say it a lot when I was a young man. And I had numerous offers to work as a male model for modeling agencies. But looks after all are in the eye of the beholder.

      1. “I haven’t the fainest idea if I am good looking or not, but around age 17, females started saying I was cute, and it just grew from there on, with a lot of women and girls say I was handsome until about age 30 or so, after which I did not hear it so much anymore.”
        YOU HIT YOUR WALL! Did you buy a bunch of cats?
        😉

  2. For chicks, looks are more about who you are (or seem to be) on the inside. I was gorgeous and no one cared.

    1. Brad Pitt up until he hit his wall (late 30s) and George Clooney, NO. He’s old with no lips. That’s the thing about white people, many of them don’t have much lip action going on, and when they hit 40 they disappear altogether. Not sexy.

  3. Robert, do not apologize for your crazy hair in that older folder. We ALL have pictures and hair styles that we are not crazy about. I have a picture of me “rocking the mullet” from the 80’s that I have hidden the best I can. LOL… Clothing and hair styles change with the seasons, but the real person is still the same! That being said, I wish I could find the last few copies of the picture of me in parachute pants with the boom box with the break dancer pose, and destroy them for ever! The crazy crap we did as youngsters!!!!!!!

    1. I,m glad you brought that up.The first time I saw Robert’s picture I thought Robert Koresh! Now I am your devout follower. Do you have a compound I can join?

  4. Robert
    A handsome man indeed. Especially dig the last one as my childhood was spent listening to pop legends such as ABBA and BeeGees. With the Sanskrit knowledge I picked up from 5th grade, I’d be drowning in Punani (like Osho) back then. I am jealous! Do not look into the mirror too much. Bad for your health.

  5. The older Rob gets, the more sexually charged he looks. I would love to have even a fraction of that sex drive.

  6. The last picture would have been very ‘in style’ for the disco era of the 70s. I can see why a few commenters not familiar with the disco era wouldn’t be able to see why.

  7. Bhabiji
    August 2, 2012 at 9:50 PM
    Dota, you are getting married, soon, is your financee of the same caste as you? Was your marriage arranged or not?
    Dota
    August 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM
    Bhabi
    Yes and No
    Bhabiji
    August 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM
    Dota, ok so your fiancee is the same caste as you. Was that by design or just coincidence? If by design, why? What is the benefit of marrying within caste, if any?
    Dota
    August 2, 2012 at 10:46 PM
    I met her in Mumbai, found her to be attractive, but more importantly, deemed her values to be sound. I’m from the trader caste, or rather my denomination was converted from the traders (Vaish) caste (although alternative sources claim that we Bohras were originally a Brahmin caste but I’m not sure about that). Marrying within your caste = similar values. I would hate marrying into a conservative Paki family. I’m not averse to marrying a Hindu woman either. In short, I believe people should marry their own kind. The only exception I would make here would be marrying a Persian woman, preferably from my Great grandmother’s town of Shiraz.
    _________________________________________
    BHABIJI:
    Fair enough, but then why do you rail against caste here as if there is no redeeming factor to it? As stated before, caste is not bad, but caste discrimination is. You yourself admit to the common sub-culture shared within one caste.
    (Anyway, for the rest of you, you will notice this is the first time I bring up caste here, despite Robert trying to goad me into it. My family is mixed caste and caste is not a factor in our personal lives, particularly not mine. I’m just pointing out something I find very hypocritical about Dota, and I’d like to hear his reasoning.)

    1. There is nothing hypocritical about my position at all. I did mention that I can easily marry outside my caste if I chose. Is it my fault I fell for whom I fell? And your position on caste is rather naive. Caste and discrimination go hand in hand. Comparing caste to the class structure of the west as some Hindus do is just daft as it fails to account for upward mobility which Hinduism opposes. Furthermore if you’ve actually read the Manusmiriti you’d see that the castes are not even held up a common moral standard, unlike Feudal Europe where even King Henry the 8th couldn’t get a divorce and was held to the same moral standard as a peasant. This is unthinkable in the caste system which gives higher castes certain tangible privileges. In essence higher caste individuals are deemed to be inherently superior in worth to those below. Hinduism degrades living breathing human beings by obscuring their humanity, which other religion actually deems other humans to untouchable? In India the person below you is never as fully human as you are, s/he is just a simulacrum, form and no substance. If you read my guest post on the Hindu work ethic you would also see that caste has degraded manual labour.
      If you’re family is a mixed caste, good for you. Caste will always endure so long as Hindus select for it in marriage. Go over to Indian matrimonial portal http://ww2.shaadi.com/matrimonials/indian-comm and scroll to the bottom of the page. In the partner search criteria select Hindu and then click on the drop down menu for caste…

      1. “Caste will always endure so long as Hindus select for it in marriage. ”
        Which even you, being a non-Hindu, did, and even stated that same caste means similar shared values. When I proposed cross caste dating and marriage, you opposed that idea, saying “Western standards” cannot be “imposed” in India.
        Manu smriti is not a religious book and being that ancient to medieval “India” never had a centralized system of government the writings of this obscure book, that were not even printed at the time, could not be enforced across the board.
        I challenge you to take any verse from the Upanishads, Gita, Devi Bhagavat, Bhagavat Purana, Ramayana or any other book that is in fact popular in India that upholds this idea of untouchability as a caste.
        Untouchability as a caste arose, when I have no idea, but it is wrong and even my mother and father’s “backwards” ancestral villages, I have not seen a singe person even a brahmin, who still perpetuates this nonsense. In fact, in my and hundreds of other Hindu sects, the rules of ritual purity are the same across castes. As long as one follows them, they are deemed fit for performing ritual.
        You have shown time and again your ignorance of Hindu sects, declaring even that not a single one has fought the injustices of caste discrimination while I can name literally a dozen off the top of my head, extending to medieval times, up to and including South Indian sects which are reputed to be amongst the most orthodox.
        As far as “hindu work ethic”, are you proposing that Hindus are lazy? And yet all over India you see Hindus working their asses off in all manner of fields, from literally the fields, to high rises, just like any other group in India.
        In the UK it is the Bangladesi and Pakistani Muslims who refuse to assimilate, integrate, and work, preferring to isolate themselves in Muslim ghettos and remain on the government dole generation after generation while Hindu and Sikh UK Indians work and pay the taxes that support their lazy asses.
        It must fuck your brain that your Muslim brothers and sisters, despite having the “great Abrahamic work ethic” are not able or willing to work after multi generations in the UK, while the lazy Hindus with no work ethic are supporting them through hard earned tax money. Your binary brain cannot make heads nor tails of this situation and so you avoid thinking about it so as to avoid a total sensory shut down or brain explosion.
        And you conveniently forget to mention to select for “Muslim” and then “caste” in the drop down menu of shaadi.com.
        Your consistent portrayal of Muslims as more progressive than Hindus was shot to hell once you admitted you are marrying someone of your own caste, and justified it by saying “Marrying within your caste = similar values.”
        Another hypocrisy is that while you live and work in Canada, and I will presume that you are either a citizen of CA or plan to become one, you went back to India to find a bride.
        Canada has no women? Canada has no Muslim women? Canada has no Muslim women of Desi origin? Of course it does. Yet you chose to go to India and find a wife.
        Moreover, it is evident from your comments that you are not a fanatical, orthodox Muslim (in some areas), so the question must be asked, WHY MARRY A MUSLIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
        I’d like to see you try to dance around this like you dance around everything else, trying to cover your prejudice and old world thinking in a thin veil of universalism.

        1. When I proposed cross caste dating and marriage, you opposed that idea, saying “Western standards” cannot be “imposed” in India.
          Really? And when did I say this? As usual my comments must have gone above your head as you let your emotional reaction override your sense of reason. I don’t care for eugenics. If Indians want to date cross caste I have no objections. If my future kids want to marry a hindus I don’t care. If a Sikh wants to marry my sister, I don’t care either (my sister is married tho just making a point). Please link my post so I can see how badly you’ve butchered it.
          Manu smriti is not a religious book and being that ancient to medieval “India” never had a centralized system of government the writings of this obscure book, that were not even printed at the time, could not be enforced across the board.
          This is why debating with Hindu apologists is like pulling teeth. When Hinduism is critiqued, the apologist will state that Hinduism isn’t a religion as it has no central creed/doctrines. So how does one judge whether a text is religious or not? If Hinduism has no central doctrines or creed then your word is as good as mine. I can say that the Manusmiriti is a religious text. If you insist that it is not, then clearly Hinduism does have certain central tenets which the manusmiriti does not satisfy. I call this tactic the shapeshifter’s apology. Hinduism is a monolith or a phantom depending on the apologist’s agenda. The ideas within this text have clearly been internalized to the point of being invisible. I see caste based segregation in cities as well with certain compounds being open to certain people. You claim that it doesn’t exist in the villages you’ve visited, and I’ll take your word for it despite it being highly unlikely. You did mention the anti caste bhakti movement and I pointed out that it died out because its universal worldviews were simply not consonant with Indian psychology. Kind of like how mozi was drowned out by Confucianism in China.
          As far as “hindu work ethic”, are you proposing that Hindus are lazy?”
          No, I’m proposing that you have very poor comprehension skills as some of the other commenters here have noticed. Read my article. I said that Hindus grade work by prestige whereas the western work ethic views all work as inherently dignified. God worked and then rested, so should humanity. The apostle Paul declared in Thessalonians that he that does not work should not eat and recommended that people work with their hands. Blue collar work however is scorned by most Indians because as Gurcharan Das points out, the Brahmins scoffed at the Shudra artisans who worked with their hands. These values then filtered down to the other castes. I never said Hindus were Lazy so the rest of your garbage that follows is moot.
          “Your consistent portrayal of Muslims as more progressive than Hindus”
          I’ve never done this. I’ve never said that Indian Muslims were more progressive than their Hindu counterparts. The other commenters here can testify to this. You are either lying or simply lack basic comprehension skills. Or maybe both.
          Canada has no women? Canada has no Muslim women? Canada has no Muslim women of Desi origin? Of course it does. Yet you chose to go to India and find a wife.
          For the longest time I was in love with an Indian Canadian girl in Toronto who attended the U of T. Unfortunately she turned out to be something like you. I’ve known many desi canadian women and I decided that the motherland was my best option.
          Moreover, it is evident from your comments that you are not a fanatical, orthodox Muslim (in some areas), so the question must be asked, WHY MARRY A MUSLIM IN THE FIRST PLACE?
          Because I fell for one. I’m not going to break of my relationship to this girl just to prove a hollow point to some random online retard. I really don’t care if you believe me or not, my personal life is my own business.

        2. Dota
          While I have stopped bothering with religious debates, not the least when this stupid cunt Bhabiji is involved, I do have a few points:
          1) “I call this tactic the shapeshifter’s apology. Hinduism is a monolith or a phantom depending on the apologist’s agenda. ”
          Note that the “Shape” or the “Monolith” itself was given by westerners who could not bother with studying the details and differences inherent between different sects. Ergo, complaints about shape shifting are invalid. Similarly, claims of monolith too can be thrown out. I for one would rather junk the word “Hindu” and hope that one day people would be known by their location/caste. Like I am a North Indian Kshatriya. Vishwanathan Anand is a Tamil Iyer etc.
          2) “Blue collar work however is scorned by most Indians because as Gurcharan Das points out, the Brahmins scoffed at the Shudra artisans who worked with their hands. ”
          Brahmins are, in general, against any kind of physical work as their vegetarian diet and religion severely restricts it. However, there are some notable exceptions like Sulabh complex: Chain of public restrooms in India. Well maintained and all cleaned by Brahmins. I’d rather shit here (if I can’t get back home in time).
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulabh_International
          http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?234780
          Also, with states such as Tamil Nadu having 60% or more reservation (affirmative action) , sooner or later, we’ll have the lower castes being uplifted. How effective will that be? Not so sure.
          3) “For the longest time I was in love with an Indian Canadian girl in Toronto who attended the U of T. Unfortunately she turned out to be something like you.”
          Indian origin chicks born in the USA or Canada are to be fucked only. Or else they will fuck you up.

        3. Aakash
          Note that the “Shape” or the “Monolith” itself was given by westerners who could not bother with studying the details and differences inherent between different sects. Ergo, complaints about shape shifting are invalid. Similarly, claims of monolith too can be thrown out. I for one would rather junk the word “Hindu” and hope that one day people would be known by their location/caste. Like I am a North Indian Kshatriya. Vishwanathan Anand is a Tamil Iyer etc.
          Look Aakash, I agree with you here to a point. The term Hinduism is pretty stupid as you correctly pointed out. You never hear people refer to the religion of Zues as ‘Greekism’ or the religion of Osiris as ‘Egyptianism’. So what’s with Hinduism? I get where you are coming from.
          However, As Meera Nanda points out ‘Hinduism’ certainly does have certain core non negotiable beliefs (caste, Karma, Dharma). The various sects and regions may implement and interpret these as they will, (for example there is no trader caste in the south to my knowledge) but these beliefs CAN be critiqued. As I told Bhabi, I’ve written an essay on Hindu ethics and the west and your input would be greatly appreciated once Robert edits and posts it. All religions have central beliefs that can be critiqued. I firmly believe that the belief of eternal damnation and the divine perfection of the Quran are 2 of the worst religious ideas of all time. Just because the Saudis won’t allow archeologists to dig doesn’t mean that Islam fell from the heavens. It simply means that Muslims are a bunch of insecure retards.
          As for your comment on affirmative action, it is for the best imo. However I still believe that the only way to eventually do away with caste is through marriage. One of my Dad’s best friends is a Gujarati Brahmin who married a Keralite Christian woman. That’s a positive step. That and Hindus need a central religious body for regulating right and wrong doctrine. But that’s just a humble suggestion as I do not have the temerity of advising others on practicing their faiths.

        4. “‘Hinduism’ certainly does have certain core non negotiable beliefs (caste, Karma, Dharma). The various sects and regions may implement and interpret these as they will”
          Fair enough. I think that the interpretations are left at the hands of the few (mostly Brahmins) who twist and utilize them for their material gain and preserving their social status. I’m sure that once any kind of “Hindu” populism or “Hindu” socialism movement takes off (which is the only thing that can save India), you’ll probably have a lot more diverse range of inputs which would severely restrict the ability of a few to impose their self serving reasoning on others. Currently, there are unions but the upper middle class crap drowns their voices out.
          “Just because the Saudis won’t allow archeologists to dig doesn’t mean that Islam fell from the heavens. It simply means that Muslims are a bunch of insecure retards”
          But you do realize that it is that belief that is keeping these countries together. Obviously, Islam is a crafted religion designed primarily to bring warring tribes together. The moment you introduce a dash of evidence (archaeological as you pointed out) and analysis based on that, things could fall apart rapidly. Is it in their interests? Nope. The haunting fear that everything that they hold sacred and untouchable could unravel is the primary driving force behind religious guardians’ crap. Abrahamic religions are number one in this :D. Its “ignorance is bliss” vs “knowledge is chaos”.
          Desi version of Islam is much better as there is more scope for spirituality. I’m also amazed as to how cool Keralite Christians are compared to the southern baptist bible thumping retards. It’s their desi background for sure.
          “However I still believe that the only way to eventually do away with caste is through marriage. One of my Dad’s best friends is a Gujarati Brahmin who married a Keralite Christian woman. That’s a positive step. That and Hindus need a central religious body for regulating right and wrong doctrine”
          Possible. Inter-caste or inter-religious marriage mainly occurs among upper middle class or rich people. The majority of people are not that (and lets face it, never will be) and it would be a huge challenge though. Another way is to bring the Maoists mainstream by reincarnating them as a “Hindu” socialist party. At least, reasonable Hindus will start supporting them instead of the retards from Bajrang Dal.
          As for a central religious body, that would be the biggest excuse for assholes to gain power. it is not practical. Lets face it, it is something similar in Christianity that led to the birth of protestants as they got tired of the Pope’s crap. I’d rather follow the way of protestants (I do like their origin despite the fact that most of them are bible thumping morons) and hand a copy of the Gita to each Indian regardless of caste.
          Ethics, laws etc always have to be separate from religion and handled by the government. I would want no religion to be a part of any lawmaking. However, the term “secular” is twisted in India to bend over and take it in rather than keep religion at arms length. Fuck that shit.

        5. But you do realize that it is that belief that is keeping these countries together. Obviously, Islam is a crafted religion designed primarily to bring warring tribes together. The moment you introduce a dash of evidence (archaeological as you pointed out) and analysis based on that, things could fall apart rapidly.
          But we’re not living in the 6th century are we? Classical Islam was an Arab tribal religion but modern Islam is as universal as Christianity. So Islam will survive. And besides even if Islam is subjected to the same cold deconstructionism that Christianity was subjected to, who cares? It’ll still be in academic circles only. Those who believe will believe anyway. Saudi style Wahabism is a mirror image of Hindutva. Hindutva peaches a casteless egalitarian Hinduism which is a facade for old school Brahminism. The RSS still has Brahmins at the top while the lowly sevaks are peasants. While Wahabism similarly preaches the brotherhood of the ummah they sneakily try and over emphasize the importance of Arabic and Arab customs. They have also being trying to consolidate their hold on religious rulings that affect the global ummah. The objective is the same as Hindutva, preach egalitarianism at the lower levels while ensuring Arab supremacy at the top. As Aakar Patel points out, despite Pakistan’s wahabism, how many hands were amputated for stealing? How many people stoned? None. Because this madness is foreign to desi Islam.
          Desi version of Islam is much better as there is more scope for spirituality.
          Perhaps, however after the 12th century there was no longer 1 Islam, but many. The Turks practiced their own Islam and I’d read that they even performed their namaz (prayer ritual) in Turkish instead of Arabic. The Persians had their brand of Shia Islam, the desis had their own and the Afghans still practiced their primitive Pakhtuwali tribal code. Islam has always been sycretic and this is why Wahabism is such a disease which must be opposed.

  8. Dota, you write:
    “Hinduism degrades living breathing human beings by obscuring their humanity, which other religion actually deems other humans to untouchable?”
    Pretty much all of them, but point taken. Examples: Ultra orthodox Judaism. All of the multiple rules of daily living, eating, etc. have at least a secondary purpose of isolating Jews from other people. Ditto for the many similar rules governing an observant Muslim’s life. \
    Then you have Shia Islam, in which adherents of other religions are actually unclean and can contaminate true Muslims. I have it on decent authority that someone who converts to Shiah Islam can actually be contaminated by his/her former self if he/she wears unlaundered clothes from before his/her conversion. I’m also told this is a carry over from Zoroastrianism.
    Purity is a central concern of all conservative religions, and can even be seen in the squeamishness of American evangelicals who are physically repulsed by “sinners.”
    But as I said, your point is taken; no one puts it quite as front and center as Hindus.

    1. Matt
      There is a difference between voluntary segregation and mandating segregation on a macro social/national level. I don’t think your comparisons are valid because Jews have chosen to voluntarily segregate themselves as a minority whereas in Hinduism this is society wide practice that spans the length and breadth of social interaction. Purity is essential in all 3 Abrahamic religions but unlike Hinduism impurity here is a state of being, and not based on birth. Being covered in Semen makes one impure in Islam (and Judaism too I think), therefore one must wash themselves before engaging in prayer to become pure again. In Hinduism, the impurity sticks to you like a shadow your entire life. The Dead Sea community of Qumran segregated themselves because they wanted to maintain the purity of their traditions, and by this they meant remaining faithful to the letter of the Torah without being hindered by the outside world. The Orthopraxy of Judaism and Islam is not only to set them apart from others, but also serves the purpose of creating a rhythm of God consciousness in the lives of believers. The binary impulse motivates groups to practice self segregation to some degree to maintain their special distinctiveness and not all segregation necessarily implies the degradation of the other. This is not the case with Hinduism. You simply cannot compare Hinduism with the Abrahamic traditions which have a far more developed ethical code. I’ve done an essay on this and Robert is going to run it in a few days.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.