Saturday, November 19, 2005

Mothers not always Protective

Mother and Daughters

When deciding whether to sleep with a man,
a girl not a woman would do well to judge him depraved,
or not,
according more-or-less
to what her mother thinks.
That essentially her filial deference here implies
that it’s not her decision
what sort of conclusion she should make
regarding his virtues
in discriminating vice
from mere (for the sake of argument let’s call it that) sexual delight
she’ll take into account
and won’t be as inclined
to let that conclusion
influence her decision
to go to bed
with her prospective lover
as would be the case
if the conclusion
came from within,
based on her own faculties of perception,
rather than those of her mother.
I say, “correct”, “quite reasonable”.

But there is another consideration
(of course)
a consideration that I shouldn’t quite call a qualification,
for though it might slightly partake of some of the characteristics of that,
the consideration concerns a different sphere,
which to the previous discussion,
whether you should go to bed with me,
relates not nearly so much
as to how you should go to bed with me.
Should you really be entirely true to yourself
if and when
sex present or anticipated
has made it incumbent upon your person
to decide how much to lust for my penis?
Maybe you shouldn’t entirely be true to yourself
Maybe in some limited sphere
in bed
you should be true to your mom,
not yourself.
How much she wants you to lust (or not lust, though certainly I should hope this would not be the case) for
my level of moral discrimination
(judged by you externally, from her perception)
as regards identifying
not just inclusively
ought in my opinion
control you
more than you own want there.

If a girl rejects me
because her opinion of my
at separating
from its opposite
(strange I should say “opposite”, but it’s neither here-nor-there for me to judge why saying that makes a better poem,
until I know)
is something she knows came from without,
from her mother,
as they believe it significantly should,
and she (the girl)
“Why should I take a chance on him,
when it will be my mother who triumphs
or fails
It takes the fun
of taking
As follows from Mendellian genetics.”,

But if you don’t inform your lust,
to the extent your mother influenced your opinion of me
in the ways you want her to,
as much as she would want you to,
I can’t believe that a good thing.

If, indeed, your opinions
of those parts of my virtues pertaining to discriminating cleanly
are determined by your mother,
your mother,
triumphing or suffering
according to her own decisions,
if she thinks me possessed of
quite the eye for discriminating
cleanliness from mess,
want you to lust for my penis
more than you want yourself to.
What moral principle
could guide her away
from trying to make you do as she wants
and needs
if girls don’t do as their mothers want here
men discriminating cleanly
won’t get lusted for so much
by little girls
as would men possessing
other virtues less important?
It would follow from epigenetics
that if girls are true to their own wants,
rather than their mothers’,
when deciding how much to lust for a
cleanly discriminating man
the daughters concluded so to the extent of their own mothers’ certitude
as regards the innocuous snowlike cleanliness of his penis’s desire
to lovingly fuck her little angel’s cervix,
would evolve
to be very conformist
in discriminating (or should I say not discriminating) the most innocent and beautiful love there is,
There is a sense in which mothers want their little angels
protected from lust for depravity
more than the daughters themselves want it,
Just like a mother can want her little angel to give up her cervix in lust
more lustful than what her little angel wants,
when why her little angel believes it safe
is that she trusts her mom.

I hope your mother doesn't think
I have written this
in response to something
I might have thought
she might have done.
I refuse
to use
any imagination
in deciding
something is directive
(or not).
"Come on",
I might tell her,
pushing her away just slightly,
somewhat tauntingly,
it really wouldn't be moral of me
to be else,
Would it now?"
I don't want your mother
to have any fears of me,
not even that I won't fuck you hard enough.

Friday, November 11, 2005

False rescuers

For some time I have wondered what group of people is most responsible for encouraging fears that have led society to take sexual freedom away from young females and those whom they love. I have been looking closer at the leading agitators for higher ages of consent, etc., and have come to something of a conclusion. The people who really agitate the hardest and most effectively against adolescent female sexuality seem to be men. Not just any men, I have decided, but men who in all likelihood have a preference for fallen women. It is not easy to seduce an innocent female. True, if a deceptive man has virtually nothing that a woman would want--if his deceiving skills are more-or-less his only ones--, the most effective mating approach for such a one would be to corrupt innocent, young, more easily corruptible girls. But even among sodomizers, it must be supposed that most have some skills, some abilities that females might want. If a sodomizer has at least a basic amount of skill he is probably going to be better off directing his appeal to older females. Not many children are born to teen mothers as opposed to older ones, presumably because typically a teen girl has to really believe herself greatly in love with a male before she naturally would want to have meaningful sex with him directly without waiting to see if her judgment changes. Probably, just because older females typically want a family presently more than teenage girls, the typical bad male even if foul usually finds it easier to seduce older females than younger ones.

It's too easy, probably, to fall into the trap of viewing all sodomizers as the same. Doubtless they have differing specialties. Physically abusive or terrifying ones probably do have a decided preference for young females with an innocence that largely precludes the dreaded sophistication that is a possibility among the fallen; viz., some fallen women are sufficiently sophisticated as to realize that the pleasure of sodomy doesn't have as much to do with who is the sodomizer as a freshly fallen naive female might think, and so sodomy tends not to be as exclusively controlling of such sophisticated females. Indeed, some depraved males are patently abusive, going after innocent naive girls and corrupting them with violence, terror, rape, forcible sodomy, etc. Some others perhaps are effective at making females think themselves more amenable to being controlled than is the case, and at creating confusion between innocuous captivation and disgusting captivity. Such men and boys also do probably prefer clean, young females to dominate. But not all bad men, nay, not even all bad sodomizing men are the same. Clearly there are advantages in specialization. The more common a particular evil is, the more females will have evolved effective defenses against it. If a male is more slick than seductive, better at controlling a female without her realizing it than at seducing her in the first place to try the behavior that allows him to control her, he will, in all likelihood, prefer fallen women. Not to rescue them from depravity, of course, but to inflict upon them his own depravities in place of the depravities of her past that were inflicted by other males.

Anyway, if a man has a certain amount of skill and success, then it is a convenient thing to do to a fallen women to convince her to try him by way of rescuing her from her past. Lots of females are messed-up as teenagers and in college, but then as a result of lack of success, say in getting good grades or in making money or in landing a successful husband, they come after using a little bit of sense to believe a reform is necessary. Indeed, in our commercialized society, people (unfortunately) are more likely to feel shame at lack of material success than at anything else. A strategy for a tolerably successful male who wants to get such a woman is to make her think she indeed needs reform. By making the woman feel good about a change, the man can more assuredly feel that she will indeed leave the other abusive men who in her past have been responsible for screwing-up her sensibilities. This is important for him, not because he wants to clean her up (in fact he wants to introduce his own dirt on top of the dirt she already has upon her), but because he doesn't want her past to compete with the depravities he himself wants to commit, thereby introducing sexual competition. He could just try to appeal to her by caring for her, but maybe he (perhaps rightly) believes his financial appeal is a good deal greater than his clean sexual appeal, and so he still finds the need to be foul in his sexual activities. What such a foul, rat-like male will likely strive for is to make the woman think her past romantic failures were merely as a result of her having had when young a lack of self-esteem that allowed her to give sex to controlling manipulative males that by nature she never would have given to anybody at that age. It is curious that one often hears people (e.g., in so-called feminist spheres) say that lack of self-esteem causes young females to excessively try sex, since I daresay a common-sense view of human nature is that a female who doesn't at all feel sure of herself, a female who lacks self-esteem and shames easily, is going to adopt a more conventional less confident approach to life, and it is not at all the case that teenage sex is something praised in conventional morality geared for the unthinking masses. It's just that girls, when they want sex, naturally tend to be submissive (see the last post or the discussion in my book about the importance of sex with young females being especially rewarding to males). This is bad basically if the submission takes place before the girl has decided to have sex. If it is after, the submission is not problematic in a girl, notwithstanding sexual submission in women is rather lame. If a girl doesn't love a man so well as in bed to trust him to an extent he could more or less control her if he saw fit to do so, then what would be bad would be her having had sex with him in the first place; bad men will exert such control to the extent they can regardless of what people think about it, and why shouldn't a good man cleanly exert a certain amount of control since there are good things he can accomplish with such, e.g., to encourage the girl he is having sex with to be more true to her own true sexual nature, which else would be difficult the younger the girl, youngsters being ignorant often becoming imitators from necessity. (Not that it at all bothers me if a girl would decide to have sex on account merely of having imitated a good friend--presumably no need for punishment or withholding emotional affection there--, but that is a different subject.)True, a hatred of young female submission, if general, might encourage girls to leave abusive males, but more than likely such a general hatred would mainly just cause girls to lack respect (on account of some submission being appropriate) for that part of society that else could rescue her. She might well think that reformists in society are stupid because they with a broad stroke reject submission, and thus make it more difficult for these reformers to argue their case against the evil of sodomy; better to try to make girls hate foul submission qua foulness rather than qua submission.

Anyway, in all likelihood the strongest forces against young-female sexual freedom are men who find it expedient to make females reject the males of their young-female sexual past without causing them to reject the depraved sensibilities mainly responsible for the females' failures. Adolescent female sexuality isn't just a red herring that the sodomizers of fallen women can point at when justifying their depravities, it is also something they directly need fallen women to see as responsible for their own material failures, lest they return to the males who first abused them. These foul men who insidiously go after fallen women do have more skills and success than typical sodomizers, and such skills make them rather effective manipulators of the popular attitude toward adolescent-female sexuality. They tend to have infiltrated certain feminist circles, warping a desire for female rights into a desire to take away young female rights. They are probably rather dangerous unscrupulous opponents who unfortunately must be dealt with by anyone trying to reform age of consent laws, etc., into more what they should be.

Of course, a good many people, especially females, really do probably from innocent lack of understanding think early female sexuality should be further discouraged, probably just because they have had more familiarity with others wanting to corrupt girls than with really beautiful feelings girls and males can have for one another. A female is lucky if when she young she meets a male she loves so well as for sex with him to be very beautiful and good, it is more likely she will meet unwanted not at all clean sexual advances (but such advances aren't particularly harmful so long as girls have the power to prevent men from initiating unwanted physical activity with them); it's unfortunate that girls need be scared of sodomy, but just outlawing their having sex won't make them safer from that. As for the dangers of unwanted advances they are rather phantom, it's not men being able to express unwanted desires to girls that hurts girls, but the men being able to act on and fulfill those unwanted desires, which alone would make girls excessively susceptible to sodomy; indeed, girls are pretty tough and are not really at all the china dolls, quaking and cracking in terror at every undesired advance, that they are made out to be.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Female lust responsible for authenticity

In this poem I try to describe how my feelings for girls and female-produced epigenetic modification relate to authenticity (cf. my last post). I don't apologize for using the word "orgies" down below. As mentioned, the word does not imply (according to my diction) alcohol or drug use. And as for the possibility of drug use, I should point out that drug- or sodomy-induced lust also presumably causes authenticity. Something I have noticed is that there is a certain type of person (they tend to hangout in science and math newsgroups, where they are often called cranks) who have bizarre theories which they argue for using a language that isn't just wrong, but incomprehensibly idiotic. Many of these people I suspect are people who have had many girl molesters/molested girls as ancestors, which is why despite they are stupid and bad they aren't conformist, but fall and rise on their own (often extraordinarily deficient) wits. The fact of the matter is that lustful orgies produce authenticity in both bad male and good males, whether the lust is defiled or innocent(though the authenticity produced in bad males by the female lust caused by the male's depravity (or the depravity of the other males who are in the orgy) tends to die out, inasmuch as such bad males tend to be so moronic as to have descendants that fail in natural selection). Of course, I was thinking of a multi-female orgy, but again, depraved orgies in which sodomy is involved produce more lust if more males sodomize. Enough said.

Being true to oneself
So hard it is
To be true to myself
When I am true to myself
I am true to that part of me most
that little girls have had sex with
in distant generations

No way
I say
can people be true
to that part of themselves
that is the best part of themselves
unless something makes them so.

Girls can do that
Because the part of me that is best
at getting them
is the part
that is most me.

No sex is more true
to a girl
than that which forces the girl
to be true to herself.

I will tell you what--
you’ll be less afraid if I enslave you
because if I do,
I can,
and if I can,
I will,
because I am sensitive enough to see what you are,
and real enough that you know sex won’t be near as fun for you
when I punish you by creating my own lust in me as I would
if you aren’t yourself
but some kind of conformist.
oh yeah it is scary being controlled during sex
but more scary having sex with a man who isn’t forcing you to be yourself
because it offers no proof that he could.
And I mean really, doesn’t your self know better what you want from sex than conformity does?
Aren’t you just like me?
Is not the part that is most you the part that has understood how to please little girls in bed
and make them lust?
You may not know whether that part of you,
a part of you I perhaps have turned on
is a true part of you
I’d be the first to admit (the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist I am)
for all you know I could be making you think yourself something other than you are.
Girls look at me from time to time
from the arms of their boyfriends
with steely eyes
that say
I had to be forced to find myself
that’s all what being forced is about
and don’t you really wish you were so potent
as to molest me like my lover could?
Mostly they think me some quaint naive person,
these females fallen from grace.
I can be rather generous toward their desire for authenticity
in me as well as herself,
can see in that perverse contempt,
the outlines of a natural admirable willingness
toward a kind of innocent captivation.
A captivation, unlike hers (well, I can’t prove her captivation corrupt, but. . .), that does not corrupt
a girl’s sense of her own natural sexuality
but demands it.
I’d give her a crucifix
that burns red hot when it gets too close
to the forehead of a vampire.
But I say all that doesn’t matter with you,
I know I am not the vampire, not the sodomizer,
nor a deceiver either.
At least that is what I know if I am worthy of you.
If I am worthy of you, if I can innocently force you to be you,
I should, and if you slept with me I could, should, and would,
at least to a large extent (nothing is perfect).
You’re not a fool,
you’d know this,
your mom too probably.

It isn’t really the problem per se that parents don’t let kids be true to themselves.
Think about it genetically, you’ll see that family should have just as much interest in your being true to/ yourself
as you do.
Unlike with you, it’s just as rewarding to a family member for you to be true to what the family member would do as to what you would do, and even more rewarding to him for you to be true to that part of you that you have in common with that family member, but so what?
The family member most true to himself will want you to be true to yourself more than you yourself want that, perhaps the most important consequence.
No, the problem is that parents aren’t true to themselves when it comes to parenting.
Parents all too often are conformist parents.
A parent, in my opinion, should decide when a daughter is making a big mistake,
and force her not to make it.
Mothers who choose wisely
what to let their daughters do
don’t get rewarded for authenticity
like a little girl would.
An authentic gene has its reward,
it evolves
falling or rising
more according to its own worth.
If your mom’s a good parent,
does the right things
when intersecting your sex life,
there’s a good chance your children will be good parents too.
But it’s not as good a chance as the chance your children will
be sexually wise as teenagers
if you are.

You’re young,
your mind more plastic.
Very wise and informative you’d be
in bed
if you were yourself.
Yes, it would be enjoyable
to learn
what you would teach me
if you were yourself
such teaching would have
many applications.
So admittedly it’s not just that (if I’m good) you’ll
get more real pleasure by being yourself
if in bed with me.
It’s good for you to be yourself,
but largely it’s because I’m understanding that I want you to be so,
notwithstanding during sex to the extent I am good is the extent
my penis can force
to do what I want,
and what I want most
to force you to do
to force you
to be yourself.
Your mom may want you to be yourself,
at least she would when and if she has approved of you and I having sex.
But to really want you so, as much or more as I do,
once you and I have sex
I need to force you to want you to be yourself,
or she won’t respect me as much
or look at you steely-eyed
like she knows it will go easier for you
if she helps you find yourself
by stroking your hair
while telling you to submit
because it’s all so very innocent
and beautiful.
She will be especially true to herself
when and if her concern becomes how to help
get as much sex pleasure from me as possible.
Not that I wish to assert that I be so wonderful she couldn’t reject me notwithstanding
she be authentic.
No, it’s just that anyone genuinely interested in what pleases young girls sexually
must be true to themselves
because the part of a person that most understands that
is the part that girls over the generations have the most lusted for
and been drawn into bed by
Girl lust paints the genetic material it likes with what makes the desires of that material
in future generations
in a way the conformist cancer in our genes
can not resist
and doesn’t want to
when what little girls want

Conformity is a cancer of sorts.
Conformist genes
in the part of the genome that doesn’t matter
really don’t act like they would care if individuals they are in
evolve well.
They just would want to reproduce.
The important genes where evolution really matters,
they get overwhelmed by the junk,
and are forced by conformist genes not to live or die according to their own worth,
contrary to what the important genes would want (if somehow genes could want what was in their best interest).
Clearly, success should not be measured indiscriminately,
by the amount of genetic material that has passed down,
but by the amount of important genetic material that has done so.
The cancer of conformity in our genes
makes animals,
people too,
less successful than they could be,
when success is measured
using reasonable definitions.

Funny thing about cancer, though:
it is simple.
Conformist cancer lies
in the part of the genome
where nothing really important
ever evolves
It doesn’t seem quite able to manage
to make us conform to just this or that.
So when it wants us not to conform,
like when it sees it is in its best interest
for the individual it is in
to really understand what pleases
young girls during coitus,
it has no choice,
but to give all the genes
the general reign
to the extent they are importunate,
and turn itself off.

You make me be myself.
If you want me,
I’ll make you be yourself.
If your mom wants us to have sex,
our sex will make her be herself,
and because mothers have so much control over our fears,
she’ll encourage my seduction of you
better than I can.

Even if conformity were had to the lesser, selfish extent,
morally it still would be excessive.
A good person would care about his genetic material evolving well
not just because that would benefit himself
but also because it would benefit the likely good mates his good genetic material
would love in future generations,
and because encouraging the evolution of beauty
is near to what goodness is.
What can humanity do to encourage
people to be true to themselves?

Only one thing ultimately really encourages people to be true to themselves, in my opinion.
If it goes away, people will gradually become conformist twits.
Young girls full of lust
do during copulation
and more especially copulation during a (multi-girl) orgy
[by the way, my diction does not assume that an orgy implies alcohol or drugs be involved, just many females]
paint the penis with chemicals.
These chemicals get absorbed by the male.
They create a coating of sorts on his genome that over generations
make regions loved especially well by girls
to be different from other regions,
more especially painted as it were.
The epigenetic “paint” on these regions causes the genes over which they are painted
to be especially importunate and powerful when it comes to demanding dominance
when their products are read.
As a result, the areas of little genetic importance,
where the conformist cancer lies,
they don’t get read as seriously
as the genetic regions where girls have consistently found past evolution
so pleasant
as to have lusted for it in
the sex that to a certain extent
created our ancestors.

We are all non-conformist
mostly just to the extent little girls in lustful orgies
have made us so.

Strange thing, though,
the pleasures inside you
that you will want
and let me enslave you
will awaken in you new wants
you won't be able to resist
forcing me
to be me.
You would probably be successful
since morally
we would see it appropriate
and I want you.
I won't be able to enslave you
without being me.

Fear the common, not the weird.

The other day, I got to thinking how peculiar it is that nowadays people tend to consider weirdness as something to be fearful and suspicious of. Occasionally, people will look at me or one of my original ideas as "so weird" and look slowly away from me like they are somehow more clean and respectable for having boring normal ideas. This, I say, is a modern attitude. Time was, people suspected you of being coarse to the extent you were common. "That is so common", I remember often hearing when young, and indeed, the insult is still occasionally used. The insult vulgar, used in a similar way, comes from the Latin vulgaris, meaning "of the mob" or "of the common people". True, there might be an element of elitism in such usage, but I claim the past attitude was preferable.

A good approximation is to think of goodness as love of beauty, where beauty is part goodness and part tangible useful qualities, i.e., talents. Since goodness involves love of itself, to avoid circularity, think of morality as partly love of talent, partly love of love of talent, partly love of love of love of talent,...; then define beauty as what morality loves and goodness as that part of beauty that is not talent, i.e., that which is love; from evolutionary considerations it is then reasonable to suppose that goodness is the same as morality, and that the components of beauty (as well as goodness) are weighted like a geometric distribution with ratio the fraction of beauty that is love.

The important point to distill from the immediately preceding (approximate) definition of goodness is that goodness is an ideal. Goodness is a desire to make the world more a certain way; to wit, to make the world a more beautiful place. Idealists can prosper more than selfish people because they will tend to be loved unselfishly by idealists who share their ideal. Idealists will tend to love one another unselfishly, while selfish people will never tend to be loved unselfishly, and so idealists can prosper better than selfish people. Of course, there are many ideals that people can have, so many different versions of idealism. Peacocks, for instance, would seem to have an ideal very similar to humans, but rather than considering abstract talent as beautiful in itself, they apparently consider fancy tail feathers as beautiful. Humans, being more able to handle abstract concepts, tend to find talent as the concrete, not-involving-love part of beauty. Indeed, idealists who want the world to be more full of talented complex people will tend to love unselfishly talented complex people by mating unselfishly with them. And if you are going to mate unselfishly with someone, you are going to prosper better if the mate you chose has talents, inasmuch as these talent are desirable both in raising the children and in ensuring the children themselves have genetic qualities suited to prospering.

