I essentially wrote this post a couple months ago or so, thinking I would add a few more paragraphs about why not infrequently girls like the particular often twisted sounding music they do, but bother, I don't seem to be coming back to it, so I'll post it now as it is.
This commercial, which was linked to from the finance blog I read, nakedcapitalism (whch got it from brontecapital), is one of the funniest things I have ever encountered. For those who don't know, Icelandic banks were arguably the most reckless banks in the world. The UK, for instance, last fall became so concerned about British depositors getting their money back after the financial crisis hit that they used anti-terrorism laws to seize the assets of the British subsidiary of Kaupthing, likening Iceland (or at least their banking operations) to a terrorist state just to protect their citizens from the consequences of the Icelandic banks' shenanigans.
Our world could use a good deal more normal thinking. Moral philosophy, in particular, is mostly just taking the time and bother to patiently consider the consequences of various behaviors via "normal" thinking.
The poohbahs in business and (more particularly, it seems) the financial world are forever praising enthusiasm. One should see why they do this. Enthusiasm is a short-term emotion. After someone has worn herself out with it, the company who employs her can just say, "we're sorry, we no longer believe you are a good fit with us, goodbye". They've got her to work years for them at the mad dog pace depicted of Kaupthing employees, and now she's a worn out shell or about to go into the looney bin, bother, time for a new employee.
I am, I'd say, mostly a patient person who doesn't like to get too worked up about things. And yet, I am still not patient enough, mostly, probably, in a lot of ways. I'm attracted to youth, though, which some might wonder whether it yields a conflict. I don't think it is quite as much my problem as it is the girls' problem, though. Enthusiasm, determination, resolve, are those the right emotions that encourage relationships to take place when females are still young in the right way? I'm skeptical. Take music. I think the main reason girls like music is that it enables them to play with adult feelings about sex and romance. It is not like females magically become enlightened about such matters. If girls don't explore feelings about sex until they become adults, sure, they will be older when they have sex, but age won't have brought increased wisdom when it comes making right choices in their sexual relationships because they won't have felt or played about the emotions surrounding it. But if one takes a long-term approach, music and similar more-or-less purely emotional influences should just be a part of what has developed one's sense of self. A more long-term approach demands more rational thought. Music is OK, I guess, but ideally it shouldn't be taken too seriously.
One might think that music could encourage females to have sex early in the right way, but mostly, as regards music as it is, this would be a mistaken belief--certainly it would appear at best half-right. Music, and more particularly music with rhythm and dance-inducing aspects that encourages movement is by its very nature rather contrary to the quite peaceful stillness associated with the more tantric sexual attitudes that are appropriate for young-female sex if the sex is worth much. As I have mentioned before, imo the significance of females being young during sex is that intraejaculate sperm selection selects for a different sort of sperm if the female is young. Movement is like shaking up a die before tossing it--it makes things more (undesirably) random. Of course, there is the legitimate objection that total stillness makes expression more difficult, and maybe there could be a more, idk, still sort of music based more on melody or poetry that could in fact be something suited to girls believing in having sex early like girls need to have sex when they have sex early for the right reasons, but I doubt whether such music exists. Most music girls listen to is more about playing with the sort of sexual and romantic emotions that they might have as adults than with the sort of emotions they might feel when young if they really wanted sex presently.
What is the deal, then, with music that (some) girls seem to take very seriously? One reason, of course, a girl might take music very seriously is that music is what she is interested in because her talents more lie in the musical sphere. She might be considering going into music as a profession. But mostly to lopsidedly explore art and more particularly the musical arts at the expense of more logic-oriented endeavors doesn't really make sense except in the short term. One's innate feelings and tendencies only go so far. They are not sufficient to guide one very well in life because life is too complicated to have innate feelings about everything. One must abstract (using logic) from these feelings and an understanding of reality an understanding of these feelings. Doing this, one develops new, abstracted feelings, and grows as a person. Moreover, when one has a better understanding of oneself, one knows better what to observe and remember in order most easily to improve one's understanding. And because understanding yourself well encourages the sort of behavior that is natural for you, and since behavior that is natural for you is more likely to be something you are likely to have interesting unexplored feelings about, understanding can lead to more profound experiences. Having lots of feelings about what you are interested in, observing them well and going by what they more-or-less immediately make you feel like doing might be a reasonable approach in the short run, because it is quick, but more long term it is more reasonable to balance feeling and observation with rational thought. I really am inclined to think that mostly the girls who seem obsessed with music are that way because they want to have sex soon rather than later and so feel they need to mature fassssst; this would appear to be the simplest explanation.
But what is the point really? Why should a girl rush to have a sort of sex at 18 that she could have just as well at 35? Why don't they listen to music that is about the more immature feelings more appropriate to immature females having sex? I think it is frustration more than anything. Mostly girls would like males to dance, play, etc., with them more often so them they can explore their adult feelings more, which can make them better prepared when they become adult. Getting angry about it, they can sometimes fall into a fanaticism that leads them to view the music they listen to as more than just something to play with. They sometimes instead make the mistake that their obsession with music is on account of art being higher than thought, and that the feelings in the music apply to them now in a not-just-for-exploration way, at least if for some male they have some natural (or unnatural) feelings for wanting sex sooner than latter
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Life
It occurs to me, I haven't talked much about my progress with the logic paper I have mostly written. Today I had an interesting dream that I think was about it, so I'll say something about it. I finished a first draft of it last year. But there are errors. The few very significant errors I have corrected very easily. (Since I am not much of an example-oriented person, I have a tendency not to notice much when I prove something ridiculous if error causes me to do that.) That's not the problem, though—these were easily corrected. What I most hope to do in the current draft (which I hope to make public) is give the paper polish. In particular, the part of logic that most bothers me is model theory. Mostly, I think the subject should be done away with. But there are necessary bits and pieces there that I need. How to present these bits and pieces in the right way has proved more difficult than I had anticipated.
Everything came to an impasse in early May, I think it was. I was sputtering along steadily typesetting the paper and polishing it up, but then a little less than half way through, I realized that there must be some general result that allows one in certain circumstances to replace entailment with implication (in the context of the silly logic). One of my professors at North Carolina had taught me that entailment ought to be distinct from implication, and indeed I believe it. The formula A implies B should be thought of as the most general formula whose conjunction with A entails B, and the entailment relation should be thought of as the same thing as the "less general than" relation (where "less" is not interpreted strictly, in fact any formula should be considered less general than itself). Annnywayyy, though it may be true that entailments and implications tend to hold in similar circumstances, they really are different. For instance, in my silly logic, A entails B precisely if not B entails not A; but it turns out that if A implies B is silly, then not B implies not A is just plain false. Still, though, it was intuitively clear to me that there must be a metatheorem allowing one in a certain natural subset of inference rules to replace entailment with implication (replacing metalogical connectives with ordinary logical connectives) to yield theorems. In other words, I could sense the existence of a (for me) advanced applied logic theorem that would enable me in one giant swoop to prove about, idk, maybe 20% of the basic logic theorems that I otherwise would have to prove separately. In the course of about a week or two in March or April I guess it was, I really went at it, (metaphorically) engaging in much banging my forehead against the wall, and came up with two cute similar little results that gave what I was looking for. The problem is that the whole structure of the results was very demanding of the little bits and pieces of what is called model theory. And when thinking about it, I couldn't at all easily separate all the nonsense I had learned about model theory from the essence of the matter. Somehow where my brain had previously been fairly clear-headed, I now became confused; even though I felt the problem was just making a few very simple definitions, my mind became so much like a tornado full of irrelevant flying debris, logic became hard. I guess I felt I had to just get away from logic for a while to let things settle or I would be unable to sense what these definitions were. And clearly it was very important for elegance (and even usefulness) that the right definitions be made. At any rate, the clarity was just not there. I haven't thought about logic since May.
Mostly, I have been blaming myself for having been too applied. But the dream I had this morning makes me think I'm taking the wrong outlook about it. I dreamed I had just showed up at Michigan (the University in Ann Arbor) again, and I was just about to move into a dorm room or efficiency or something when there outside on a sidewalk someone was selling a sturdy utilitarian and attractive antique dresser. Wow! I thought. I bought it right away, good deal. Then it occurred to me: I will need to put this in my room. It might be a tight fit and I have no truck (or even car) to get it there. Somehow this dresser represented my advanced applied logic theorem. It first appeared very useful to me, but then on second thought, it wasn't as useful as it seemed, making life difficult for me. The wood was interesting. It seemed some kind of very high quality wood, but wasn't quite as dark I think as black walnut, which made me afeared 'twas the dreaded white walnut, but mostly I didn't think it was that either. It looked kind of like Oak but without the open grain. And then a kindly-looking black (he wouldn't have been black if it was made of white walnut) man saw me in my quandary standing in front of the dresser I had bought, and offered to help me put it beneath an awning while I had to go away to prepare to put it in its proper place. And as he was doing that it turned out (it became revealed) that there were two little diorama cabinets that you had to get (free) with the dresser. The sorts of things which if presentable you might expect to find ensconcing a very small nativity scene or surrounding a show-and-tell presentation if kids could afford that sort of thing and the teacher wanted to keep it on display. But the thing is, they were covered in peeley green paint. Perhaps some would have claimed the effect antiquesy looking, but it was hideous. These hideous things, I figure, do represent the necessary parts akin to model theory that I need to find or keep. But first I have to remove the awful paint, which represents all the rubbish in that subject. The best I can figure, the moral of the dream is that I should appreciate the theorem for what it is made of, which is a fine wood easy to underappreciate from its ad hoc quality. The insights the theorem may cast on what is called model theory may be more important than the applications. In fact, probably, I have been thinking, I should prove its applications separately anyway, only introducing the theorem after I have proven the results in the normal way. It is too big and particular and advanced a result to present early. But instead of looking at it as something that introduces ugliness I should more see it as something that, if enough light is cast upon it, can be stripped of its ugliness, revealing fine wood perfect for displaying beauty and truth.
I dream quite a bit about going back to university, and mostly it is always wrong. When I have dreams about going back to Michigan, I typically end up having to study a bunch of stuff too fast I am not interested in, which I probably can't or won't do anymore, and I always do things in more insane ways not good for efficiency, ruining everything (like buying the dresser). And I'm similar when I dream of going to UNC, except it's worse inasmuch as also I frequently am just wandering about hiding from my math professors because I don't want to have to tell them I didn't get my Ph.D. from Michigan like I had hoped. So, typically (in my dreams), I end up going there with enthusiasm but never go to a class, and each day I'll think to myself, I should really show up to class, but I don't, and then the tuition bill comes and of course I've missed the drop deadline because I was obsessed with understanding why I'm not going to class, and everything (my scholastic record and savings) gets ruined. And with my roommates, in my dreams I never fit in with them.
I used to dream a lot about going back to high school. Similarly, that would always turn out wrong. I'd dream that I'd catch the bus and show up, but then think, now wait a second, I forgot, I'm 30 or 40 or whatever, and people that old are not allowed to go to school--I wouldn't be on the homeroom roster. And then I'd realize I have to go, and so I'd sneak out (without trying to be too obvious that I am an older person a sneaking out), and then after leaving the building I'd have to walk home because I'd remember I was too old to take the bus, but Needwood Road somehow in my dream becomes like some sort of transcontinental highway full of drawbridges, fords, lakes that have to be rowed across (after finding the hidden rowboat), etc., with distracting museums along it. But now I more often instead dream of college, and that goes wrong too, but not so much because of my age (except when it comes to relating to roommates).
I need to be intellectual and practical, but not probably in a university setting. That's what I mostly feel, and my dreams seem to support that. I guess the internet offfers opportunities, and if I can become wise enough, I figure I won't have to make much enlightened effort at selling myself. I can't really imagine how it will work, but eventually, if I keep becoming wiser (what I'm most convinced I am skilled at doing), I'll become so preposterously wise eventually it will become obvious to people (if I maintain openness and don't get considered an enemy by the search engines) that I am extraordinarilly wise, whereupon, something good might happen. That's about the extent of my plan as to how to be practical in life.
Everything came to an impasse in early May, I think it was. I was sputtering along steadily typesetting the paper and polishing it up, but then a little less than half way through, I realized that there must be some general result that allows one in certain circumstances to replace entailment with implication (in the context of the silly logic). One of my professors at North Carolina had taught me that entailment ought to be distinct from implication, and indeed I believe it. The formula A implies B should be thought of as the most general formula whose conjunction with A entails B, and the entailment relation should be thought of as the same thing as the "less general than" relation (where "less" is not interpreted strictly, in fact any formula should be considered less general than itself). Annnywayyy, though it may be true that entailments and implications tend to hold in similar circumstances, they really are different. For instance, in my silly logic, A entails B precisely if not B entails not A; but it turns out that if A implies B is silly, then not B implies not A is just plain false. Still, though, it was intuitively clear to me that there must be a metatheorem allowing one in a certain natural subset of inference rules to replace entailment with implication (replacing metalogical connectives with ordinary logical connectives) to yield theorems. In other words, I could sense the existence of a (for me) advanced applied logic theorem that would enable me in one giant swoop to prove about, idk, maybe 20% of the basic logic theorems that I otherwise would have to prove separately. In the course of about a week or two in March or April I guess it was, I really went at it, (metaphorically) engaging in much banging my forehead against the wall, and came up with two cute similar little results that gave what I was looking for. The problem is that the whole structure of the results was very demanding of the little bits and pieces of what is called model theory. And when thinking about it, I couldn't at all easily separate all the nonsense I had learned about model theory from the essence of the matter. Somehow where my brain had previously been fairly clear-headed, I now became confused; even though I felt the problem was just making a few very simple definitions, my mind became so much like a tornado full of irrelevant flying debris, logic became hard. I guess I felt I had to just get away from logic for a while to let things settle or I would be unable to sense what these definitions were. And clearly it was very important for elegance (and even usefulness) that the right definitions be made. At any rate, the clarity was just not there. I haven't thought about logic since May.
Mostly, I have been blaming myself for having been too applied. But the dream I had this morning makes me think I'm taking the wrong outlook about it. I dreamed I had just showed up at Michigan (the University in Ann Arbor) again, and I was just about to move into a dorm room or efficiency or something when there outside on a sidewalk someone was selling a sturdy utilitarian and attractive antique dresser. Wow! I thought. I bought it right away, good deal. Then it occurred to me: I will need to put this in my room. It might be a tight fit and I have no truck (or even car) to get it there. Somehow this dresser represented my advanced applied logic theorem. It first appeared very useful to me, but then on second thought, it wasn't as useful as it seemed, making life difficult for me. The wood was interesting. It seemed some kind of very high quality wood, but wasn't quite as dark I think as black walnut, which made me afeared 'twas the dreaded white walnut, but mostly I didn't think it was that either. It looked kind of like Oak but without the open grain. And then a kindly-looking black (he wouldn't have been black if it was made of white walnut) man saw me in my quandary standing in front of the dresser I had bought, and offered to help me put it beneath an awning while I had to go away to prepare to put it in its proper place. And as he was doing that it turned out (it became revealed) that there were two little diorama cabinets that you had to get (free) with the dresser. The sorts of things which if presentable you might expect to find ensconcing a very small nativity scene or surrounding a show-and-tell presentation if kids could afford that sort of thing and the teacher wanted to keep it on display. But the thing is, they were covered in peeley green paint. Perhaps some would have claimed the effect antiquesy looking, but it was hideous. These hideous things, I figure, do represent the necessary parts akin to model theory that I need to find or keep. But first I have to remove the awful paint, which represents all the rubbish in that subject. The best I can figure, the moral of the dream is that I should appreciate the theorem for what it is made of, which is a fine wood easy to underappreciate from its ad hoc quality. The insights the theorem may cast on what is called model theory may be more important than the applications. In fact, probably, I have been thinking, I should prove its applications separately anyway, only introducing the theorem after I have proven the results in the normal way. It is too big and particular and advanced a result to present early. But instead of looking at it as something that introduces ugliness I should more see it as something that, if enough light is cast upon it, can be stripped of its ugliness, revealing fine wood perfect for displaying beauty and truth.
