Why the field of Psychology is destined always to be mostly rubbish

It is a mistake to study the field of psychology--not because psychology treats of a not interesting subject matter, but for the pedestrian reason that the field of psychology so long as it exists is and always will be replete with falsehood. It will never be a subject that on the whole is done well, and consequently is not a field that should be taught at Universities, etc., as a unified subject. Psychology should be replaced by Pscychologies. There should be a separate degree available about each person who possess towards the subject a view that students are interested in studying. E.g., instead one should be able to get a degree in the various thoughts corresponding to the various psychological outlooks people view as important. Better that Christian psychology, Shakespearean psychology, Lockean psychology, etc., should exist as entirely separate departments. Indeed, the danger of it being seen that there should be a field of psychology being so great, an even safer approach is to have separate degrees in Christian theology, the thought of Shakespeare, the thought of Locke, etc. Deceivers tend to be better at deceiving about general human nature than anything else, which tends to make it inevitable that Psychology, so long as it is viewed as a field that necessarily should be unified, will be dominated by the deceptions of deceivers and liars.

My own particular human nature is something that I am the most well-positioned to understand. I am the only one who can perceive my thoughts, emotions, etc., directly. Others can at best only make well-informed opinions of what my interior perceptions--my reflections, as Locke would say--really are. This is not just true of me, it is true of everyone. It is easier to judge one's own (interior) human nature than it is to judge the human nature of someone else, not only because one has more data that could be publicly accessible, but more importantly, because one has data that can't be publicly accessible, namely that furnished by reflection.

The character of a particular person's human nature, being so much more accessible to the person herself than to anyone else, furnishes an ideal touchstone against which she may assay the sensitivity of another toward her own character. I am not saying that it is at all easy to make someone think her particular nature is something otherwise than it is. However, it can be very rewarding for selfish people to succeed in such an endeavor. To see why, I shall first reiterate something I have discussed numerous times before, namely that, as is entirely reasonable, one tends to judge moral goodness in another indirectly by judging sensitivity towards one's own character.

There is a great deal of confusion about why altruism evolves. The so-called evolutionary psychologists pretty much all assume some sort of game-theoretic approach that assumes an altruistic nature can't be predicted except from inferences made by past behavior. This assumption is neither reasonable nor common-sensical. I daresay that just a look at a beautiful girl is often enough to give sufficient evidence that the girl I am looking at very likely has especially beautiful, good traits. Nor would it be anything but unreasonable to suppose that many people would have evolved a similar remarkable sensitivity, to various degrees. Indeed, this sort of sensitivity is mainly something people have in connection with mating. The most important unselfishness so far as the evolution of goodness is concerned is unselfishness towards a mate. And it's a good thing, too, because it is only there that sensitivity would be expected to go hand in hand with an unselfish nature. When a person tricks a mate into a love that is not just, the result will be extra offspring by deceived individuals. For example, a selfish fiend could succeed in tricking a female into thinking he is especially good and thus loveable, and thereby cause him to have more children than he otherwise would have, an evolutionary advantage to him; but what he can't at all easily do is trick females into having sensitive children with him, because he can only trick insensitive gullible females, the children of which will likely inherit her insensitivity. It follows that there will be a high correlation between insensitivity and the tendency to deceive about one's own character. And this correlation is extremely useful to virtuous individuals, because it allows them to judge unselfishness (not easy on the face of it to judge directly) indirectly by judging something easy to judge, namely sensitivity towards one's own character. Sensitivity is something moral girls cherish in prospective mates. Selfish females mostly want money and caring; unselfish girls, being just, want their beloveds to possess good, unselfish moral character, and thus, being unselfish, these unselfish females often consider it just to greatly reward virtue and those males possessing the most reliable evidence for it, namely sensitivity. Girls love most importantly by sex, and the girls who are willing to love by sex being virtuous and therefore just, they especially want to love sexually a sensitive male, and so sensitivity evolves. Sensitive males get more rewarding sex.

Sensitivity gets males into bed with extra-loving females. Selfishness also can be rewarding to males, because it makes unnecessary many sacrifices that otherwise a desire to be (unselfishly) just would demand. The problem for selfish people is that, as explained in the last paragraph, they tend to be very insensitive. So a common strategy of the selfish is to fake sensitivity. True, the difficulty of faking sensitivity is great, but then so are the potential rewards. Girls may let you fuck them (perhaps even in a reproductively meaningful way) just because your fake sensitivity might make them think you are nice. But here is the main point: Indeed it is intrinsically difficult to fake an understanding of the particular interior personal aspects of another, but it is not nearly so difficult to fake an understanding of the aspects of another that are held generally by people. I could not make up what a girl's personal tendencies, ideas, and reflections are and expect her to believe me if I'm clueless. But were I deceptive, I could with much greater chance of success make a girl interpret her interior thoughts otherwise than in the way that should make the most sense. General notions applicable to girls in general are just what the seducer needs to convince girls into thinking themselves as what they are not. And why after all should a bad male be any worse at coming up with deceptions as regards how a girl should interpret her own internal feelings than he should be at coming up with other sorts of deceptions? Indeed, one wouldn't expect him at all to be worse at coming up with deceptions so close to what he needs to convince girls that he be sensitive, the very deceptions he perhaps most needs to increase his sexual success.

