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.