Goodness is present in people (or rather in some people, to various degrees) because it is an ideal, namely love of beauty, and because love of beauty is more or less the most useful ideal that you can possess. The point I wish to make here is that if beauty is the most useful thing to love, its opposite may be presumed to be approximately the least useful thing to love. It is not at all reasonable then to suppose that people could arise who are evil from it being their nature to desire to further badness or ugliness. It is not reasonable to suppose that there could evolve to be people who are evil because they idealistically by nature want to make the world less beautiful; such would be approximately the least useful ideal. Badness is not, then, some complicated ideal contrary to goodness. Badness is merely absence of goodness in favor of selfishness; it is not an ideal, but rather selfishness. There is nothing special about selfishness, it requiring merely a knowledge of one's own self interest which it may be presumed both the good and the bad possess. Badness is not special; it is on the contrary common.

Yes, but one may argue that there are people who are beyond bad, who are what I call evil in that they actually do behave at times contrary to their own self-interest ostensibly perhaps just to destroy beauty. But I say these people are not by nature evil. Evil people are bad people who through their own mediocrity have come to believe the lies they have found it convenient to surround themselves with. For instance, a person who from a bad selfish nature finds it convenient to be controllingly abusive might to make himself more scary pretend it is the nature of bad people to desire to destroy those who are good, in as much as goodness is contrary to wanting to submit to him. If he too believes the pretensions he submits his girlfriend to, that could turn him from merely a bad abusive boyfriend into an evil murderer. Or take Hitler (from Mein Kampf):

The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is half-hearted and weak.

Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They are equally unaware of their shameless spiritual terrorization and the hideous abuse of their human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.

If Social Democracy is opposed by a doctrine of greater truth, but equal brutality of methods, the latter will conquer, though this may require the bitterest struggle.

Hitler's objective was to appeal to common (in the worst sense) people. People who wanted to support leaders as though they believed, among other things, the lie that females from "an indefinable emotional longing" want to be controlled. It is not all especially difficult to define such an emotional longing: it is a result of having gotten one's hindquarters screwed by a controlling man and is as vulgar as one might imagine. If Hitler had just pretended to believe in such a natural emotional longing, he merely would have been bad. He actually believed it, though, and lo it turned out that the masses in the non-fascist countries he presumably thought hated controlling types from love of weakness didn't love weakness much at all (it is not as though he or his soldiers could personally screw all their hindquarters) and were strong determined fighters who gave his country rather worse than it dished out, it all ending in a pointless dreadfully evil destruction of humanity.

A bad person if lacking worthwhile qualities might pretend that those who claim to have especially worthwhile qualities are just fake, and that if society has given someone particular responsibilities or acclaim from a sense the person was special, that is not a very important right society should have, and on the contrary society has been faked. When manipulating others to like him, he might try, e.g., to get them to read Catcher in the Rye or similarly deceptive media that degrades the respected so that (e.g., in mating) they won't care much about his (impossible to hide) mediocrity. An evil person, on the other hand, he is so mediocre as also to actually believe the fundamental idea of Catcher in the Rye, and so he goes out and tries to shoot the president or the most popular rock star or whomever. (Strong admiration for The Catcher in the Rye is known to be one of the best indicators of a potential assassin.)

There is nothing weird or special about evil. Evil is merely absence of goodness together with a particular sort of mediocrity of understanding.

But it isn't just that distaste for weirdness shows lack of discrimination that I disdain criticism of weirdness qua weirdness. People have a degree of choice as to how much they wish to follow their own authentic tendencies. Someone who is true to himself, yes, his faults (such as are displayed), they are his own, but like Stevenson's donkey, so too are his virtues. Succeeding or failing more according to your own tendencies is a nobler thing than just imitating the tendencies of others, for the former sort of behavior, if general would lead to much faster evolution of the complex sort of tendencies humanity needs. In particular, if you accept your moral system or mating tendencies, such as you have, ready made, say from some religious institution, well, you might be better than a purely selfish person, but you are a far cry from one with authentic moral values that come from within. And a good girl judges not so much from considering her potential mate's faults and deficiencies as from considering his virtues. Faults die out, they are short term. They hurt her, but they won't so much hurt the more distant future. Virtues, they grow. They might not grow into much during her life time, but by loving them now, she just might be enabling his special virtue to multiply into a powerful positive influence upon eternity. Virtuous girls are more accepting of quirkiness in a potential mate than less good girls are.

I must admit, authenticity of belief and love of quirkiness are not so easily found in our world as are other virtues.

I wrote the first part of this post (and saved it as a draft) in late June. I felt there was something else involved, which now I have a somewhat better handle on. Being authentic is akin to mating early. Good people wouldn't from mere altruism selection be supposed to mate nearly as early as would be moral, because the benefits to one's genetic material of mating early are distant. Similarly, on the face of it one can't see how an otherwise good person would evolve to be nearly as authentic and non-conformist as would be moral. Indeed, the benefit of authenticity is that it encourages future evolution by increasing the correlation between future evolutionary success and genetic worth. And traits that encourage future, faster evolution are so distantly rewarding they just don't get selected for well by what selects for idealistic and altruistic tendencies.

Notwithstanding there are not really forces that select for authenticity at the individual level, there are forces that select for it on the gene level. I.e., it is necessary to think in terms of competition between different alleles (in diploid individuals) rather than competition between individuals. These inter-allele competitive forces would not nearly select for authenticity as much as would be ideal (unless something else be involved), but they do select for it somewhat (also they select for early mating somewhat, though not nearly so much as the effects arising from sperm selection). I believe the lack of authenticity among the good is more general than lack of desire for early mating; excess conformity is quite a systematic obnoxious problem. That said, I am hesitant to say that people should be extremely more authentic, for though it would be good if somehow there were some way to make all otherwise good people be authentic, in fact, even though a typical good individual's genetic material would prosper more by being significantly more authentic, if a good individual were to become so exceedingly more authentic as to possess an amount of authenticity that would be in the best interest of good people as a whole for every good person to possess, then that good individual would likely suffer from his idiosyncrasy, which would be bad since his willingness to be so exceedingly authentic would encourage his demise, which would make the world more full of conformists.

More later. It turns out authenticity is I am inclined to think very much encouraged by female lust and the consideration that when describing evolutionary success it is reasonable to weight success of important genes more than success of unimportant genes. Female lust has epigenetic effects, in my opinion, which allow the genome to differentiate between important genes and unimportant ones. I have written a poem which outlines the idea--I'll probably post it. Then I think I'll post various other ideas I have been having lately about female lust, and in particular its likely epigenetic effects. Another thing I've been thinking lately is that cocaine is significantly more evil than people give it credit for being; indeed, I have come across papers (Researchers Find Alterations In Brain's Circuitry Caused By Cocaine) indicating that very recent research indicates cocaine effects gene expression in the brain by altering histones. Histone modification is as likely candidate as any for how female lust produces its epigenetic effects, histone modification having a certain inheritableness that is a hot topic among epigeneticists. Anyway I have concluded that if my worst fears are true, cocaine use might lead to alteration of the histone configuration about DNA that could last centuries if not millennia, which within a millennia or two would cause the world to become full of conformist twits who hate diversity. E.g., you'd tend to see lots of war and human sacrifice. Female lust would become totally pointless, and all its beneficial effects on the evolution of higher moral traits would disappear for a few millennia. In other words, if the war on cocaine isn't won in a few generations, it would follow mathematically that humanity will, if nothing is done to reverse these effects, with a very high probability, destroy itself in an orgy of mass murder within a millennia or two. But I will talk about that later, after I have studied the situation much better. There's so much complexity (and in particular, complex chemistry) involved, it is well I think about the situation for a few years or months (to clear away the fog of ignorance) before I publicize any conclusions I might reach. In particular I have to be clear what exactly are the defenses that prevent female lust chemicals from being effectively made otherwise than by females (e.g., by males or coca plants).