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.

No comments: