Friday, December 22, 2006

Lust one can't help

In my last post, I mentioned the following qualification to my theory that female sunbathers can use the quality of their tans to judge the naturalness of their lust:

First, the chemicals in the female bloodstream, lymph, etc., that artificial (sodomy-produced) lust creates would have to be slightly different from the natural lust that exists in the female bloodstream when a female is lusting as a result of her own nature having led her to it. That doesn't strike me as very difficult to imagine, though I don't pretend to be perfectly clear about it.

I underestimated the extent to which I was looking at this the wrong way. A very useful and important distinction is in order, that hitherto I had not appreciated the significance of.

My previous picture of how female lust worked was basically that female brain decides to lust, female brain makes lust chemical, this makes for more lust chemical in vaginal secretions, some of this suffuses through body to make brain bathed in more lust chemical, all of which lust chemical is pleasant to the female to the extent her brain has decided it be pleasant (assuming no depravity be involved) to lust for the male under consideration. This is too simplistic. If a female brain wants to lust, for whatever reason, it will lust to the extent it is able, whether the reasons it has decided to lust be natural or otherwise. So looking at things using this model, if a female wants to lust just because of sodomy having made her want to, well, she will, and so the lust floating through her bloodstream will be just as pure and genuinely female as it otherwise would be. No useful test.

The distinction that is necessary is one between willed lust on the one hand and unwilled lust, i.e., lust-that-can't-be-helped, on the other hand. By unwilled lust, I mean lust that just comes more-or-less automatically upon considering the male or more especially considering having sex with him. Unwilled lust reflects the particular innate lust tendencies of the female toward the object under consideration given her perception and understanding of him. Unwilled lust has got a quick start, as is useful when a female is trying to figure out her natural lust tendencies by considering and fantasizing about all the various situations and male tendencies she might lust about. It is purely brain at the start. The unwilled lust when it gets started in the brain it quickly reaches out on the one hand to pleasure receptors which get pleasure from it to the extent they are primed to do so, and on the other hand to receptors in the female reproductive system that make lust chemical. The lust chemical from the female reproductive system circulates through the body and stimulates basically the same pleasure receptors. But the willed lust is different. The willed lust doesn't act on pleasure receptors directly or almost so. The willed lust goes (via nerves, presumably) only directly to the female reproductive system, where it produces lust chemicals that produce pleasure to the extent the receptors for them are primed to do so. Here is my point. If a female wills herself to lust, well, all her willed lust is going to be pretty much the same if the lust was produced by sodomy or otherwise; but if a female is feeling unwilled lust on account of sodomy, what that means basically is both that the lust receptors (mostly in her brain, presumably) have been primed by unnatural chemicals to enjoy lust and that unnatural pseudo-lust chemicals able to lock on to these receptors have been introduced. There won't be any real lust unless the female wills it, because there won't be any nerve signals sent to the female reproductive system from the brain to make the lust chemical (a chemical males can't make, in my opinion, from a totally different reason).

All these considerations point out some pitfalls too often placed before us. People of little understanding in the scientific community are forever not just doing brain scans of humans and comparing them with lower animals, which is important of course from the standpoint of figuring out how people have evolved, but also concluding that because the brain areas involved in abstraction evolved later, this proves abstraction and the will that such abstractions control somehow are higher and better than the more primitive brain areas involved merely in producing tendencies and more direct likings. And basically what the gist of their recommendations end up being is that lustful people should use their will more to control their lusts. Well, that is a WRONG, PERVERSE recommendation to a girl trying to figure out if her lust be authentic. Things are a lot more complicated than these experimenters are wont to make us believe. Sure, after concluding that lust not be authentic, it is very important to use the will to decrease lust, but in a way since that follows automatically from it being even more important for the will to will the female into running away kicking and screaming (which by removing the female from the sordid causes of her lust will in fact reduce her lust), this is not really using the will to decrease lust in any direct way as such experimenters tend to seem to suggest. As we have seen, authentic female lust is easily distinguishable from pseudo-lust induced by sodomy basically only to the extent the lust is not produced by the will, but by the more primitive less abstract area of the brain. Experiments, even if state of the art, oftentimes are a very poor substitute for thought, especially if (as occurs to me at the moment) their real purpose (or rather the reason the experimenter has the tendency to push his explanation of the experiment--it is giving too much of a compliment to suggest these experimenters actually have much by way of the understanding needed even to frame such a purpose) is to confuse the psyche about the experiments that really ought to be done and which girls are pleased with innately.

All of this clears up in my head something that has been bothering me for a while. I have noticed intuitively that girls are very scared of lusting and that even when having sex they would be. The logic I have produced supporting this has been awkward and not very implicative of the strong fears I suspect there ordinarily would be. After all, Why would a girl who wants sex soon, while she is still young, be afraid of lust during sex when sex that doesn't involve female lust might as well be postponed because present non-lustful sex will for all practical purposes have the same capacity to please her as sex she could have later by waiting? A better, more precise way of putting things is that girls are afraid of willing lust, during sex or otherwise. The more will a girl puts into lusting, the more her lust would resemble lust produced by the same amount of will but initiated by sordidness, and the harder it is for her to distinguish the two.

Something that kind of led me to the thoughts I had today was the intuitive impression the sunbathing test would work much better if the male the girl lusts for is nearby. Doubtless it is easier for a girl to lust without will if the male is there (especially if he is not particularly dressed much), so his presence might be expected to make her more at ease with the conclusions of the lust tests.

Another kind of lust test a girl can use is to see whether unwilled lust can make her reproductive system wet with lust mucous. But that's a little tricky perhaps, since some unwilled secretions might be related to lubrication (important in avoiding abrasions that perhaps might permit addictive chemicals to be absorbed) or to pressures exuding exudates from the blood (high blood pressures there might keep unwanted chemicals trying to enter (say through abrasions) out rather as pressure in a buried water pipe can keep contaminants out of the water (and so after pressure drops, water can get muddy). (But in the female reproductive system the situation is sort of reversed, the contaminants are in the inside rather, trying to go out through the vagina wall into a region of higher pressure.)

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Lustful female sunbathers checking their tans to test the cleanliness and reverse transcriptase qualities of their lust.

Today it has occurred to me that a female by lusting might protect herself from the harm of sun exposure. Indeed, if my theory is right (confer the post before last), female lust needs to encourage a genetic conversion of some of her mate's sperm DNA to her own DNA, which needs must be done (presumably) by using RNA as a template. One can imagine that the same chemical that allows this to occur in the zygote allows RNA transcription to occur more readily in other places in the female, and in particular to occur when it can be useful in repairing DNA damaged by excess sun exposure (or other things), as could be useful in preventing cancer, for instance.

OK, here's the deal. Suppose a lustful female were uncertain whether her lust were clean, natural, and innocent--a lust from herself as a result of real feelings that came from her own judgment and sensibility applied to her object of affection--or whether it be sordid, as a result of depravity (sodomy). This is needless to say a kind of doubt and mixed emotion females have in their intuition all the time in our not very discriminating society. No problem, all the girl has to do is lust while outside in the sun. If while laying out she lusts long and hard for the male who occasions the lust she wishes to test, concentrating fixedly on how his penis would be to her during sex, etc., and she doesn't get nearly as sunburned as normal, if she enjoys the warmth, etc., without getting much burnt, then she should know that presumably her lust is real. Onnnn the other hand, if she does get quite burnt, that should be evidence to her if she is feeling lust that maybe she should change drastically. The lust being artificial (caused by sodomy) would perhaps lack the blessed reverse-transcriptase properties that natural female lust possesses, and so she would not have been protected from the DNA damage of the sun's ultraviolet rays. Any DNA damage on one chromosome could not very well be repaired by the DNA on the homologous chromosome (as my theory posits can happen) as it would if her lust had been real, and so she would experience the burning pain of irreparable degradation of surface epidermal DNA. The sun god does not approve of "her" lust, and the somewhat hellish pain would lead her (perhaps, at any rate) to think she should reform, evidence the obtaining of which was worth her now slightly increased risk of getting sun cancer.

I point out now two qualifications of this theory.

First, the chemicals in the female bloodstream, lymph, etc., that artificial (sodomy-produced) lust creates would have to be slightly different from the natural lust that exists in the female bloodstream when a female is lusting as a result of her own nature having led her to it. That doesn't strike me as very difficult to imagine, though I don't pretend to be perfectly clear about it.

Second, these arguments about female lust also of course doubtless (if followed beyond my current level of understanding) have to do with retrotransposons, since it is well-known reverse transcription from RNA is how retrotransposons (along with retroviruses like AIDS) manage to reproduce themselves. Giving one's retrotransposons free reign to replicate about one's chromosomal DNA might at least under ordinary circumstances be disadvantageous (for example, in causing other kinds of cancer), even if the chemicals that encourage this free reign might be expected to protect against acute genetic damage from sunlight, for example. Female lust seems innocuous enough--not like it can create some scary and dangerous (to the female) amount of retrotransposon activity--but it does kind of make sense that if it were as simple as female lust prevents cancer, females would have evolved to lust a great deal more. But I must confess I just haven't figured out how retrotransposons fit in, though I'm quite sure--it makes obvious sense--that they are relevant somehow.

Intuitively it also makes sense to me that my view of the connection between solar radiation and lust is correct. Obviously young lustful females have something of a tendency to lay out more, and to get a kind of physical enjoyment from being in the sun. And something that has always struck me as strange is that I (and others, I presume) don't fear sunlight as much as the pain of sunburn would suggest I should. The couple of times I have gotten sun burn, well, I never had any inkling pain-wise that I had gotten too much sun until after I had already gotten sufficient sun to have gotten burnt and had left the sun. My intuition is almost always more right than that, even about abstruse things, so what happened? And my intuition about the danger of sun has seemed remarkably lacking. E.g., last time I got sun burnt, I figured, well, it's cloudy, so no need to worry about getting sunburnt (I never was taught in science about the inability of clouds to absorb UV rays). This sort of intuitive idiocy is actually sort of useful to females (and I suppose leads somewhat to idiocy in males, where it is not useful since males can't make female lust to protect themselves, but where it still exists presumably because males and females mostly have the same DNA). If people knew and intuitively felt how dangerous the sun is while or before getting sunburnt, well, it probably never would occur to them to lay out in the sun as a test to see whether one can get sunburnt, which only a loony person would do who isn't wise enough to see the appropriateness of it, and anyone that wise would tend to know already whether her lust were real, and so wouldn't care for such a test, unless maybe she wanted physiologically to be like a girl prudent enough to have undergone such a test. But having an innate tendency to enjoy the sun even somewhat after it has inflicted damage (and to respond very painfully to such damage once it occurs) perhaps gives us a protection against lusting on account of artificial, sodomy-induced reasons.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Seminal paper

I noticed that the seminal paper about RNA inheritance, written in March of last year, about RNA inheritance in cress plants, is online. This is what first got me to thinking about RNA inheritance, and is really more suggestive of what I think is going on than the paper mentioned in my previous entry about mice.

RNA Inheritance

This paper, DNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse , is very interesting. As soon as I heard earlier this year of the notion of RNA inheritance (in plants), it occurred to me that the same phenomenon could be what is needed to ennable the mismatch repair and gene conversion that is believed to occur in spermatogenesis to be postponed slightly (until formation of the zygote) so it can be regulated instead by the (female) mate's genome, something I had predicted in January 2004 as being likely on account of how certain very lustful females seem to like lust more than I otherwise could account for, in a way that resonated with me.

It occured to me earlier this year it makes sense that something like what this paper describes would be significant mainly as a way of repairing DNA (I predict that) not only because it would ennable gene conversion in spermatogenesis to be postponed, but also because it would allow damaged DNA on one chromosome to "use" the (RNA made from) DNA of the homologous chromosome to repair itself. This also would for instance explain why sunburn is so much more of a big deal cancer- and pain-wise than the gradual sun exposure that produces suntan. If my hypothesis is correct, genetic damage is only very harmful if it is so intense that both copies of the DNA are likely to be damaged at homologous places. In other words, the signficance to cancer of genetic damage is more proportional to the square (or perhaps third- or fourth-power, thinking strand-wise) of the recent damage.

Here is a good example of the evils of censorship. I had posted the poem explaining my ideas about this gene conversion phenomenon way back in 2004, but because my paranoid parents convinced me I was taking too much of a chance jail-wise of posting such an erotic poem about mere girls, I removed it a week or so later. Well, gee whiz, not only is it not pornography, the idea of it might well be key to understanding cancer among other things. And by having taken it down, now people can't see what a genius I was to predict the phenomenon before scientists did any experiments to make it plausible--not like that's going to help my standing with the scientific community, that I would need, for instance, to be respected enough to get a good job if I ever need to do that. So fuck, I'll post the poem, exactly as I posted it in January 2004, with the same preface I posted it with then. As my relative Maria Weston Chapman once said (regarding Channing's hesitance to speak strongly against the evil of slavery and of women not being allowed to speak in public about such when he felt this might reduce his support among the "respectable" people who put money in his collection plates), "Without courage, no truth, & without truth no other virtue".

[Here's a poem about sex. More particularly, a poem about sex with young females. The stereotype is that parents don't want their young daughters' having sex. However, if my theory is right that girls actually have a greater capacity for sexual pleasure than older females when having sex with a virtuous male, then it would stand to reason that a parent would want her daughter to have sex while she is still young if the daughter is in love with a virtuous male. In particular, mothers, typically being more in tune with their daughters' wants and needs, would probably feel this way. So I try to describe the emotion a typical mother of a pretty female would feel toward her daughter if the daughter actually should soon have sex with a man.

There are several notions I am trying to get at in this poem.

There is the notion that it seems as though girls should have sex largely for their own pleasure. This seems reasonable for at least three reasons. First, for the same reason that sexual pleasure is a most selfish pleasure in males, it is a most unselfish pleasure in females. Yeah, it is a pleasure, and like all pleasures is somewhat selfish, still, it is less selfish than other pleasure. Secondly, moral virtue in males being an especial sexual turn-on to a female when she is young, sexual pleasure is even more innocent in young females than in females generally. Thirdly, when a person is unsure of what constitutes her own view as to what is moral, as young people may be presumed more to be, it rather seems more safe for her compared with adults to be ruled a little more by pleasure than by moral laws. This third reason is the reason I was mainly trying to get at and understand in the poem, my mostly not having thought of its application to young-female sex before.

Also, I am trying to figure out why mothers (and to a lesser agree their daughters) are both turned-on and disturbed by the thought of a male using sex with other young females to increase the sexual pleasure of the daughter. My theories suggest that in young females, sexual lust is unusually contagious, and so girls are very pleased at the thought of other younger females having sex with a decent male if she is having sex with him. Unfortunately, females all too often see this behavior as cruel. They fail to appreciate that the analogy between a female using one male to make another male jealous (thereby increasing the desire of the latter to be depravedly addicting) and a male using other females partly to increase the sexual pleasure of another female for him is a false one. Yes, sure, a just guy if having sex with several females is likely going to more reward the girl he likes most by switching to her most every other time he switches, unabashedly using the other girls to increase the sexual pleasure of this girl, but in him, at least, I can't see how this behavior would encourage him to feel himself less loving of any females he is having sex with. Cruelty would appear irrelevant.

Still, it feels to me like there is a great pleasure that a young female can get from a male very calmly and dispassionately using young girls for her sexual pleasure. Intuitively, this pleasure seems more great than anything I have an explanation for. I think it has something to do with crossover encouraging gene conversion. It as though if enough female unholy lust gets put in a female, genetic inversion happens in such a way that some of the male genetic material in the edge of the converted region (where his genetic material has been less thickly painted with lust and hers has been more thickly painted) will get converted through gene conversion into her DNA. But biology would indicate that such would have to be postponed a generation. I don't really know what is going on, just have a feeling something is going on (involving, perhaps, imprinting, genetic crossover, epigenetic inheritance, etc.) that I have not understood very well yet. But no reason to avoid pleasures just because they aren't understood, right?

As always, I define the word "fuck" so that it implies in addition to copulation merely the absence of any caring responsibility in the subject. Poetical words are screwed-up. Alas, there is no recourse but to a word that also has disgusting connotations. Indeed, both the sodomites and the prudes want there to be no distinction between words suggesting a female wants sex mainly for the sex (suggestive of a loving female) and words suggesting a female wants her ass screwed (suggestive of a guttersnipe). That way sodomizers can make skanky females think they are being smartly loving, and prudes can make others think their selfish tendency to mate for money rather than good sex is just cleanliness. It is necessary, therefore, for me to have decreed what I meant. I prefer this option to unnaturally interrupting my poem by otherwise necessary explanation. That poetical sex words have such unpoetical connotations could be a sign that sex is best discussed only scientifically, as in my book. The reason sex words tend to have bad connotations could be seen as a sign that good people don't tend to force them to have good connotations by using them poetically often. However, girls are not women in general. Girls having sex have had to come to their own understandings about sex quickly, or their love is not really their own love but merely the love a parent or whoever wants them to feel. Only by being very emotional and poetical can a girl understand her sexual nature sufficiently quickly-rational wisdom takes too much time. Thought is slow, too slow for girls wanting to have sex presently. So in this sense emotions and poetry are more appropriate when dealing with girl sex than woman sex. Similarly, good females very much more tend to be willing to have sex without commitment, which tends to imply a short amount of time with the male, when intuition and an absorbing of sensation is paramount, and then a long period of intellectual reflection and deduction. So good females potentially need to be both very emotional and very intellectual at different times, which makes both the poetry of sex and the dry scientifically deductive treatment of sex especially relevant to good females regardless of their tendencies to have sex late or early. Erotic poetry has an important place.]

Sex with Girls
Right now
I want to relax
To dream
Of nude young girls
By the dozens
Catering to all my
Sexual wants
Wants me to do
The exact same thing
And is frightened
I won't be cruel enough
To do it
The way her secret
Sex thrill
My penis do it
For her daughter

Is not what people make it out to be
The girls
I want to make love to
I don't want to love
For selfish reasons
I want their
to be used
For your daughter's
Greater sexual satisfaction
I want them-
sorry, I expect them-
to obey my penis's commands.
A body divided against itself
Can't stand.
Is beautiful
Is good
I want all the girls
Having sex with me
To enjoy it
More than what I know.

I feel like
There is something
I can do
--Something I haven't thought of yet,
That on the face of it
Will give them a sexual pleasure
From copulating with me
Far greater than any I have thought of
Or understood.
Little Girls are young
And easily startled
They don't really know
What is good for themselves
To anything like a degree of certainty.
They know better
How to experience innocent purely sexual pleasure
Than What love is.
Purely sexual pleasure is the most unselfish pleasure
For a female to want in herself the increase of;
For a little girl, even more so.
I'm not really sure I want girls to copulate for love
I want them mainly to let me fuck them because
they expect by so doing an amount of purely sexual pleasure it doesn't please them to resist.
At night when they masturbate
they obtain (among other things)
an unbiased estimation of the pleasure
sex with me would give.
And then they bias this best unbiased estimator of their pleasure by
taking into account the prior distribution of their pleasure-the
that gives
the relative probability that a
non-specific man,
chosen at random,
would give an unspecified amount of innocent
purely sexual pleasure
if she should have sex with him.
Combining her best unbiased estimator with
the prior distribution-
Each in proportion to her estimation of its inverse variance-,
she would get a sum;
the sum would tell her for any given level of innocent
sexual pleasure
what the relative chances would be
of obtaining that.

I want girls to have sex with me
because they expect
A level of sexual pleasure
Beyond what they should resist.
Which basically should be the level beyond which they are not pleased to resist.

But a child may be
too scared
to satisfy her innocent pleasant lusts or, Who knows?
Might bark up the wrong tree.

A parent can help
Her daughter get what she sexually wants
By telling her if her sexual desires are innocent, and
by disillusioning her if they are not.

Indeed, I do think sometimes that girls can get much more pleasure in copulating with a man wanting to sexually please them than my theories indicate. I don't really know why, though your explanation whatever it be, is, I think, wrong. Right well it would be to find the answer. Sometimes pleasures have to be thought of and understood to be thoroughly realized. Without understanding comes some error. I want in.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

More about why young female sexuality is unjustly maligned

The following is something I posted today in a discussion at (under my name, Stephen Meigs). I liked it so I am posting it here. Actually, there is a lot of stuff (some of it several years old) that I have posted in various forums and on usenet, which my dedicated admirers ought to be able to find by googling step314, the screenname I always try to use, or Stephen A. Meigs, or rarely, Stephen Meigs.

Yeah, well, a lot of the behaviors that are sexually loving toward young females are misunderstood as not loving. Certain bad people and those who cater to them want natural affection in girls to be viewed as sordid so when they introduce something unnatural (screwed-up) there, well, they can just say that it was nothing more than what was there to begin with. And then there is another group, some of their main competitors strangely enough, who though they aren't much into defiling innocence yet are more than happy to convince a desirable fallen young lady that her misfortunes (as measured by dollars and cents, for example) had to do not with her having been addicted to depravity, but with her having had sex too early on account of girls' sexual desires naturally being stupid. The reason is obvious enough: such a male wants to control the young woman with depravity (sodomy) himself and revels at the chance of being able to do so without making the woman realize he is doing anything unnatural as would tend to be necessary when dealing with a female who has not by intimate acquaintance with depravity become sophisticated in the idiot sense. Both the ravisher seducers and the slick seducers want people to think natural girl sexuality is immoral or stupid. Their lies, being unified, have had their effect on our culture's attitudes toward girls. I shall list some of the things teenage girls in love rightly appreciate but for which they are unjustly maligned.

Girls (and females generally) like to know where they stand, so brusqueness, telling them almost right away whether you feel like you just want them for (meaningful) reproductive sex or also as a wife, is a good loving thing (even though it is not loving for a male to emotionally dwell on not wanting to care for a girl or her offspring by him, and though being brusque is impractical if carried to extremes). Anyway, what goes by politeness isn't always as loving as it is cracked up to be, and oftentimes is just manipulative reserve. These sorts of males make girls look bad by putting things off, forcing a girl requiring commitment to reject him in a way that makes her look mercenary, and they waste her time.

Girls tend to be a bundle of irrational fears when they are in love. These fears stem basically from a fear that the male she is considering is on account of a deceptive nature in him much worse than he appears. Well, a good male knows enough about himself to know that he is not bad (and to see the logic that even if he were bad, well, why would he care), so he obviously is not particularly concerned about catering to the girl's fears. Nay, because lovingly he cares about how much pleasure the girl will get (and his own), and because unselfishly he is more willing to risk driving her away, he will more than bad males try to use some of the girl's excess of affection (excess in the sense that it is more than what she needs to want to have sex with him) to force the girl to ignore her fears about him, and to have sex likes she trusts him more-or-less completely, which will be more pleasant and rewarding to everybody concerned because he really is worthy of trust. So yeah, if a male doesn't try to make a girl with whom he is having sex his sex slave in the clean perfectly reasonable sense of not allowing her to be scared much, yeah, the girl and more especially her mother will sort of wonder about him. But a girl wanting her hair pulled in that sense doesn't mean she wants to have her hair pulled in some vulgar sense, e.g., by depravity or violence. Actually, innocuous enslavement works because girls do want love emotion so much--the main tool whereby a good male typically forces a girl to be true to herself and to trust him is by withholding his loving emotions when she be bad and untrusting, which so much decreases her pleasure, she can't help but be obedient to his wishes. And this right sort of enslavement is not rape-like, because trying through reward/punishment to eliminate a female's fears about how to have sex is not rape, if she always has the freedom to walk away from sex (a freedom obviously she should have).

Another loving thing for a male to do, often confused with sordidness, is to more try at the start to put scary constructions on what he wants, or at least to not try to hide them much. That way, later, if and when she actually has sex, she will have had so much occasion to investigate any scary association that sex might have, it won't be as scary as it otherwise would be were these constructions then to suddenly jump to mind. And girls get a great deal more from good sex if it isn't scary, all things else equal. What matters to a girl's pleasure (if she is having sex with a virtuous male) is how cool she is while having sex, not how cool she was before.

And lastly, girls tend to like sex stretchy and hard, because that makes sex more girl-like, the whole point of not waiting. (I think the tendency for girls to tend to want sex presently with virtuous males has to do with intraejaculate sperm selection--young females' reproductive insides select for different sperm than older females' reproductive insides). This is oftentimes confused with a desire to be hit in a violent injurious sense, which of course it is illogical to suppose persons would have evolved to want.

Update: (June 3, 2008) Since for whatever reason this page seems to generate many hits and comments (compared with my other pages), I think it well to point out that nine months later I revisited this subject matter in two of my best posts (a two-part series), here, and here; it seems to me my derivations in these later posts are even more amazing.

Friday, November 17, 2006


Rant: I hate forums where by policy one can't see some of the material unless one has a certain number of posts. Fake posts just to get what I want seem unethical to me, though I'm sure such policies won't deter obnoxious people. I bet most of the people talking at these forums mostly don't even know about these policies, the policies tending to be implemented only after the board has been established awhile.

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

A poem about sacredness.

This poem of mine is kind of dim (some might say boring), but I like it. I am in a mood for increased sacredness. I also cherished sacredness during the period last year in Maryland after it was decided we were moving to North Carolina.


Sometimes I wonder,
What exactly I am doing.
Because I don’t understand
my motivations.
Of course not.
It would be silly
to act
only after when my motivations
are understood
by me.

I don’t really have a clue
what she thinks of me.
Mixed emotions!
that is the most probable explanation
that fits most everybody.

Vaguely I feel
I could know
just how much particular people
are afraid of me.
But reason
tells me
it’s pretty hopeless.

Girls could say,
“I’m frightened.”
But they don’t.
And actually I can understand why.
If girls were up front
about their fears
that would make it easier
for the people who deserve fear.
The dangerous men would just go after
the ones
they knew weren’t afraid of them.
It’s a nuisance to deal with,

And I wish I could tell
whether girls want privacy
or attention
when attention
may compromise privacy,
especially when a desire for secrecy
isn’t exactly what girls
are most likely to have had
the most
respect for
in men
when setting up
their option menus.

Somehow sacredness seems the emotion
I most need and cherish.
I don’t really care, actually,
what others think of me,
as much as others,
and yet,
I care too much.
I must guard myself
general opinion.
I could almost say,
“I am, respectfully,
your humble dutiful servant, etc.”
But I’m not.
Because I don’t want to be that.

Thinking of her
makes me want
to pick up my math books again.
To review things I’ve forgot,
and learn the fundamental things I never learned
or never learned quite right.
To turn the pages
with sacred devotion.
Jordan-Holder theorem there—
and over there,
retrace the argument that a permutation
can’t be both odd and even,
think about how it looks
composing from right to left
and left to right.
No mere irrelevant choice, perhaps.
Is a sequence the order of the dice in front of me?
Or would it be better to think of it
as a sequence of positions with the indices
of the sequence
merely the numbers I see
each one
on its own die?
It might matter,
what choice is best,
depending upon how I should think of it.
I think I’ll choose the former standard choice,
but not because it is standard.

I want to become knowledgeable
in my own way.
Without enthusiasm
I can gain wisdom
greater than what I’ve got
but there is danger
I’ll spend all time reviewing
striving for perfection
merely because I feel error
as corruption
or too readily allow myself
to fall into the chant
of the math book
encouraging me
not to skip
or think
outside the order
the math book is written in.
No error
is worth being pedantic
I want to get where I want to go
Without worrying particularly
What route is best.
All I should demand
I dream
is a sense
I’m sort of going
in the right direction,
like when something makes me wonder in confusion,
that’s what I should employ my faculties
of understanding
then upon,
especially if I can behold
in my imagination
considering it
with sacred concern.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Mothers, daughters, and responsibility.

Not long ago, I made the following observation (Discriminating morals: Responsibility)

At least when I imagine mothers of girls I would be more likely to have sex with, they probably don't want their daughters to marry or have sex when young as much as their daughters would tend to want it, but when it comes to choosing, I've a vague feeling they'd be more likely (than the daughters) to want the daughter to choose sex without the marriage than with marriage. Especially if such marriageless sex did not imply not getting cared for. Partly this can be explained by mothers wanting the extra proof of affection that a daughter proves by the daughter preferring sex outside marriage; if a daughter so much wants to attract young females to her lover than she doesn't value marriage, that is a sign of pleasant affection, all right. But I don't think that is it mainly. I think there is something else I haven't thought of, some subtle genetic argument I need to discover, perhaps implying mothers more care about their daughters' sexual pleasure (which especially would increase if it is easier for their mates to get more girls in bed) than daughters do in any given sexual relationship the daughter might have.

Three or four days ago I slept on this, and as I was waking, all came together and poetically I was filled with the great truths governing mother/daughter relationships as relates to a guy the daughter is romantically interested in. The poetry of that moment I find hard to recapture, I suppose because poetry is something I tend to use when I am trying to figure something out, and so after I have figured something out, well, it has a way of not working as seemlessly? Thus I decribe my conclusions not using poetry.

Anyway, I have decided I might well have been wrong in thinking a mother is more likely than her daughter to want her daughter to "choose sex without the marriage than with marriage" (if both mother and daughter want the daughter to have sex with the male) so that mistresses can be attracted more easily. What is true, I think, is that a mother will more value her daughter having the lustful pleasure that the daughter having sex in a (clean, sober) orgy of other girls could give to her daughter. But I failed to consider that the expediency of eschewing marriage to get more girls isn't just about how much the daughter needs to be lustful. I also should have considered that it is necessary to decide (when determining whether it be a good idea for a girl to eschew marriage) just how likely it would (or perhaps should) be that other girls would share in the sex. How much a girl who has decided (with parental approval) for sex should lust for a male involves mainly the chances that the male is much less worthy than he seems. It's not really a question of just exactly how incredibly awesome sex with him would be. Indeed, even if he's just a typical decent person, it probably won't be much if any harm to lust for him, especially if from unselfishness one considers his needs (but such unselfishness in girls seems a little too much to expect from them, because girls tend to be so constituted that mostly what is properly fun for them is what is best for them). But whether other girls are likely to have sex with a male is mainly a question of just exactly how incredibly awesome sex with him would be—it is a decision properly and most enjoyably made by the daughter as opposed to the mother.

Since a mother's sphere mainly is to judge just how likely it is that her daughter would or would-not be making a big mistake by thinking highly of a male, it should mainly be the mother (as opposed to the daughter) who decides how much her daughter should lust. The mother will more enjoy being true to herself than her daughter will enjoy her mother being true to herself, because the part of the mother that differs from the daughter won't care what the daughter does (if it could know it was not in common with the daughter), while the part of the daughter that differs from the mother will somewhat resent what the part of the mother that differs from her wants her to feel lustwise. A mother will enjoy her daughter being true to her mom's own inner nature as concerns how much she should lust. A daughter, on the other hand, is much more willing to hold merely conformist opinions about how much to lust. She (the daughter) knows that her comfort with a male she is to have sex with doesn't really so much depend on her own opinion of him, as on her mother's opinion of him. And so it always tends to be, so what is the point of a girl being true to herself so much when the possible rewards and pleasures depend mostly on whether a decision her mother made is right? So yeah, it makes sense to me that if a mother and daughter both think the daughter should have sex with a guy, the mother is likely to be much more keen than the daughter on the daughter throwing caution to the wind in an effort to have sex as lustfully as possible. As is good, the mother will likely try to use the means at her disposal to encourage her daughter to have sex in a more prolonged lustful, carnal, trusting, tantric manner. So yeah, in that sense a mother approving of her daughter having sex would tend to want her daughter to have sex in an orgy of young girls more than her daughter would (if the daughter wanted sex), because sharing sex with young girls makes sex more lustful for a female having sex.

That said, I don’t think it a good idea to get carried away with the observation and fail to realize that qualitatively at least, lust, as with the rest of sex, properly is the domain of the girl having sex and not her mother. Unless the mother had similar sexual feelings when she was young, I am a little skeptical that she, at an age implying a brain less plastic and less suited to learning, is going to be able to be as profound, graceful, and beautiful in her imaginings of love than her daughters. Mothers sometimes give me guilty looks, like they don’t really feel good about themselves when they think about me in relation to their daughters; obviously they don’t tend to put as discriminating constructions on their feelings as would be desirable. But I guess the point I am making is that it really isn’t the case that mothers as a whole are more priggish about their daughters than the daughters themselves are. If a mother really approves of her daughter having sex with some guy, the mother is probably going to be, compared with her daughter, significantly more into it being a carnal experience for the daughter. Maybe oftentimes mothers do tend to intrude into their daughters’ own business too much, taking away chances at sexual pleasure unjustly, not because the mother thinks her daughter is majorly wrong about a particular male (a sort of judgment a woman is totally justified in exerting) but just because she thinks her daughter overestimates moderately the possible benefits of having a physical relationship while young with the particular male. Mothers should more be into influencing their daughters’ fears as opposed to their daughters’ sense of male sexiness. But one is led to wonder whether a great deal of the priggishness mothers force on their daughters arises from a kind of frustration on the parts of mothers that if her daughter were to love some male the mother approved of, the daughter really wouldn’t let herself go sexually into realms of lust nearly so much as the mother would deem appropriate. Usually, I have noticed, people try to get even at people for perceived offenses with similar punishments (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.). So it makes sense that in mother-daughter relationships, one kind of priggishness may be punishment for another, even though one be less appreciated.

For a more technical look at the statistical issues underlying mother-daughter relationships as regards the mother influencing her daughter’s sexual decisions, I suggest this post of mine
Discriminating morals: Conformity in parents carefully explained

I guess I should emphasize the main point, namely the importance of mothers and daughters not trying to interfere in the others’ sphere in an effort to make the other more boring and normal. Indeed, if being yourself isn’t good for girl sex, being yourself ain’t good for nothing. Indeed, one may find by perusing this blog my theory (involving epigenetics) that girl-sex is what is most responsible for the little that people are true to themselves, something I first thought about last fall, describing it here as I developed it.

Just the other day it occurred to me one doesn’t really even need to consider epigenetics to see an important relation between thinking for oneself and young-female sexuality. If a male doesn’t have female ancestors who thought for themselves, then it makes it much less clear that those of his ancestors who were conceived by young females were conceived for especially impressive reasons. If a girl who thinks for herself feels as though it is unnecessary to wait to see if someone better comes along (notwithstanding she is young), that is impressive. But if a young female who doesn’t think for herself wants a male right away, that’s not particularly impressive inasmuch as her esteem is likely to be a result of accepting a standard opinion, rather like the stereotypical groupie, which basically is just as safe an approach for a girl as for an adult woman. (Groupies sexually copying a more-or-less standard opinion merely from conformity strike me as a little scary. But it doesn't bother me when a girl copies a friend's sexual decision; at least her choice of friend wasn't conformist.) So intraejaculate sperm selection is much more useful to a girl if there be evidence that her mate thinks for himself; not perhaps a particularly revolutionary observation, but it seemed worth mentioning.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006


Weird. I was just about to send a message to someone, and so (unless memory fails me) I opened the message window like no problem. Then I accidentally moved away from that window when I discovered a new piece of (quite irrelevant as it turned out) data on the page from which I accessed the message window. Rather than send the message immediately, I decided to look outside my window at the trees and the sky and the clouds for a few minutes, to see if after that I still felt like it was appropriate to send the message. It felt like I should send it, and when I try I am no longer able to send that person messages. Even though I don't think that person could have known I was going to send a message. Well, that's what I think happened, and obviously I am not going to be so disrespectful of the wishes of the other person as to send the message now using some other avenue of communication, or try to use some subterfuge to communicate the message. I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally send the message. And I think I opened up the message window once successfully, though I don't believe I can be totally sure of that, because the History feature in internet explorer only seems to keep the most current visit, maybe I was just imagining I opened the send message window once before? Oh, this was like a totally consequential message (I mean whether to send it or not), and I don't really know whether I sent it--I doubt this--, originally couldn't send it, or, what my memory suggests (though it would seem an inexplicable coincidence), that I originally could send it, but then a few minutes later, couldn't.

Saturday, I came down with some weird flu-like illness (mostly just fever, sore throat, and fatigue). I am just finishing getting over that now (Tuesday), but am still tired and listless and my throat is still somewhat sore. It was strange, because I hardly ever get sick. I try to eat hazelnuts every day, like an animal that buries hazelnuts (as is good for the tree) would tend to do, but except in the fall, they are hard to get, and to save time while my sister and her family was visiting, I postponed driving to the Whole Foods in Winston to get some more. I hardly ever allow myself to go a day without eating hazelnuts, but I went about two weeks without eating hardly any, and then--bam--while at South Carolina at my late grandparents' house after having promised to drive a rental truck my parents had largely filled with stuff to get here, I get horrible sick, more sick than in about ten years, with a fever at 8:55 pm Saturday of 102.6 degress (the peak reading) that for a few hours had been going up linearly .3 degrees (fahrenheit) per hour. I tell my parents and sister, forget Tylenol, I need hazelnuts. Eventually, my Mom, despite thinking me a little batty and after having given me almonds and pushing Tylenol, grudgingly agreed to look for hazelnuts, and found the one grocery store, Bi-Lo, where they had them. Upon starting the hazelnuts at 9:10pm, my fever quickly (102.2 by 10:35) started going down, more-or-less linearly, until it was 99.0 by 10:15 the next morning. With rest my fever was inconsequential enough that the next day I was able to drive back on time and help with the unpacking, though if I had rested more I probably would have gotten well sooner, and in fact my fever worsened a degree or so on Sunday with the stress. I should have believed more in myself and my theory about the importance to health of eating nuts (well, hazelnuts, since they are my favorite) a similar amount each day, and should have tried harder to get some when my larder from fall was in a good way toward having been consumed.

Thursday, July 06, 2006


What does responsibility-free sex require of a male? Hitherto, I have mostly viewed responsibility-free sex as nevertheless morally entailing a kind of responsibility on the part of the male not to be very caring (when it comes to non-sexual matters). Distributing caring broadly among females like halloween candy to trick-or-treaters, that mostly doesn't appeal to me. Mostly a husband should just care for his wife. But lately I have been thinking being married is something of a discouragement to getting stuff from mistresses that better-loved females would love. Girls, in particular, can be prevailed upon to do what a better loved female needs. But I think it is harder to prevail upon a girl to do these things if she feels like she might be doing it just from control a wife has over the girl's sexual lover. And I have noticed through observation that wives do tend to control husbands much more than vice versa. Maybe sometimes a girl more loves the idea of her lover better attracting mistresses to what she and he wants (sexually and materially) than the idea of his being married to her? I am not really sure the girl I have mostly been thinking of lately if she loved me (say, as a result of sufficiently believing my ideas to view me as an extremely wise person) would be any less likely to want to fuck than to want marriage, provided I didn't see it as my responsibility not to care for her (which since I think I love her might happen to a certain extent).

I know it sounds presumptuous of me to think any girl might think of me so highly that she could feel thus, but either what I believe about philsophy and sex is right, in which case I am a great moral-philosophical genius, the first person to understand holiness, sadness, young female sexuality, etc., and by far the most sensical opponent of true depravity about, in which case I figure I'm at least an order of magnitude wiser than anyone else with sufficient internet access to allow his/her ideas to be googled, or what I believe is not right (in which case marriage wouldn't be an advantage because kooky people aren't much at child-raising or money making), and of course, I think I am mostly right, or I wouldn't say so. So really, I think people must agree that I am not being presumptuous in thinking a girl I find attractive might want me such a great deal; really, I could only be dishonest to think otherwise, since it follows from my believing what I do that I also must believe myself to be, at least in some technical sense, a great deal wiser than other people. And for a male to be a great deal wiser than anyone else in any sense is something that naturally would be expected to make girls want one.

But there is another reason I think a girl even if well-loved might prefer her mate to not have responsibilities than for him to have caring responsibilities. True, mothers mostly don't tend to want their young daughters to have sexual relationships as much as their daughters want them. Indeed, mothers tend to be more conformist about judging people, and thus less likely to view a male highly. But marriage entails sex, too. At least when I imagine mothers of girls I would be more likely to have sex with, they probably don't want their daughters to marry or have sex when young as much as their daughters would tend to want it, but when it comes to choosing, I've a vague feeling they'd be more likely (than the daughters) to want the daughter to choose sex without the marriage than with marriage. Especially if such marriageless sex did not imply not getting cared for. Partly this can be explained by mothers wanting the extra proof of affection that a daughter proves by the daughter preferring sex outside marriage; if a daughter so much wants to attract young females to her lover than she doesn't value marriage, that is a sign of pleasant affection, all right. But I don't think that is it mainly. I think there is something else I haven't thought of, some subtle genetic argument I need to discover, perhaps implying mothers more care about their daughters' sexual pleasure (which especially would increase if it is easier for ther mates to get more girls in bed) than daughters do in any given sexual relationship the daughter might have.

There is so much I should and would be discussing now. Unfortunately, though, familial responsibilities have been swamping me lately, and will continue to do so for the next few weeks. In particular, I will soon be forced away from the internet for a while as I help my parents deal with my late grandparents' house. Maybe by then I will have figured out what I want to get at. Also, I want to post something about sympathy and how the danger of feeling violated is rather opposite from the danger of being violated. I.e., if you feel violated when you aren't, that's unfortunate, and needs to be dealt with opposite to how one should deal with an actual case of having succumbed to having been violated. If one is molested (forcibly sodomized), the problem with that is not that it makes you feel violated, the problem is that you are violated, and if you are violated, well, what is wrong with feeling the truth, namely that you have been violated? Precisely when one has been sodomized it is entirely appropriate to be very leary of one's sexual feelings associated with that event, as will be easier if you in humiliation view the act as one of violation. But if a male (say) gropes a girl or exposes himself, well, the danger of that is the opposite--it can by falsely making the girl feel humiliated, make the girl too leery of her sexual and more particularly lustful desires than what her natural tendency would be. For example if she was groped, and parents didn't make a point of encouraging her to feel good about herself, she might become in a kind of antsy way too afraid of superficial clitoral sexual feelings, that could lead to excess shyness when dealing with, ironically, people she by nature views as especially safe sexually. That not a few men do grope and expose themself suggests strongly that lots of people think abuse is just about humiliating. (Actually, sodomizers have a strong interest in not wanting to make girls feel humiliated about the depravity.) E.g., selfish abusive types try to make sodomy seem about humiliating (making the girl ashamed of her normal feelings) rather than the act of sodomy itself (the latter having extreme negative aesthetic appeal), and even more important probably, fallen girls trying to figure out why they enjoy skankiness naively often think the same thing. Gropers, exposers, etc., they are mostly just disgusting people who are deluded enough to think such behavior is desired or addictively appealing; much mroe so than forcible sodomizers, they presumably tend, fortunately, to get caught. Ah well, looks like I have mostly said what I said I was to say later.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Parenting of young daughters

As discussed earlier in this blog, I rather like the idea of a mother playing a role in evaluating a young daughter’s potential mate. The mother’s main role is to keep the daughter from making big mistakes, and largely that involves sizing her daughter’s suitor up and evaluating whether he is deceptive or likely to screw her daughter up. The problem with letting a father get involved in this sort of evaluation is that genetically parents have more interest in not allowing the idiosyncrasies of the other parent evaluate a daughter’s potential mate than they do in being true to their own true (also idiosyncratic) self. The tendency would be for each parent to come to a kind of conformist compromise (each parent would forfeit his/her weird parenting tendencies in exchange for the other parent doing so), which would cause skill at evaluating suitors to evolve very slowly in parents. Indeed, such skills can only be selected for by evolution to the extent the skills are actually used, which won’t be the case very much if parents don’t use their own skills to evaluate male sordidness, but just evaluate a male’s sordidness by what conformist opinion is.

Though obviously the girl’s opinion of me matters most, I like the idea (at least in a world with reasonable laws) of not having sex with a girl until her mother is so comfortable with it she can just nonchalantly walk right into the room her daughter and I are having sex in, and as she refills our water glasses or drops off a snack by our bed, feel really good about her decision as she looks at the clean benevolence of me while I am having sex with her daughter.

I can’t really say the idea of a father looking at me at all so carefully does appeal to me at all. But I do feel the father or other male relative should play an important role in parenting. It’s just that the father shouldn’t judge a relationship so much by judging the suitor, but by judging his daughter. When at the dinner table, for instance, he should look at her before and during the relationship, and reassure/protect her according to the extent she looks like she possess/lacks the same snow-like innocence of untouched youth. A good man having sex with a girl overcomes her fears by teaching her what to fear, rather than by making her pretend sex is no big deal. And because he is honest, and because he appreciates and learns from her gracefulness, then shares what he learns, and because sex is such an effective and intimate means of expression (if had for real true other reasons), he will make her if anything even more innocent and clean than she was before. Probably not until the brightness of the innocence of his daughter’s lust for me is so strong it makes her dad squint would I feel ideally I should have sex with her.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

What I am feeling

Here's a post that describes my mystical feelings for the most attractive girl as best understood yesterday (which is but a poor understanding, at least at this point). I stopped in the middle, partly because I need to get a clearer handle on how the encryption works (lest people think I feel by carelessly having sex also with a wrong woman I might, I don't know, create a wicked witch of the west or east or whatever), and partly because I feel that holiness and other scientifically understandable down-to-earth matters concerning love are important, and if I get too mystical, well, my love won't be as pure or desirable. This morning, right now, I don't feel like mysticism. It may well be also I should think more carefully about perception, reflection, etc., since to understand this mystical love emotion I especially would seem to need clear thinking there, at least to be very efficient. Perhaps this love can even be useful to me in refining my philosophy concerning understanding (in the Locke sense).

What I am feeling

It is a faint perception
an image as it were
Of an ideal relationship
Not just in some technical sense,
not in a well-defined sense
but the whole thing
that is important
and right.

God needs it
Or some higher thing
or some spirit,
more likely all three,
or something like that.

Whence did it come?
I know not.
It came all at once.
From within?
It seemed so shortly after then,
and has not seemed something else more clearly since.
The percept came complete
or perhaps just when noticed
it appeared complete?

What was it?
A sense of something incredibly special and beautiful
yet so faint
I can’ be sure
it was not my imagination
fancying something imaginary behind base level noise
yet I guess not because observing it did put me in some higher
state of profundity
without concomitant insanity.

What be my natural inclination to consider its pragmatic purpose?
God, higher reality, or whatever needs me to try to bring about a reality
corresponding in the main to the percept.
For the higher good.
It was my percept that God needs us to have this relationship as in image.
A matter of copying image?
Image is very difficult to observe.
Mostly, it must be observed and not analyzed
as much as I tend.
Is it wrong to not obey?
Obviously, I must put my own sense of right into this because I was not intended to be a robot.
Or a zombie.
But the main points
I must obey
because they are beautiful
I want to.
I know higher reality needs what is therein to happen.
It was my percept.
A faculty of my own
What produced it
I know
Obedience is obedience to myself.

Of what did the percept consist?
Mostly of her image and with an aura.

Whose image?
The beautiful girl whose picture I saw.
What is its significance?
That is the person who possesses the aura.
How do I know?
They were together, one.
What was the aura?
I think it is some sort of sub-atomic phenomena.
A guess it is that it surrounds her DNA in a definite pattern
I’d say quantum states of something, but I don’t like quantum physics.
What was it like, this aura?
It was like a red crystal,
spread out sort of linearly,
dark red with a lighter pinkish shade just enough not to be boring.
Sort of a liquidy red diamond, but not pure red, and lined up all in a row with definite binary pattern to it.
What do you think it be?
That it would be a kind of genetic code for characteristics coded for on a subatomic or even sub-universe level—a finer reality than physics understands.
What be the nature of these characteristics?
Methinks they be spiritual or even magical in nature.
Why be this aura, this code, in the image.
Somehow it involves sex, I think.
Sex? Why?
Because perception of the image was erotic?

Because, well, I can’t be sure, but there is the impression,
a faint wispy impression I don’t understand
that the percept also contained ideas?
But all mixed together
With the other parts of the image
a general jumble
no particular location for just one
What idea?
That some sort of close presence
betwixt us
would produce something remarkable.
Well, I can’t be sure, but I think, though I can’t be sure that
she would gain magical powers,
Magical powers?
Yes, she would gain magical powers, not too different I think from that of the good witch of the north on the Wizard of Oz.
The direction is not supposed to refer to anything.

How do you know?

All that’s in the image about that is she will turn into something with a magical quality reminding me of the magical powers one is inclined to think one is meant to believe the Good Witch of the North is supposed to have when one sees her in the movie with her wand.

Only she is more beautiful than the actress (not that the actress was bad looking, but...), because she stays herself basically.

Yes, basically.

Not completely?

No, obviously not. Her soul, which I suppose is encoded on that level (it seems a reasonable inference that probably there is a lower level than the soul, but this experience I had is not about that level presumably) gets transformed where the interference is right with the aura pattern in the precept?

Say what?

How does this happen?

I need to have a grasp of the percept,

The universal God machine or whatever
does check I presume just how well the information encoded in the information in the idea corresponds to reality,
and if it does, it proceeds.

Proceeds to what?

To take the message encoded in the information of the percept (whether encoded or not) and to code akin to quantum encryption (an interference type) the desired image in such a way that it can only be read significantly to the extent it is read on the real image, which consists of the actual aura pattern of her soul together with the actual events of the relationship as it transpired, which of course will be different from the ideal events of the relationship as in the percept.
So what happens if the relationship is better for the higher universe in some respects than that in the

Then I hope something better will happen, but maybe the universal blobs of the higher universe ???? are not smart enough. Hard to say, actually.

OK. So why is the pattern of ideal transformation also encoded by her actual genetic pattern?

[Comment this morning: the previous sentence seems like a typo. Perhaps I should have said "Why is the pattern of ideal transformation only entirely readable on her actual genetic pattern?"]
Probably to keep third parties from wanting to share in the metamorphosis an intimate relationship had while possessing the percept could give.

So if some bad female has sex with you while you are transforming the beautiful girl into the Good Witch of the North, there is not much danger really of her becoming the Wicked Witch of the West (or East).

No, it wouldn’t seem so. It stands to reason the only part of her that could be transformed would be that part of her (original) aura that resembles the original aura of the beautiful girl. Come to think of it, quantum encryption perhaps would be silly, the percept could just contain a signal that adds to the aura code the corresponding part of the percept code. Yes, now I see it is more reasonable to suppose the aura code is the signal and the ideal part of the relationship code is akin to a password. A password that works to the extent the relationship is ideal and therefore resembling of it (the password). I don’t know whether it’s that simple though.

Would this destroy her soul?

No, the percept aura code appears mostly empty space. Kind of short parts. Presumably it is just in the necessary spaces where her magic powers are most appropriate, needed, or possible that she would be transformed.

Wednesday, June 14, 2006


Here is a poem which to make it less scary I dashed off in just a few hours this morning. Like a good poem generally should, it deals with the idealistic case, assuming laws are reasonable, etc. I don't wish to state an opinion on how to deal with evil laws, such requiring a thorough acquaintance with law, risks, loopholes, etc.

I see

a girl
I haven’t seen before
very recently
I don’t know of what
I know something though
she wants to be worshipped.

Girls are forever getting angry at their fathers,
understanding their mothers more.

Sometimes a girl knows what she wants
and she doesn’t really want adults around.
No women please,
girls only.

Girls know
how to give a man fun
a smile
a loud laugh
it is seductive
not an unreasonable behavior
with so many desirable men

"How say you,
we try that then this."
A fun and lightsome bliss.

There are even girls more cunning.
Sex can be funner
for a girl
when there is no woman
in it.
Ruins intraejaculate sperm selection.

Cunning girls cynical
they laugh,
they carry on,
to seduce
husbands away from wives
not for money
but for sex
more youthful,
and purer bliss.

Sometimes, though,
are just pointless instances of misunderstanding,
nothing more,
a wife loves to be worshipped,
a husband worships her even more,
but you can’t really expect them to understand,
even the girl who made me discover this I don’t think understands,
doesn’t really believe as I was loving her I was whirr,
calculating and making theories scientific biological,
amazed and grateful at each discovery to the contribution to scientific knowledge
her lust gave me
sexually, at least, I loved her
in my mind,
because love IS COMPLICATED
and sensical.

Back to you,
I wonder,
whether your family
really understands
isn’t really about
your dad thinking more
much more
of your mother
than of girls
not their daughters
but about
a state of mind
whose pleasantness
doesn’t really depend
on whom it is directed toward.
All your mother really needs
is spermatozoa in which genetic crossover has been discouraged
and which will tend when producing daughters
to encourage genetic crossover
in their female offsprings’ developing oocytes.
Your dad really ought to try
girls he wants to fuck.
And not just because it works better
(though to be sure and it does).
I don’t really know
it’s all so strange
males fall into that error
(I fell into it myself
a certain extent,
much later made a girl scream louder once
because of it,
sound still ringing in my ears,
a bell
I don’t really mind anymore hearing,
I could blame my present fears on that,
but I don’t think that would be accurate and yet, the noise is bouncing still)
men usually shouldn’t follow directions about everything.
And your mother needs
to fantasize more
about girls
sharing sex with her.
She and girls can’t both be right,
girls are more right,
because it is a lot easier for a man to worship a girl
like she’s a well-loved wife
and to be sad with her
than for a woman to become young.
Worship isn’t everything,
youthful bliss is something else, and
to a certain extent,
is transferable,
the effects
to a female
on sperm of another’s cervix
whence it came
and is real.

like you
notwithstanding at the same time
I get dreamy, ethereal,
when I stare at your picture
and you’re so pretty it makes me uncertain
of the more your prettiness lets me know
(I’m glad you try to be pretty,
smart girl,
perhaps I’d have overlooked you else,
or from ignorance decided you weren’t worth the risk.)
and at this point there are two females
I probably have worshipped greater,
I worship you greatly,
and as to the idea of a relationship with you,
not unphysical preferably,
I suppose,
I’ve never worshipped the idea of a relationship more,
or had a greater sense of importance
of any sort of relationship I might have
to the greater good
or some higher religious purpose.
(I suppose I am speaking here in the unbiased sense, i.e., not taking into account such extraordinarily special relationships are rare; prudence dictates the limited knowledge I have of you increases the chances of my unbiased sense being excessive. How I feel upon further knowledge may be different. I say this because I don’t want you to (wrongly) think there’s compulsion or obsession about my feelings, which are so new and based on so little, I haven’t been very successful at determining what to make of them yet.)
I don’t know what that means, really,
surprising. Hmmm.
It’s a good thing I worship you.

I don’t know where this poem will bounce to,
mistaken identities,
don’t know about what it bounced from,
could care less about the privacy implications
of teenagers with expert cacheable flash redirect IP-address-recording spying-bot or whatever knowledge, probably even hope
they do spy on everything, let them do it, yeah,
I’ll stick to classical math over computer science,
I mean that absolutely calmly and benevolently,
to the point I may be silly
because I haven’t investigated at all
want to be guided into teenage girl traps
because they seem so safe
like your arms.

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Etiquette and Fear

Lately I’ve been thinking much about how much it is appropriate to be concerned about not scaring females and about observing a polite etiquette. Well, more accurately, I’ve been thinking about a whole host of matters that seem rather centered about these questions. I think I’ll throw out a few observations and matters to think about.

1. Certain sexual attitudes (stillness, trust, deference, a desire to have sex long and hard, choosing to have it while young) tend to be very appropriate attitudes for females to have toward virtuous sex partners, and very inappropriate toward immoral sex partners. If a girl isn’t vulnerable and trusting while having sex with a virtuous man, the sex will be much less rewarding to her than otherwise. Now here’s the point.; if a guy has a certain amount of power to force a girl to make any sex with him more (cleanly) pleasant to her, and he doesn’t use that power, that’s basically immoral. This reluctant "niceness’ is not some sort of noble concern for feelings, it’s just being afraid of scaring the girl away from sex, which is something that realistically on average is going to be more his loss than hers. A guy ought to know whether he is a fraud or not; concern for a female’s fears that he be a fraud may occasionally be expedient, but there is nothing at all moral about it. One might make the objection, that yes, this be true, but society having an etiquette that values girls’ fears desirably makes it harder for bad males to force girls into things the girls are not comfortable with. Nonsense. If a girl doesn’t love a guy enough to trust him greatly, she really ought not to be letting herself get fucked by him. And more importantly, guys can be subtle in their control. If extreme male politeness were appropriate, it’s not like the less virtuous males wouldn’t find ways to control that were less obvious to stigmatizers. Indeed, any male who emotionally loves his mate some times more than other times (say when he claims she is especially pretty to him) is likely exerting a kind of enslaving influence over her. A general stigma against males controlling won’t very much help females who have chosen bad controlling males.

2. OK. Now someone might say that I am being ridiculous, that I don’t really want sex slaves, as at least poetically I am wont to say, and that I just want to be like other males whose emotions for their females vary depending on how pretty the female seems at any particular time. Why, one might ask, do I insist on putting the scariest constructions on my desires? On the one hand, I am being much more honest, in that males varying their emotions for females really is largely about control. I will concede I could put a more disarming interpretation on my desire and not sacrifice honesty, nay it might even be more honest to say I desire deference than slavery, if the pragmatics of the situation were not concerned. I could be more like Captain Renault (Laszlo: Captain Renault, I am under your authority. Is it your order that we come to your office. Capt. Renault: Let us say that it is my request. That is a much more pleasant word.). But here is why such politeness really isn’t appropriate when explaining desired future sexual behavior. Much, much, better it is for everybody (and for the girl in particular) that a girl explore the scarier interpretations of her mate’s sexual behavior before having sex than while having sex. Appropriate sex is much, much funner for girls if they aren’t scared while having it, notwithstanding the kind of sex that can be most fun tends to be more terrifying (e.g., as being highly dangerous to the extent there is a chance the male isn’t worthy). It is more appropriate for a male to try to put scary takes on things, at the first, so the girl can definitely have the opportunity to think ahead of time about everything that might frighten her about having sex in the particular way he wants to have sex with her, so she can see her fears are unfounded, or at any rate, something her mate if worthy will insist upon ignoring to the extent it is in his power to do so.

Girls (and women too, to a lesser extent), are scared by quick forwardness. I will not deny if that were the only question of expediency involved, it would still pay to be quite reserved upon trying to start a relationship with a female. Fast candor is good in that it enables a female to know a male’s intentions before she has wasted much time upon him, just as it is good to scare girls sooner than later when there is not choice. But really one doesn’t lose much ethically by not being forward too quickly, and yet one feels that at times one wants to be more forward than that. There is another matter of expediency. A girl is so much more willing to be controlled by reward than by punishment. Act scary later after not acting scary at the first, and she will quite possibly, it seems to me, construe the scariness as punishment, notwithstanding such scariness be just a magnanimous desire to make her realize that her enjoyment (and perhaps to a certain extent his own) depends upon her trust and sexual bravery. Not that the latter consideration of the expediency of doing things in a non-scary order always trumps the expediency of not being too forward too quick. There is no substitute for balancing all the considerations, being very forward with some girls, hardly forward at all with others, somewhere in between for most, all depending on how the particular fears are distributed in the particular girl under consideration.

3. As one would expect from the previous considerations, girls by nature are less sexually attracted to males who in the name of politeness are above trying to force a girl to be more vulnerable to him during sex. Let us call the type of sex that a girl should have with a most virtuous male, "tantric" sex, tantrism being associated with the ejaculation-free drop-by-drop emission of semen and absence of female orgasm that are central to the sort of sex that girls lustfully need to employ to encourage the intraejaculate sperm selection that makes such sex especially significant (confer many of my other blog posts for this theory of mine). (I don’t mean to imply that the religious tantric sexual traditions are particularly like my views as opposed to other views, but merely that their sexual traditions are more comparable to my views than the traditions of other mainstream groups are comparable to my views.) Tantric sex is a powerful tool a virtuous male can use to make girls get more pleasure in having sex with him, thereby enabling him to impregnate more. Thus, it may be supposed that evolution has heavily selected in virtuous males for the ability to do this sort of sex in a clever pleasing way. But bad males, no they don’t gain anything by sex being tantric, much less by it being tantric in a particular way; indeed, girls having sex with such males are more rewarded by the sex being not tantric, and so are pleased by it only to the extent it makes his desires seem consistent with her expectations of him. Bad males have a hard time faking tantric sex, because such sex is complicated (especially on an emotional level), and they haven’t evolved to be very good at it. If a guy forces a girl to have sex in a scary tantric way, and the sex is blah, oh girls hate that.

4. One type of way bad guys get around being caught at fucking hard lamely, is to bluff. I.e., a guy can make out towards his girl like he wants to fuck her really hard and long, and try to make out like he wants to force her to be herself, for her to be really still and lustful, etc., whereas really he desires nothing of the sort. He figures she will be too scared to try tantric sex, so his protestations will merely make him seem like sexually he has a strong hand, whereas in point of fact, he is just a BLUFFER. Occasionally, a girl might call his bluff, but his expertise presumably is in arranging matters so she generally won’t. These sorts of males tend to be depraved types, who by praising tantric-sex characteristics and the sort of forcefulness males sometimes rightfully use to obtain it, do make convenient the conflation of submission to sordid abuse with submission to appropriate demands for deference, which conflation if present in a female can go a long ways toward reconciling her to a forceful abuse concomitant with the forceful demands for tantrism. It may be—hard to say—that as many sordid males are bluffers as make out like non-tantric sex characteristics such as female orgasm are somehow something girls naturally want.

5. Another way a male can make a female more indifferent to an inability in him to give her great tantric sex is to make out like wanting it forcefully (as opposed to another types of sex) is wrong or rude. Girls are scared of tantric sex, and so if a guy isn’t somewhat forceful in obtaining it (as opposed to some other sort of sex, and not, of course, as opposed to obtaining no sex at all), then it isn’t really likely to happen. And since not wanting it forcefully is such a strong sign of immorality and of not being able to obtain it forcefully, and hence of not being able to do it well or pleasantly, young girls really won’t be able well to imagine wanting tantric sex without imagining her sexual lover as somewhat enslaving. Consequently, all a male has to do to prevent a girl from wanting to get fucked well is to convince her of the immorality and depravity of being at all deferential.

6. It is an interesting observation that (4) and (5) taken together are an example of the general phenomenon I have many times mentioned elsewhere, that bad people often differ in their opinions but not in their conflations. There is one group conflating stupid behavior (submission to abuse) with an unselfish behavior (reasonable deference) to encourage stupidity, while another group encourages the same conflation to discourage both (this last group would include not only the boring males who can’t please in tantric sex but also those females who need to justify why they immorally didn’t choose to get fucked while young by an especially moral male if they had the chance—girls should allow themselves to get fucked mostly just when it serves their own sexual pleasure, but still that such sex is loving to the male should be a fairly strong secondary consideration). The widely believed error, being backed by the force of bad people generally as opposed to just a subset of bad people, is that deference is more similar to acceptance of sexual depravity than it really is.

7. It may seem contradictory that a girl would find tantric sex or a male’s importunate demands for it particularly scary, since as mentioned, any male a young girl should want to have sex with ought to have sex with her in a tantric way and be rather forceful in making sure any sex he might have would in fact possess such characteristics. But the enslavement which a virtuous male employs to get what he wants sexually is a delicate enslavement through rewards rather than punishments. More like a golden very thin ankle pleasure bracelet he’s got his toe wrapped around and she’s too afraid to break it, than a ball-and-chain. It’s about making sex more pleasant if she is a good little obedient little girl, by his being more holy and more full of emotional love of sterling quality (than standard in males) when she is good and trusting of him. One could argue it’s not about punishing her per se. But there is a cascade. The more a girl is having tantric sex, the greater her pleasure in his loving-holy, eternal-love, melancholy, and pious emotions, and thus the easier it is for him to enslave her more so long as she doesn’t want to go back to step one, which because (assuming he is worthy) he proved himself such an expert tantric lover sexually at the preceding steps, she isn’t really likely to do. If a girl allows a man to force her even a little to be more trusting and vulnerable sexually than she would be if not forced, then either the result is not particularly significant (in fact, she has gained by calling the bluff), or she is likely to become more or less his total fuck slave, which given society’s disdain for such (from (6)), may well terrify her. And actually, so far as calling a bluff is concerned, the emotions likely often consider such a calling a dumb option inasmuch as what may appear to be testing for a bluff could be (considering (6)) a (misinformative) test of whether sodomy is addictively insidious; i.e., often girls might have, in the interest of seeing whether sex with a particular guy is fun, instead allowed sodomy, thereby causing a sordid disastrous enslavement.

