Hate and cruelty an appropriate sexual turn-on in females

I have long thought (since 1992) that it is something of a sexual turn-on for females to feel hate and cruelty toward other males when having sex. This first occurred to me when I decided Victoria's secret (what made their models sexy) was to imagine themselves having sex with one male while torturing other males to death, behavior which I could not in any way manage to see as morally appropriate. Thus, it was an occasion of not a little grief and insanity that I should find sexy females thinking that. Ha. Yesterday morning, the morning of January 15, 2006, the answer occurred to me, and it is so simple and silly, one must be careful not to laugh.

Is a girl feeling hate and cruelty toward other males while having sex with a clean, good male something that will make her lustful and wet? Yes. Is it appropriate that she and her sex partner want and encourage such lust in her? Yes. Is this lust illustrative of some dark truth, e.g., the ubiquity of evil and that even the best people would tend if they could get it toward murder or apocalyptic mayhem--that absolute power corrupts absolutely? No, though it may well be that even the best people would do evil things if the reward were great enough. Is it illustrative of the fragility of the human psyche and more particularly that of the supposedly more fragile female, that a girl if she wants sex desperately will not be able to help being full of anger at anything that gets in her way, which insanity can lead to extremes, making such lust at best a kind of silly release of anger and at worse a cause of significant excesses and evil? Not particularly. Is it illustrative of that even the best of us are nevertheless a certain amount of kinky? No, not at all. That we all have within us ancestral feelings toward human sacrifice? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if such latent feelings are there, but surely human sacrifice is quite irrelevant in the modern genetically diverse world, so No. The answer is way simpler and lighter than any of that.

If a girl is full of lust, if she can feel hate and cruelty just as easily as ever, that means that her love and lust in all likelihood is NOT caused by love chemicals having been put down her throat or into her hindquarters, and so the hate naturally would be supposed to fill her with lust! If a girl can hate during sex, it is a useful sign she is not being sodomized, and so prudence demands that she cruelly hate during coitus, so that she can make useful and informative observations on the extent to which she can hate and easily imagine herself inflicting cruelties upon others without the least compromising her benevolent simultaneous sexual love for the man she is copulating with. Even if a girl knows she is not getting compromised by sodomy, it is still a reasonable and just thing for her to hate to increase her lust, lust being something good. After all, there doubtless have been over the years millions if not billions of individuals who thought they knew their love emotions were real, when in fact, they were just caused by sodomy. Sodomy is insidious, the emotions want their own proof of cleanliness, thank you very much.

I don't think we should torture in Iraq, but...

Here is a comment I tried to post about "Losing in Iraq" at Done with Mirrors. Apparently, it was too long, and so was truncated.

An interesting well-reasoned post. I am inclined to think torture not a good idea, at least not until things are very desperate, but the most important thing is to be clear about what sort of torture might be appropriate. IMO it is a big mistake to paint every type of torture with the same brush. The sort of torture most effective against villains is not the same as the sort most effective against the justly heroic. To understand the difference one must understand sexual depravity.

The main significance of torture, IMO, is in its application by rogues to obtain sexual obedience in abusive relationships. It has to do with sodomy, the putting of chemicals in the digestive system (where they can be absorbed so as to affect the brain). Why? Because semen, containing E-type prostaglandins, is an algesic. Not analgesic, like aspirin, which works by blocking prostaglandins, but an algesic, i.e., a substance that increases sensitivity to pain. This makes sodomy a very useful tool of the torturer to make his torture more effectively terrifying.

It is morally paramount that whatever torture be used not be in any way similar in style or motivation to that torture that sexually depraved types use. I remember when I was in Ann Arbor in the late eighties or early nineties there was this radio program that came on public radio talking about right wing death squads in Central America and it was really to me obscene because it minutely detailed how the right wing mercenaries supposedly tortured some prisoner by sticking a live rat in his rectum, and though presumably they'd never admit it, it was kind of obvious to me that notwithstanding ostensibly the show was against right-wing death squads the tone of the show was about trying to elicit a kind of evil perverse pleasure by way of elucidating the details (I seem to remember the second installment of the series wasn't even broadcast, even the radio station or its donors perhaps realizing it was obscene.)Needless to say, such torture is not, and should not, be the American way. Nor is the American way to shoot our enemies in the ass like [I erroneously thought] some singer called Toby Keith says [he talked about a "boot" in the ass as opposed to a "bullet" in the ass--apparently I heard the song wrong.] (according to 60 minutes). Nor should it be to kick our enemies in the ass, which is too much trying to be all things to everybody (would that be a euphemism for sodomizing or a euphemism for punishing people for a disposition to be sodomized?). The kind of appropriate torture less likely to alienate our worthy friends would be an anti-forcible-sodomizer type of torture.

What girls, etc., seek to punish when they feel rapaciously threatened is the groin of the abuser. A kick to the balls is the most reasonable technique in the self-defense anti-rape courses. Why? I am inclined to think this be the case because sodomizers, and more particularly sodomizers aroused by sodomy, tend to end up with some of their own algesic chemicals in their testes. This isn't just ironic. I suspect it is "the" irony--the irony responsible for the concept of irony being something interesting (it is otherwise odd that irony seems the hardest to define easily recognizable situation). Unfortunately, in humans, prostaglandins seem more produced by the internal seminal vesicles than the testes, but still, I suspect testes are to some extent affected by the algesics produced for sodomy. There is one primate (the aye-aye) who purportedly lacks seminal vesicles, and thus probably makes his prostaglandins in his testes. This jives well with the wicked-looking long and bony middle claw-like finger that the aye-aye uses to probe and skewer tree grubs in bark--one can imagine it would make a good testicular torture implement. Anyway, if we do go the torture route, I say we should do it using sexy young female torturers very cleanly but relaxedly and sadistically ripping into the testes of our targets with exacto knives or some such thing, trying to maximize their pain.

People say that groups like Al Qaeda are motivated by religion. I am skeptical. I figure they are mostly just a bunch of sodomizers who by way of glorifying their peculiar sexual proclivities, find it convenient to glorify violence and torture, those being probably the favorite pastimes of most of them. People who don't live in a place (like the American Southeast) where religion is still quite respected don't I think realize how many people who have basically no authentic religious spirit at all nevertheless find it convenient to pretend to all manners of religious sentiment. That's what I figure is happening there. In fact, even if Islam is more anti-forcible-sodomy than Christianity (I rather suspect it is) that doesn't really make Al Qaeda being mostly a bunch of depraved sodomizers less believable. Reasonable people nowadays mostly see that your standard religions are rather outdated, so religions probably don't have that much effect on morals nowadays. But formerly, perhaps it was different. When the Middle East was dominated by a hard-ass religion maybe being hard-ass wasn't the trait would-be maters there felt the need to admire much over the years, which perhaps has not caused those tendencies to evolve from sexual selection as much in the Middle East as in the West under the sway of "turn the other cheek" Christianity. (Islam might not be hard-assed in the sense that it perhaps does not give married women much defense against being dominated, but unfortunate though that is, the sort of abuse in marriage is not a rapaciously initiated kind of abuse that most of the members of Al Qaeda presumably prefer.) True, being under the sway of a hard-assed religion might have led to fewer sodomizers in the Middle East having been able to succeed, but still, what few sodomizers that did prosper would be expected to have been very potent and dangerous. There probably are not a great number of evil Al Qaeda types in Islamic areas, but the few of them probably are very potently evil and disgusting.

There is a great danger with torture. On the one hand, people insanely tend to view too much as sexual abuse. We are not getting our asses screwed, we're just getting killed. So in a way, by allowing torture, there is the psychological danger of our viewing what is just an enemy combatant as some sort of forcibly sodomizing child molester worthy of every feeling of revenge and cruelty we can imagine. On the other hand, ritual torture and killing is probably tied up with feelings toward human sacrifice (which probably wasn't particularly uncommon in our ancestors of a few thousands of years ago), and various confusions about such feelings are dangerous, not so much because humans feelings toward human sacrifice are insane, just that human sacrifice and more particularly confusion about human sacrifice is dangerous, possibly leading to genocides or even human extinction. (And human sacrifice is less reasonable today than ever because of the great genetic diversity of humans now as a result of the explosion of travel and migrations.)

Yeah, I know my ideas are weird, but they are not just same old.

Beauty is only skin deep?!?!????

The expression "beauty is only skin deep" is wrong on so many levels, one doesn't know where to begin to refute it. You can't just say the statement is wrong because doing so manages somehow both to insult beauty and to insult surface beauty. To a sensitive person with visual sensibility, there is really no problem judging beauty largely by the surface (especially at the first), because to such a person, the surface tends to reflect what is inside as well. Moreover, I could and do argue that, in a way, surface beauty is more special than deep beauty because surface beauty must be of less importance to snobbish people who desire exclusive associations. If, say, the only people you are willing to meet or mate are members of your exclusive clubs, parties, or gated community, you really won't likely have a great number of associations and you will have plenty of time and opportunity to get to know each acquaintance fairly well. It is when love is so important to you that you are unwilling to rule out a special person no matter how brief your previous knowledge of him or her is, that your appearance becomes important. A person you see at a park, grocery store, train, etc., that could be what you want, and if your personal appearance reflects you and your tastes, that other person if sensitive can know your character is such you might well want him, and it could be the difference between you having a happy love life or an unhappy one. This is why prettiness is more important for females than males, males more tending to make the first move.

Anyway, a few months ago I decided to Google this hated-by-me saying to determine its origins, which I figured must be associated with something sinister. Just how right I was surprised even me, however. Apparently, the quote originally comes from Sir Thomas Overbury's The Wife. Sir Thomas Overbury was the homosexual lover of Robert Carr (or Kerr), who was also the homosexual lover of James I of England. Carr and the wife of the Earl of Essex decided they wanted to get married. This infuriated Sir Thomas Overbury, who wrote a poem concerning his supposed ideal wife to try to dissuade Carr from marrying. Included, according to the above link, was the phrase "All the carnall beauty of my wife/ Is but skin-deep, but to two senses known", whence the saying.

In other words, the expression "beauty is only skin deep" originally was a pleading by a sodomite in the King's court to keep his illiterate homosexual lover from screwing a disreputable mostly powerless young woman as opposed to sodomizing himself and the king. Did it work? No. The impudent "Lady" Essex and (presumably) Kerr schemed to have Overbury put in the Tower, and then secretly murdered him by slow poison (which didn't work as well as expected, so they finished him off by feeding him "corrosive sublimate" (I believe read somewhere what was used was sulfuric acid or something similar to it)). I imagine because "Lady" Essex took away for herself a good portion of the sodomy that previously had been destined for the king, Kerr fell out of graces with the King, who in his starvation had found a new, more cunning sodomizer, Georges Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham by way of finishing his rival encouraged the unfolding of the plot, as a consequence of which the "shocked" King remarked "if I spare any that are guilty, God's curse light on me and my posterity for ever!" Kerr and the Countess of Essex were found guilty, but doubtless motivated by his fond memories of debauch, the king pardoned them (after hanging some of his accomplices). The debauchery of James I is largely what gave the Puritans a plausible case for their rebellion. Apparently, most of the anti-sodomy laws date from this period of the ascendancy of the Cromwells and of the beheading of James I's son Charles I [update: I think this was an error on my part]. (It is interesting to note that, according to MacKay, James I's only other son, the virtuous young Prince Henry, who hated Kerr, was suspected of having been poisoned by Kerr, perhaps with James I's debauched connivance, an alternative explanation for Kerr being able to secure pardon--his knowing so much allowed blackmail.) As for Buckingham, he "is supposed, with great probability" of poisoning the king, which according to Mackay "...rests upon circumstances of suspicion stronger than have been sufficient to lead hundreds to the scaffold." Buckingham's motive? Partly because (as MacKay speculates) "his hope that the great influence he possessed over the mind of the heir apparent would last through a new reign, if the old one were brought to a close."

I can imagine that Overbury's poems originally were popular because people made fun of them as being immensely ridiculous and scandalously dumb. Unfortunately, nowadays people don't know the context, just the saying.

I should point out that there is a good deal of disagreement about the nature of the homosexual relationships which King James I, Kerr, and Overbury, actually had. The main question is who was sodomizing who, or as the homosexual community would more likely put it, who was dominant. MacKay, being from the nineteenth century when people had reasonable notions about sodomy, I believe is right in giving the impression that Kerr, the illiterate nobody, was the likely sodomizer and more dominant one. The disagreement you'll see on the net is not so much that James I had homosexual relationships, but that perhaps he was the dominant one. But this scarcely seems credible inasmuch as Kerr had essentially no power or abilities. In fact, James I in his youth (before he became debauched) was especially fond of scholarly pursuits. It scarcely seems credible he would want to dominate an illiterate person of no power like Kerr. Presumably the king was more the debauched than the debaucher. But not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course.

Corollary of conformity in parents

It occurs to me that, since I neglected to do so earlier, I should point out that from parents tending to be conformist in their parenting it follows quite generally that as regards the opinions which parents especially use to inform their important parenting decisions, people quite generally will tend to be unusually conformist. In particular, parents in parenting especially need to protect their children from depravity. Therefore, one may suppose that the general attitude of people toward depravity would tend to be (a) stupid on account of it merely comprising the few opinions of those who are independent enough to think for themselves about it, and (b) conformist. It is clear to me that there are but few people in this world willing to hold weird opinions about what constitutes depravity; most people just go along with their impression of standard opinion thoughtlessly. At first I thought this was because, quite reasonably, those who in some sense think themselves abused quite rightfully tend to be hesitant to use their viewed-as-impure sensibilities. And though there are people clean as snow, Where is the person so sanely confident in the own purity of her innocence that she will not to some extent feel compromised and ashamed at times? This insane tendency toward conformity, which affects us all (though it be actually desirable in the person addicted to abuse), does cause clean people to undesirably be conformist. However, such conformity strikes me as rather general as regards sexual matters. No, there is more to explain the general indifference to the truth of the particulars of the evil of depravity than just collective insanity; much of this indifference arises merely because a parent rather than a daughter generally make the key decisions as regards if a mate or would-be mate of the daughter is abusive of not. Should then girls mostly judge depravity for themselves instead, leaving mothers mostly out of the equation? No. Notwithstanding that such custom would in the long run more make people think for themselves about sodomy rather than just adopting standard opinion, it isn't worth it. That girls (and boys, too, for that matter) be well-protected from sodomy is just too important.

Anyway, conformity explains the otherwise surprising failure of many people to see that sodomy is likely an evil addiction in the very simple sense that semen likely contains chemicals that are addictive and capable of being especially well-absorbed by the digestive system. And notwithstanding the truth as regards sodomy is simple and black-and-white, it is well for the anti-sodomite to suspend his general disdain for the ad populem argument. Notwithstanding people believing something just because others do tends to make me grimace and shake my head, I can see the desirability and importance of pointing out to others that during much of recorded history sodomy was in fact mostly viewed by people as a vile addiction, and will be accepting if, unlike with my well-reasoned hate of sodomy, someone's hate of sodomy is based merely on a desire to hold traditional 19th-century opinions there. Mostly unenforceable or unenforced anti-sodomy laws, laws against sodomy marriage, these restrictions perhaps may not seem important in themselves, but if for nothing else than that they are reflections of societal attitudes that create in the herd impressions of these societal attitudes, they are important and useful, even if not as useful as explaining the truth.