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.

No comments: