This poem of mine is kind of dim (some might say boring), but I like it. I am in a mood for increased sacredness. I also cherished sacredness during the period last year in Maryland after it was decided we were moving to North Carolina.
Sacred
Sometimes I wonder,
What exactly I am doing.
Because I don’t understand
my motivations.
No.
Of course not.
It would be silly
to act
only after when my motivations
are understood
by me.
I don’t really have a clue
what she thinks of me.
Mixed emotions!
Yes,
that is the most probable explanation
that fits most everybody.
Vaguely I feel
I could know
just how much particular people
are afraid of me.
But reason
tells me
it’s pretty hopeless.
Girls could say,
“I’m frightened.”
But they don’t.
And actually I can understand why.
If girls were up front
about their fears
that would make it easier
for the people who deserve fear.
The dangerous men would just go after
the ones
they knew weren’t afraid of them.
It’s a nuisance to deal with,
though.
And I wish I could tell
whether girls want privacy
or attention
when attention
unavoidably
may compromise privacy,
especially when a desire for secrecy
isn’t exactly what girls
are most likely to have had
the most
respect for
in men
when setting up
their option menus.
Somehow sacredness seems the emotion
I most need and cherish.
I don’t really care, actually,
what others think of me,
as much as others,
and yet,
I care too much.
I must guard myself
against
general opinion.
I could almost say,
“I am, respectfully,
your humble dutiful servant, etc.”
But I’m not.
Because I don’t want to be that.
Thinking of her
makes me want
to pick up my math books again.
To review things I’ve forgot,
and learn the fundamental things I never learned
or never learned quite right.
To turn the pages
with sacred devotion.
Jordan-Holder theorem there—
and over there,
retrace the argument that a permutation
can’t be both odd and even,
think about how it looks
composing from right to left
and left to right.
No mere irrelevant choice, perhaps.
Is a sequence the order of the dice in front of me?
Or would it be better to think of it
as a sequence of positions with the indices
of the sequence
merely the numbers I see
each one
on its own die?
It might matter,
what choice is best,
depending upon how I should think of it.
I think I’ll choose the former standard choice,
but not because it is standard.
I want to become knowledgeable
in my own way.
Without enthusiasm
I can gain wisdom
greater than what I’ve got
but there is danger
I’ll spend all time reviewing
striving for perfection
merely because I feel error
as corruption
or too readily allow myself
to fall into the chant
of the math book
encouraging me
not to skip
or think
outside the order
the math book is written in.
No error
is worth being pedantic
over.
I want to get where I want to go
Without worrying particularly
What route is best.
All I should demand
I dream
is a sense
I’m sort of going
in the right direction,
like when something makes me wonder in confusion,
that’s what I should employ my faculties
of understanding
then upon,
especially if I can behold
myself
in my imagination
considering it
with sacred concern.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Hesitation
Weird. I was just about to send a message to someone, and so (unless memory fails me) I opened the message window like no problem. Then I accidentally moved away from that window when I discovered a new piece of (quite irrelevant as it turned out) data on the page from which I accessed the message window. Rather than send the message immediately, I decided to look outside my window at the trees and the sky and the clouds for a few minutes, to see if after that I still felt like it was appropriate to send the message. It felt like I should send it, and when I try I am no longer able to send that person messages. Even though I don't think that person could have known I was going to send a message. Well, that's what I think happened, and obviously I am not going to be so disrespectful of the wishes of the other person as to send the message now using some other avenue of communication, or try to use some subterfuge to communicate the message. I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally send the message. And I think I opened up the message window once successfully, though I don't believe I can be totally sure of that, because the History feature in internet explorer only seems to keep the most current visit, maybe I was just imagining I opened the send message window once before? Oh, this was like a totally consequential message (I mean whether to send it or not), and I don't really know whether I sent it--I doubt this--, originally couldn't send it, or, what my memory suggests (though it would seem an inexplicable coincidence), that I originally could send it, but then a few minutes later, couldn't.
Saturday, I came down with some weird flu-like illness (mostly just fever, sore throat, and fatigue). I am just finishing getting over that now (Tuesday), but am still tired and listless and my throat is still somewhat sore. It was strange, because I hardly ever get sick. I try to eat hazelnuts every day, like an animal that buries hazelnuts (as is good for the tree) would tend to do, but except in the fall, they are hard to get, and to save time while my sister and her family was visiting, I postponed driving to the Whole Foods in Winston to get some more. I hardly ever allow myself to go a day without eating hazelnuts, but I went about two weeks without eating hardly any, and then--bam--while at South Carolina at my late grandparents' house after having promised to drive a rental truck my parents had largely filled with stuff to get here, I get horrible sick, more sick than in about ten years, with a fever at 8:55 pm Saturday of 102.6 degress (the peak reading) that for a few hours had been going up linearly .3 degrees (fahrenheit) per hour. I tell my parents and sister, forget Tylenol, I need hazelnuts. Eventually, my Mom, despite thinking me a little batty and after having given me almonds and pushing Tylenol, grudgingly agreed to look for hazelnuts, and found the one grocery store, Bi-Lo, where they had them. Upon starting the hazelnuts at 9:10pm, my fever quickly (102.2 by 10:35) started going down, more-or-less linearly, until it was 99.0 by 10:15 the next morning. With rest my fever was inconsequential enough that the next day I was able to drive back on time and help with the unpacking, though if I had rested more I probably would have gotten well sooner, and in fact my fever worsened a degree or so on Sunday with the stress. I should have believed more in myself and my theory about the importance to health of eating nuts (well, hazelnuts, since they are my favorite) a similar amount each day, and should have tried harder to get some when my larder from fall was in a good way toward having been consumed.
Saturday, I came down with some weird flu-like illness (mostly just fever, sore throat, and fatigue). I am just finishing getting over that now (Tuesday), but am still tired and listless and my throat is still somewhat sore. It was strange, because I hardly ever get sick. I try to eat hazelnuts every day, like an animal that buries hazelnuts (as is good for the tree) would tend to do, but except in the fall, they are hard to get, and to save time while my sister and her family was visiting, I postponed driving to the Whole Foods in Winston to get some more. I hardly ever allow myself to go a day without eating hazelnuts, but I went about two weeks without eating hardly any, and then--bam--while at South Carolina at my late grandparents' house after having promised to drive a rental truck my parents had largely filled with stuff to get here, I get horrible sick, more sick than in about ten years, with a fever at 8:55 pm Saturday of 102.6 degress (the peak reading) that for a few hours had been going up linearly .3 degrees (fahrenheit) per hour. I tell my parents and sister, forget Tylenol, I need hazelnuts. Eventually, my Mom, despite thinking me a little batty and after having given me almonds and pushing Tylenol, grudgingly agreed to look for hazelnuts, and found the one grocery store, Bi-Lo, where they had them. Upon starting the hazelnuts at 9:10pm, my fever quickly (102.2 by 10:35) started going down, more-or-less linearly, until it was 99.0 by 10:15 the next morning. With rest my fever was inconsequential enough that the next day I was able to drive back on time and help with the unpacking, though if I had rested more I probably would have gotten well sooner, and in fact my fever worsened a degree or so on Sunday with the stress. I should have believed more in myself and my theory about the importance to health of eating nuts (well, hazelnuts, since they are my favorite) a similar amount each day, and should have tried harder to get some when my larder from fall was in a good way toward having been consumed.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Responsibility
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)