8. The older the female, the less likely she is to want tantric sex. Accordingly, even if a male loves a female well, he likely won’t find it expedient to try to force a woman (as opposed to a girl) into tantric sex. That said, if a woman is sufficiently calm and desirous of tantric sex, and if she is wise enough to have reduced her expectations somewhat (hard to do inasmuch as blah tantric sex is a huge turn off to girls), such sex with women being so rare, she still is likely to gain something by having sex thus.. I believe there are a few women (especially young women) who actually desire sex (with the right male) to be tantric, and even are turned on by worthy males wanting it hard. But, all that said, most women do not desire tantric sex, and frankly, it is not expedient or at times even unselfish for even exceptionally virtuous males to try to force the typical women into it. This creates kind of a dilemma. Good males like to think of women they love well as young, such thoughts being more loving and inspiring of holiness. This could cause the male to have sex as if the woman were a girl. I.e., he might excessively reserve ejaculation in favor of prolonged drop-by-drop sex. No matter, males are on something of a hair trigger. If a female sexually does inside herself like she wants semen all at once, the male emotions would presumably respond spasmodically with ejaculation willy-nilly; the usefulness of such a response probably largely explains why many males (apparently from what one reads) find it difficult to maintain sexual arousal without ejaculating rather quickly. If a young woman is trusting and willing to be sexually vulnerable, she can yet enjoy much of the pleasure from tantric sex that a girl could possess; but much fewer women than girls are that trusting, the rewards being significantly less and the harms being the same. It should be pointed out that tantric males witholding orgasm (i.e., giving tantric drop-by-drop sex) causes the ability to fertilize when ejaculated at a less viable time (e.g., sperm endurance) to be less important, much as a female not being orgasmic causes sperm endurance to be less important relative to sperms' other traits. It may be that male drop-by-drop non-ejaculatory sex is significant mostly because it selects against genetic material that in ancestral sperm have encountered female lust together with female orgasm, which would tend to be genetic material from males who control by sodomy (presumably sodomy largely needs must cause (chemically) female lust for it to have its enslaving seducing effect, but it needn't encourage female tantric stillness, especially since such stillness harms the participants in the sex).

9. A consequence of men being open about their sexual considerations is that if a female knows a male is considering her sexually, his considerations naturally will suggest to her that he thinks he’s got a good chance of enticing her into bed (compared with other females). Males who use inappropriate force tend to use such inappropriate force mostly with females they think they have a greater chance of getting. Thus, females naturally tend to be scared of males who they know to be considering them sexually. This, however, is not an argument against males being open in expressing their sexual desires. For if males didn’t express their sexual desires, females would be even more scared, not really knowing whom to be scared of; for naturally they would assume that males are having sexual desires for them. A behavior can be generally scary to the particular girl it applies to without the behavior if more common making girls on average more scared. Still, a male can’t ignore expediency and cultural norms entirely if he doesn’t want to unduly risk getting beat up by generally telling sexy girls of little acquaintance whom he especially thinks might like him that he wants to fuck them, etc.

10. I can’t see offhand much utility in forcing girls to be obedient beyond a certain point. Once they aren’t scared of the things I see they shouldn’t be scared of, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of point, especially if I like them well. And how can one force a girl to do something she would want to do anyway? Somehow, though, emotionally it seems like an extremely high level of deference should be sought. Must be something involved I haven’t thought of yet. Part of it might be such deference would impress other girls, part of it a continual need to force her to be more true to herself, but somehow I don’t feel these mainly explain it. On posibility is that I am trying to be too black-and-white here, a common tendency when it comes to non-addictive matters.

11.Vaguely I feel there is some connection between these considerations and why it is that shame is such an underrated emotion. Most people fear shame awful much. E.g., one vaguely feels that if white women in the antebellum South were not so inimical to abolitionists trying to make them feel ashamed for supporting a society that tolerated slavery, the Civil War never would have been. But white Southerners (or at least white southerners who tended to conform to social expectations--as in most societies, that would be the majority) should have been ashamed of their culture. For slavery had very little to do with economics (except when land is dirt cheap, it is more profitable to have workers who are motivated by something less oppressive than a whip); slavery had to do with a certain number of white trash finding it convenient to act like they believe unjust slavery had some just purpose, such a belief making it more plausible that a similar belief as to the justice of the slavery of sodomy or of spousal physical abuse be held, thereby making them seem, e.g., to mates, consistent.

12. Lots of society’s prejudice against girls being deferential probably stems from males who go after fallen women. Many girls become subservient to depraved males. Eventually, with more maturity, these females frequently come to see the usefulness of leaving. Lots of these fallen females are nevertheless quite desirable. One approach a male can take with such a female is to try to reform her. This is needless to say the correct approach, but it is difficult. Another approach is to try to supplant the addictive male. It is difficult to effortlessly control through depravity a clean female with an innocent past; there is the difficulty of making her try depraved things her nature naturally does not want to try. But it is much easier to get a trashy girl to feed her disgusting addictions. A man seducing a trashy young woman can be more insidious in his control than would be the case if she were innocent; there won’t be the need to force her to do the disgusting things which he wants to do to feed her addiction, because she likely will be a willing participant from the start. Males who masquerade as reformers but who actually want to add to a young woman’s addictions find it necessary to distinguish themselves from her previous seducers, thereby creating and maintaining separation between her and her past boyfriends. An effective approach is to blame not her depravity for her problems, but her previous willingness to be controlled. Her new seducer makes her think that it was the weakness characteristic of her youth that made her amenable to being controlled, and that now that she has chosen him, she has grown out of it. Nay, rather than make her feel ashamed of being screwed-up, make it seem that shaming is just another tool of controlling people to make her false to her true trashy self. Girls when in love naturally tend to be amenable to being submissive in sex; on the other hand, women, whose pleasure depends less on the presence in her mate of loving emotion, are much less likely to be so. Reasonable women do tend to be less deferential in sex than reasonable girls, but really it’s not that as females grow up they become more reasonable, it’s just that girls possess a capacity to get significantly more (real, non-depraved) pleasure from being vulnerable and trusting in sex than women do. But it is easy to make the mistake that women being less sexually desirous of controlling males is mostly the result of women being wiser than girls, a mistake bad males often encourage when trying to attract trashy young women. These slick seducers of fallen women hide their control, and convince women that shame is not natural, but just another species of control applied from without, rather akin to the control applied upon her by others when she was young. Slick seducers of unclean women also tend in their seductions to be responsible for creating much of the stigma against low ages of consent and girls being sexual. But really the stigma against girls having sex has more to do with the stigma against females being weak and vulnerable when having sex. It’s not so easy to make women think directly there is something depraved about men being attracted to youth; in fact, women everywhere try very hard to look young, as though they know instinctively they’ll be loved better if they do so. You pretty much never see young women using makeup to draw wrinkles, etc., on the face to make themselves look older. In fact, not infrequently people argue that because adults be more knowledgeable than young people, girls can’t exert power toward adult males as they can toward younger males, and that therefore sex between a girl and an adult is more deserving of ban than sex between a girl and a boy. In other words, it is OK for a girl to choosse to have sex with a male when he is ignorant and stupid—a very strange justification for a policy. But of course, if you demonize those females having sex in vulnerable, trusting ways, effectively you demonize females having sex while young. The distinction may seem inconsequential, but in fact it helps explains why girls frequently are less afraid of being sexual than of being vulnerable in sex (the stigma proceeding from the last to the first rather than vice-versa); and thus, for instance, why girls not infrequently have sex in non-tantric ways more appropriate to women.

13. Increasingly I think about it, I am struck by the ubiquity of wrong attitudes concerning pride and shame. It is commonly asserted that to be true to herself a female has to be true to her gut feeling. I.e, that being true to oneself involves necessarily being more emotional. But as readers of this blog should be aware, the emotions are not very skilled at deciding what exactly one properly should be ashamed of. There are oppressed men (and a few women) wallowing in guilt that properly wouldn’t be there were it not for that churches, mercenary women, etc., have found it convenient to have shamed them for their natural procreative desires. And on the other side, there are unfortunate females (and even a few males) wallowing in depravity who by being slaves of their abusers can scarcely be thought of as being true to themselves, notwithstanding their misplaced pride. Shame and pride are not substitutes for plain scientific well-reasoned understanding when it comes to distinguishing between one’s own true nature and that which is an externally imposed depravity. Without being rational, without garnering understanding, you shouldn’t expect more at best than to be a bundle of misplaced fears and vanities. But it is claimed that the problem of shame is external. "Respect others, and they’ll respect you, " the mantra of the day, like people in general should care about being respected, and even more outlandishly, that they should want to be respected even if they are not respectable. The tendency is to be too conspiratorial. Adolescents are made to feel awkward, continually reminded of it by having their sexual desires derided, not so much perhaps because selfish men want to blame the corruption of female youth on female youth, but because women from no particularly selfish reason, but from misunderstanding partly encouraged by selfish men, do find it more psychologically comfortable to view girls as stupid bundles of "raging hormones", thereby making their own shortcomings and frailties less productive of shame and guilt. If girls underestimate themselves, it’s largely because women valuing self-esteem overmuch enjoy humiliating girls just because they believe it might help them (the women) to respect themselves by comparison. Such a quest is largely a fruitless one. I daresay the psyche can not by nature respect respect without also respecting shame. The answer is not to give kids self-esteem by trying to make the kids take pride in themselves; rather give kids confidence by trying to make kids more indifferent both to shame and to praise (at least when it comes to non-addictive matters). Creating self-esteem through praise and through encouraging pride--this is (in the sphere of matters not related to addiction) no real encouragement of being true to oneself. On the contrary, possessing such a high valuation of praise leads one to seek praise, and What is seeking praise but doing what others want you to do as opposed to what it is in your own nature to do? Just pretending to do what others want you to do? Surely that’s an even worse trait to encourage. Where is the virtue of being false to oneself? Where is the virtue in living in a society where people are so unaccustomed to not being praised they scarcely dare risk the trauma of doing or saying something that won’t cause praise? And the irony of it is that by encouraging people to value self-esteem in themselves, you needs must encourage otherwise honest people to humiliate others, for make no mistake, you don’t have to be an avid viewer of Desperate Housewives to see that is what people will do when they become desperate for feeling better about themselves. And when a group of people (e.g., girls and those males who should sexually love them) are continually humiliated, What really is to be expected but that people will want to take away their rights unjustly? I have more to say about how really it is dangerous it is to make girls feel awkward and ashamed of their clean lusts, but perhaps that should wait until my next post.