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.