I dream quite a bit about going back to university, and mostly it is always wrong. When I have dreams about going back to Michigan, I typically end up having to study a bunch of stuff too fast I am not interested in, which I probably can't or won't do anymore, and I always do things in more insane ways not good for efficiency, ruining everything (like buying the dresser). And I'm similar when I dream of going to UNC, except it's worse inasmuch as also I frequently am just wandering about hiding from my math professors because I don't want to have to tell them I didn't get my Ph.D. from Michigan like I had hoped. So, typically (in my dreams), I end up going there with enthusiasm but never go to a class, and each day I'll think to myself, I should really show up to class, but I don't, and then the tuition bill comes and of course I've missed the drop deadline because I was obsessed with understanding why I'm not going to class, and everything (my scholastic record and savings) gets ruined. And with my roommates, in my dreams I never fit in with them.
I used to dream a lot about going back to high school. Similarly, that would always turn out wrong. I'd dream that I'd catch the bus and show up, but then think, now wait a second, I forgot, I'm 30 or 40 or whatever, and people that old are not allowed to go to school--I wouldn't be on the homeroom roster. And then I'd realize I have to go, and so I'd sneak out (without trying to be too obvious that I am an older person a sneaking out), and then after leaving the building I'd have to walk home because I'd remember I was too old to take the bus, but Needwood Road somehow in my dream becomes like some sort of transcontinental highway full of drawbridges, fords, lakes that have to be rowed across (after finding the hidden rowboat), etc., with distracting museums along it. But now I more often instead dream of college, and that goes wrong too, but not so much because of my age (except when it comes to relating to roommates).
I need to be intellectual and practical, but not probably in a university setting. That's what I mostly feel, and my dreams seem to support that. I guess the internet offfers opportunities, and if I can become wise enough, I figure I won't have to make much enlightened effort at selling myself. I can't really imagine how it will work, but eventually, if I keep becoming wiser (what I'm most convinced I am skilled at doing), I'll become so preposterously wise eventually it will become obvious to people (if I maintain openness and don't get considered an enemy by the search engines) that I am extraordinarilly wise, whereupon, something good might happen. That's about the extent of my plan as to how to be practical in life.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Tattoos and my not silly protection racket
(I don't want to say (it is a secret) one way or the other whether I feel I have the power over my young-female admirers to bring this off, or whether I feel I likely will have such power in the future, but in any case, this on some level rings true to me, and so here it is.)
I hate tattoos. It is very admirable for people to be true to themselves--to their own innate natural tendencies and what they abstract from them by means of their understandings. Especially is this so as regards romantic and sexual feelings. But my innate natural tendencies regarding sex involve naked female form. I do not have natural feelings so much about skin that looks more like a painting than skin. In short, tattoos on a female exacerbate the determination of one's natural sexual feelings about her. Tattoos are like clothes one can't take off.
Some people say that tattoos are about expressing oneself. However, I do not believe it. Much better at expressing oneself visually would be drawings, fashions, jewelries, etc., that one can change. True, tattoos don't wear out, but it's not really like tattoos are much cheaper than other ornamentation. There really isn't much saving of money there. If you can't afford fashion or jewelry, hey, it would still be cheaper than getting a tattoo on your arm and just as expressive to (say) buy a piece of PVC pipe and some paint and make a bracelet. But I am straying from the main argument. Tattoos are contrary to being true to oneself, they are tools of conformists.
Probably tattoos are worse on females than males, because males (it strikes me) more tend to judge matters visually. But it seems to me that the girls who like getting tattoos are so different from the girls that I would want or who would want me (or other decent clean males), that, basically, it is not so much of problem girls getting tattoos. I have noticed many more girls seem to threaten to get tattoos than to actually have the bad sense to obtain one. The problem is that girls who have encountered me or males like me realize that good males (quite appropriately) have a way of trying to force girls to be true to themselves (i.e., the important parts of themselves, which of course does not include the tendency to be afraid of being true to themselves). When girls get scared of males roaring and beating their chests to get them to be true to themselves, it is perhaps understandable that they might find a certain misplaced solace in males who make it so they can't (without much difficulty) force girls to be true to themselves. How can a female be very true to her own natural tendencies as regards sex with a tattooed male when her own natural tendencies about sex regard having sex with males who look like (naked) males as opposed to etchings of whatever? It's just not possible. Tattoos can't just be erased like an etch-a-sketch; apparently, it is a big deal getting rid of them.
With a girl who has sex with a male for pleasure, if she enjoys it enough, it is not hard to force her to be true to herself and to preclude her from finding tattoos attractive or acceptable. Just don't love her well to the extent she likes tattoos and the other conformist claptrap. This will train her to be more virtuously herself. But with a female who has sex mainly from love, it might prove more difficult. It's hard to force a girl like that to be more true to herself, but still, one looks for opportunities, and maybe the girl isn't sure that she won't have pleasures great enough that the male won't have certain (clean) powers over her, yeah. True, a female might be true to herself because that makes her love more dazzling and more attracting of other females to the male she loves (people like to please those they love), but maybe if the male has attracted other females she will instead sort of cede her position in the light, so her having contempt for her lover trying to force her to be true to herself won't appreciably affect what the male gets, and thus so her lover won't be much hurt. But this is not really acceptable. Is there anything the male can do about it?
Suppose you are some girl I love and you go into the background because you start admiring tattoos and commit other violations against the concept of being true to yourself. Because of your withdrawal and because you won't look as much like you are really being yourself (being so disrespectful of the concept) you will lose influence in the scene. The girls who allow themselves to be forced to be true to themselves will gain it. Suppose by somebody rumors were made to start--oh I'm just saying--I say, rumors might be made to come from these girls to the effect that maybe males with tattoos are not very desirable people really. Ooohhh! What a shame! These might be some of the very males who most listen to you. Mostly these might be nice males, just trying to do what you want. Ohhhh, how terrible... We wouldn't want them to, say, start losing all their girl admirers, now would we? What if no one shows up anymore at their concerts or their fashion shows? They'd lose their jobs and livelihood and girls might stop being nice to them. What a pity [i'm shaking my head back and forth]. Oh no--I'm not mean, I'm like yoo--...: I don't want them to get hurt. I have a proposition for you, girl, yeah,..., mayyyyybe I can help them. Because we really want to help them, don't we? We're nice people. Me, you, my girls, we're all nice people. I'm a nice person, and nice people don't like to see basically good people get hurt. There's nothing wrong with these males maybe except that they trust you and girls like you too much. Tell you what, Just stop making out like you like males to have tattoos and pro'ly I can keep my girls from doing over all the poor tattooed males.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The feelings mothers employ when considering whether their daughters should have sex presently with some particular male
It's an interesting question the extent to which mothers ideally should influence daughters' mating activity. In some cultures, e.g., those with arranged marriages being the norm, the daughter has very little control over whom she will mate, while in others, the mother has very little control. But of course, no matter what the laws, the person with legal control can for all practical purposes cede it to the other merely by deferring the decision to the other. Who should have control, though an interesting question, is not quite the question that mosts interests me or what I shall discuss here. The most interesting question, it seems to me, and what I wish to elaborate upon, is that of the extent to which a young female's sexual decisions should be influenced by her mother. Moral daughters tend to be in moral families that usually behave morally, and the most important thing is that moral daughters mate reasonably (in such a way as to encourage evolution of their useful and moral traits), which in these families who defer reasonably won't much depend on whether the laws that dictate control are reasonable. As discussed in a previous post, I believe that the main influence a mother should and does have over her daughter's sexual activity is to inform the daughter of the chances that such activity would be a large mistake. In reasonable families, the main control a mother can and does have over her daughter relationship-wise is that she can make the daughter afraid of a male or more comfortable with him, depending upon whether the mother is herself afraid or comfortable with him being intimate with her daughter. When a mother protects a daughter from what she sees as a big mistake, the chances that the daughter actually by nature (as opposed to from deception or nefarious controlling influence) really wants to do what she is contemplating are fairly slim, more especially because the daughter is half from the mother after all. Thus, there is not the least reason why a mother should think that protecting her daughter from a big sexual mistake with a male or encouraging her to feel more sexually comfortable with a male is otherwise than encouraging her daughter to be true to herself (and it is important that people are true to their innate natures when they mate, lest ideal virtuous mating tendencies not be selected for by evolution) and no reason why a daughter would view respecting her mother there as disrespecting herself or being untrue to herself. Accordingly, mothers have a tendency to specialize in evaluating danger, i.e., possibilities of daughters' large mistakes—it's what is and should be most influential. More especially do they specialize thus because such specialization and influence has caused mothers to evolve to be unusually effective (compared with daughters) at such activity. What I have new to say is that there are a couple mistakes mothers tend to make.
When a mother vicariously considers whether a particular man is the right sort to be intimate with her daughter, the part of herself that she puts into the consideration is largely that part of her that deals with safety and danger. When she fantasizes about her daughter having sex with a male, the pleasure tends to go up and down depending upon her present particular intimations and impressions of how safe her daughter would be with him. Insofar as her imagination is concerned, the mother's impression of the pleasure that a male would give her daughter should the male be not very much worse than he seems is something that she should and largely will judge mostly from what she feels her daughter thinks. My impression is that mothers on occasion make the mistake of believing that their own particular mental and emotional inputs that they use when judging a male are better and more important than those that their daughters would more tend to use. Just because a mother is more mature is no reason for her to think that the thoughts and internal feelings that are in her when she judges a mate for her daughter are better than the thoughts and feelings that are in her daughter when the daughter fantasizes more directly about a male. Mature approaches are not always better; it is often highly appropriate, in fact, that immature people behave immaturely. I'm not saying it is wrong for parents to be concerned for their daughters' sexual safety to a large degree (compared with their daughters' concern), I am saying it is wrong to slight the young daughters' tendencies to possess feelings of love and pleasure that just sort of assume that the male is safe (largely to the degree her mother thinks). The mature need to be mature, and the immature need to be immature. Girls need more than to avoid big mistakes—they also need to avoid little mistakes and to obtain rewards small or great, and the possibilities of the latter is what their immature selves are good at evaluating themselves, and what they should straightforwardly be themselves in fantasizing about and evaluating. Also, love needs not only that it not be thrown away on an utter villain, but also that it be given to him who is worthy or, better yet, very worthy. Because their childrens' safety is what mothers should tend to be most concerned about, and because mothers mistakenly think the children too should share the same concern, mothers tend to overestimate the importance of safety. A mother can play an important role in making her daughter feel safe when she is sufficiently safe and scared when she is in danger, but these matters are not particularly what daughters should be much concerned about, at least if the daughters can trust their parents.
The other mistake mothers tend to make is that they misinterpret their feelings of safety. When a mother vicariously fantasizes about a male having sex with her daughter, it is hard to say exactly, but my impression is that the physical pleasure which varies depending on how comfortable she feels about the male being safe is a sort of all-over-the-skin tingly comfy feeling. That it is an all-over feeling presumably protects the mother (and it's usually mothers who think so much of safety) from thinking the fantasy is probably about wanting sex herself. I think a mother might confuse this feeling with the comfortable feelings she might have about the male's ability or desire to provide materially for his daughter, which would after all tend to make the daughter more safe (from other things, like starvation). I leave it to females to determine what exactly this latter feeling is like, but presumably it is different from a feeling that a male is safe in the sense it's not at all likely he's much worse than he appears.
This confusion, when together with the confusion of the preceding paragraph, only tends to aggravate in mothers the tendency to overestimate the importance of money, a conceit, of course, mostly held by older people. (Older people hanging around mainly older people, and older people tending to have the most money and thus the most to gain selfishly by making money seem extra-important, the tendency for old people to overestimate the importance of money would exist even without the confusions mentioned.) Also, it might make mothers overestimate the ability of a virtuous (and thus totally safe) male to be a provider, creating unrealistic expectations.
Another consideration, it occurs to me, is that a female lusting is a dangerous (though potentially quite rewarding) phenomenon to her. As females age, they have less-and-less capacity to lust, mostly because lust is not rewarding to older females as it can be to younger females (not that lust is not more dangerous for younger females, but that is besides the point) (my theory is that female lust is significant mainly because it encourages intraejaculate sperm selection after being absorbed by a male). Anyway, too often as women age they mistake their decreased desire to lust as an effect of wisdom; it has nothing to do with wisdom, just maturity. Women's bodies are such they can't select for sperm especially suited to fertilizing young females, and so largely they have no use for lusting (an important exception being if other females, and more especially other young females are also involved). There is a tendency for women to believe the widespread lies of vile males, who mostly tend like the Taliban to view female lust as evil or stupid, and to consider their decreased lust as proof that females lusting is not only immature but stupid, to be quickly dismissed away as just a kind of immature “raging hormones” or whatever. This sort of tendency goes hand in hand with their tendency to think danger too important. I strongly do not think, however, that in practice this general disrespect for lust that women have discourages mothers from wanting their daughters to lust. A woman may and often does think female lust foolish, but once she encounters a male she thinks sufficiently safe whom she knows her daughter from her own (the daughter's) nature is very much sexually in love with, all those abstract considerations get thrown out the window. A mother in a situation like that very quickly realizes her not wanting to feel lust for sex is not an effect of mature wisdom, because though she isn't much keen on lusting for own sexual activity, she definitely will emotionally appreciate the pleasure of her daughter having lust, which will make mockery of her theories about how female lust is foolish on account of it being something only immature females with their immature brains could want. Why would she want to hurt her daughter? Indeed, the extent to which a girl should lust when having sex depends heavily on how safe the sex is; if a male is virtuous, a girl should be lustful, else there is no benefit to having sex young; but if the male is a deceptive villain, her feeling lust is a disaster, and will select for the most pathetic sperm imaginable—it's way worse than randomness. What really makes a (young) girl want to feel lust for a male during sex is her impression of her sexual evaluations being safe. A mother who wants her daughter to have sex wants her daughter to feel safe and comfy (in the sense of the sex not being dangerous as opposed to the sense of feeling the male will likely be a good provider for her), because she wouldn't want her daughter to have sex if she didn't think the sex is safe. Since mothers tend to specialize in evaluating danger and this comfyness effectively, a mother soothing her daughter when the mother actually wants to the daughter to have sex goes a very major way to making the daughter feel more safe. And a particular reason a mother wants her daughter to feel sexually safe, beyond that it can make the daughter want sex, is that it can make the daughter feel the sex is safe for lust. So it's only among mothers who haven't much experienced situations in which they wonder whether their young daughters should have sex who view their incapacity to lust as just another proof that girls need safety especially much. When mothers actually encounter males they want their daughters to have sex with, the reality of their desire for their daughters to feel lust is so strong (even compared with what the daughter herself is feeling), that disillusion is likely to be more-or-less immediate and in all likelihood more than sufficient. But it is pretty unusual for a girl to meet someone she should feel so sure about that she should have sex with him presently rather than later or not-at-all, and thus for a mother to want her young daughter to have lustful sex; so unfortunately, though women's underestimation of the specialness of female lust doesn't in practice much discourage women from encouraging their daughters to take risks for the sake of lustful pleasure, yet it makes the general social climate toward girls taking risks for their sexual pleasure and more particularly the risk of girls lusting for their own sexual pleasure a much more inimical one than it should be.
One might have noticed one could argue in reverse that girls, denying their parents' modes of thinking, tend to underestimate the importance of safety. It may be true that girls tend to underestimate the importance of safety and the danger of danger, but I don't think the reasons are entirely analogous. Parents can't always be there to protect girls; girls have no choice but often to put themselves into judging whether a male is safe, which to a certain extent they should do regardless (but probably not quite to the extent they should respect their parents' views there if they respect their parents and their parents' abilities as much as they do themselves and their own abilities). Accordingly, all the aforementioned arguments apply significantly more weakly in the reverse direction. But there is another consideration. Namely, the part of a girl that she does not share with her mother wants just like the rest of the girl to be safe, but it isn't attracted to her mother's considerations on account of her mother being like her (though it might to a certain extent especially value her mother's considerations on account of her mother having less reason to want to behave selfishly toward her). On the other hand, the part of a mother distinct from a daughter shares no pleasure or pain in the daughter making a particular choice, it being unrelated to the daughter; it is at worst indifferent. And so, as I mentioned in a previous post (with perhaps too much allusion toward statistics in it, it seems to me now), girls will undesirably tend to rely on general impressions of how safe a possible relationship would be and whether such safety be important, whereas they would do better (on average) to more respect their parents' opinions and to less encourage their parents to be more normal and less weird.
When a mother vicariously considers whether a particular man is the right sort to be intimate with her daughter, the part of herself that she puts into the consideration is largely that part of her that deals with safety and danger. When she fantasizes about her daughter having sex with a male, the pleasure tends to go up and down depending upon her present particular intimations and impressions of how safe her daughter would be with him. Insofar as her imagination is concerned, the mother's impression of the pleasure that a male would give her daughter should the male be not very much worse than he seems is something that she should and largely will judge mostly from what she feels her daughter thinks. My impression is that mothers on occasion make the mistake of believing that their own particular mental and emotional inputs that they use when judging a male are better and more important than those that their daughters would more tend to use. Just because a mother is more mature is no reason for her to think that the thoughts and internal feelings that are in her when she judges a mate for her daughter are better than the thoughts and feelings that are in her daughter when the daughter fantasizes more directly about a male. Mature approaches are not always better; it is often highly appropriate, in fact, that immature people behave immaturely. I'm not saying it is wrong for parents to be concerned for their daughters' sexual safety to a large degree (compared with their daughters' concern), I am saying it is wrong to slight the young daughters' tendencies to possess feelings of love and pleasure that just sort of assume that the male is safe (largely to the degree her mother thinks). The mature need to be mature, and the immature need to be immature. Girls need more than to avoid big mistakes—they also need to avoid little mistakes and to obtain rewards small or great, and the possibilities of the latter is what their immature selves are good at evaluating themselves, and what they should straightforwardly be themselves in fantasizing about and evaluating. Also, love needs not only that it not be thrown away on an utter villain, but also that it be given to him who is worthy or, better yet, very worthy. Because their childrens' safety is what mothers should tend to be most concerned about, and because mothers mistakenly think the children too should share the same concern, mothers tend to overestimate the importance of safety. A mother can play an important role in making her daughter feel safe when she is sufficiently safe and scared when she is in danger, but these matters are not particularly what daughters should be much concerned about, at least if the daughters can trust their parents.
The other mistake mothers tend to make is that they misinterpret their feelings of safety. When a mother vicariously fantasizes about a male having sex with her daughter, it is hard to say exactly, but my impression is that the physical pleasure which varies depending on how comfortable she feels about the male being safe is a sort of all-over-the-skin tingly comfy feeling. That it is an all-over feeling presumably protects the mother (and it's usually mothers who think so much of safety) from thinking the fantasy is probably about wanting sex herself. I think a mother might confuse this feeling with the comfortable feelings she might have about the male's ability or desire to provide materially for his daughter, which would after all tend to make the daughter more safe (from other things, like starvation). I leave it to females to determine what exactly this latter feeling is like, but presumably it is different from a feeling that a male is safe in the sense it's not at all likely he's much worse than he appears.
This confusion, when together with the confusion of the preceding paragraph, only tends to aggravate in mothers the tendency to overestimate the importance of money, a conceit, of course, mostly held by older people. (Older people hanging around mainly older people, and older people tending to have the most money and thus the most to gain selfishly by making money seem extra-important, the tendency for old people to overestimate the importance of money would exist even without the confusions mentioned.) Also, it might make mothers overestimate the ability of a virtuous (and thus totally safe) male to be a provider, creating unrealistic expectations.
Another consideration, it occurs to me, is that a female lusting is a dangerous (though potentially quite rewarding) phenomenon to her. As females age, they have less-and-less capacity to lust, mostly because lust is not rewarding to older females as it can be to younger females (not that lust is not more dangerous for younger females, but that is besides the point) (my theory is that female lust is significant mainly because it encourages intraejaculate sperm selection after being absorbed by a male). Anyway, too often as women age they mistake their decreased desire to lust as an effect of wisdom; it has nothing to do with wisdom, just maturity. Women's bodies are such they can't select for sperm especially suited to fertilizing young females, and so largely they have no use for lusting (an important exception being if other females, and more especially other young females are also involved). There is a tendency for women to believe the widespread lies of vile males, who mostly tend like the Taliban to view female lust as evil or stupid, and to consider their decreased lust as proof that females lusting is not only immature but stupid, to be quickly dismissed away as just a kind of immature “raging hormones” or whatever. This sort of tendency goes hand in hand with their tendency to think danger too important. I strongly do not think, however, that in practice this general disrespect for lust that women have discourages mothers from wanting their daughters to lust. A woman may and often does think female lust foolish, but once she encounters a male she thinks sufficiently safe whom she knows her daughter from her own (the daughter's) nature is very much sexually in love with, all those abstract considerations get thrown out the window. A mother in a situation like that very quickly realizes her not wanting to feel lust for sex is not an effect of mature wisdom, because though she isn't much keen on lusting for own sexual activity, she definitely will emotionally appreciate the pleasure of her daughter having lust, which will make mockery of her theories about how female lust is foolish on account of it being something only immature females with their immature brains could want. Why would she want to hurt her daughter? Indeed, the extent to which a girl should lust when having sex depends heavily on how safe the sex is; if a male is virtuous, a girl should be lustful, else there is no benefit to having sex young; but if the male is a deceptive villain, her feeling lust is a disaster, and will select for the most pathetic sperm imaginable—it's way worse than randomness. What really makes a (young) girl want to feel lust for a male during sex is her impression of her sexual evaluations being safe. A mother who wants her daughter to have sex wants her daughter to feel safe and comfy (in the sense of the sex not being dangerous as opposed to the sense of feeling the male will likely be a good provider for her), because she wouldn't want her daughter to have sex if she didn't think the sex is safe. Since mothers tend to specialize in evaluating danger and this comfyness effectively, a mother soothing her daughter when the mother actually wants to the daughter to have sex goes a very major way to making the daughter feel more safe. And a particular reason a mother wants her daughter to feel sexually safe, beyond that it can make the daughter want sex, is that it can make the daughter feel the sex is safe for lust. So it's only among mothers who haven't much experienced situations in which they wonder whether their young daughters should have sex who view their incapacity to lust as just another proof that girls need safety especially much. When mothers actually encounter males they want their daughters to have sex with, the reality of their desire for their daughters to feel lust is so strong (even compared with what the daughter herself is feeling), that disillusion is likely to be more-or-less immediate and in all likelihood more than sufficient. But it is pretty unusual for a girl to meet someone she should feel so sure about that she should have sex with him presently rather than later or not-at-all, and thus for a mother to want her young daughter to have lustful sex; so unfortunately, though women's underestimation of the specialness of female lust doesn't in practice much discourage women from encouraging their daughters to take risks for the sake of lustful pleasure, yet it makes the general social climate toward girls taking risks for their sexual pleasure and more particularly the risk of girls lusting for their own sexual pleasure a much more inimical one than it should be.
One might have noticed one could argue in reverse that girls, denying their parents' modes of thinking, tend to underestimate the importance of safety. It may be true that girls tend to underestimate the importance of safety and the danger of danger, but I don't think the reasons are entirely analogous. Parents can't always be there to protect girls; girls have no choice but often to put themselves into judging whether a male is safe, which to a certain extent they should do regardless (but probably not quite to the extent they should respect their parents' views there if they respect their parents and their parents' abilities as much as they do themselves and their own abilities). Accordingly, all the aforementioned arguments apply significantly more weakly in the reverse direction. But there is another consideration. Namely, the part of a girl that she does not share with her mother wants just like the rest of the girl to be safe, but it isn't attracted to her mother's considerations on account of her mother being like her (though it might to a certain extent especially value her mother's considerations on account of her mother having less reason to want to behave selfishly toward her). On the other hand, the part of a mother distinct from a daughter shares no pleasure or pain in the daughter making a particular choice, it being unrelated to the daughter; it is at worst indifferent. And so, as I mentioned in a previous post (with perhaps too much allusion toward statistics in it, it seems to me now), girls will undesirably tend to rely on general impressions of how safe a possible relationship would be and whether such safety be important, whereas they would do better (on average) to more respect their parents' opinions and to less encourage their parents to be more normal and less weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