People are not born with many innate tendencies; most tendencies are what I call abstract tendencies, tendencies that arise because an understanding of one's other tendencies suggests that there is a pattern of tendencies into which the abstract tendency fits. I.e., one innate tendency is to adopt as tendencies those tendencies, the abstract tendencies that are abstractions from one's other tendencies in the sense that they seem to fit the pattern of the others as best understood from one's understandings of things in general. It is not at all likely that a seductive male or a manipulative woman would much be able to be sensitive towards an other's innate tendencies, but it is not particularly unlikely that a deceptive person particularly skilled at his deceptive craft can not infrequently make people (and members of the opposite sex, in particular) come to understand themselves in a way that more or less guarantees as a consequent a set of tendencies abstracted from error which may not only be understood by a seducer or manipulator, but predicted beforehand by him. Since it is not trivial to differentiate one's natural understanding of one's self from an unnatural imposed one based on error, and since most tendencies are abstracted to varying large degrees, this method of faking sensitivity by imparting erroneous understandings of general human nature is sufficiently possible that given its potential rewards one would expect evolution to cause in selfish people the tendency and faculty to deceive about general human nature to be refined to a degree far exceeding their other deceptive tendencies and faculties. With a cunning and faculty greater than about anything else, selfish people lie about what people are.

One must grudgingly have some respect for what bad people are skilled at and realize that any general field that deals in what bad people are best at lying about is doomed to be replete with lies and deceptions, and will mostly be dominated by the immoral. Since this general field is psychology, the study of general human nature, it's nothing but counterproductive for there to be such a field considered a curriculum. Even if somewhere psychology could be studied wisely, it can't really be expected for that situation to last very long. Of course, it is very important that good people be allowed to express the truths that are counter to the lies of psychology employed by the deceptive people, and in flavor, these truths also could (if one was imprudent enough to think the concept of psychology ontologically deserving) be called psychology. But they shouldn't be called psychology. For instance, I have much to say about human nature, and in particular how it relates to morality and sex. But I would not want what I have to say about it to be considered "psychology". No, if it ever comes about that my ideas get studied in the universities, it would in every way be preferable that my ideas be studied separately from the ideas of others, say as Meigsology. Psychologists so long as they are considered psychologists rather than students of some particular type of thought will always mostly be vile and not the sort of people I want teaching my ideas. Even evolutionary psychology bothers me, because it is psychology after all, and indeed one only need look at most of what goes by evolutionary psychology to see how ridiculous most of it is and replete with the same sort of errors that render psychology vile. There should be no general field of evolutionary psychology, just fields corresponding one-one with the individuals making inferences about human behavior (whether partly from evolution or otherwise), each individual being considered separately perhaps along with the people he respects who influenced him.

I am voting for Obama; and something completely different

I am disappointed that both Obama and McCain supported the bailout bill. But at least Obama is wholeheartedly supporting a stimulus package, which might make up somewhat for the stupid unfair bailouts. I figure the reason the economy didn't fall apart this summer largely had to do with the tax rebate checks, small though they were. And I have the impression that Obama has more of an upside than McCain. Obama, being young, is probably less set in his errors and more in a good way to learn.

I noticed as the campaign unfolded that Obama demonstrated the capacity to adapt. He didn't seem conceited in his speech before the Democratic Convention, as he earlier had seemed to me. It's as though he has the ability to understand and recognize his own irrational traits and work on correcting them, not an easy thing to do.

I am not entirely gloomy about the economic situation. True, few of our leaders have a clue about economics, but with time reality will knock some sense into them and perhaps encourage them to read economics textbooks, etc., and to think rationally about how to make things better. And with time, we voters can learn better which leaders are corrupted by financial interests. I plan to vote Republican for Senate and House, since my representative and my senator up for re-election this year each voted against the bailout bill, which is more than one can say for most Democratic senators and representatives.

There is a hint of an interesting idea in McCain's whole deification of Joe the Plumber. One could argue that there is something admirable in one who believes in choosing a path that will give him great gains should he succeed (at the expense of abysmal failure should he not succeed). Again, behaving so that one's success or failure more depends on one's innate abilities is something that encourages evolution, which people don't really care unselfishly about enough, since having highly evolved descendants mainly is of benefit to the mates of descendants, inasmuch as most of the genetic material in the descendants of some person is not from that person. People are especially selfishly indifferent when it comes to caring about (long-term) benefits to distant descendants. But just because it is admirable for Joe the Plumber to be this way, doesn't mean it is admirable for society thus to try to rev up natural selection by allowing excess income and wealth differences. E.g., maybe too much natural selection could interfere with sexual selection (which alone is mostly responsible for evolution of moral traits), maybe wealth doesn't correspond well to worth, and maybe evolution can go too fast (and thus too narrowly). I don't feel like it's something I have fresh clear insights into, though, especially the last part, so it is something I don't want to discuss until I do. Which is too bad, in a way, because vaguely I feel one of the main reasons some people are hesitant to take me seriously is they are scared by my attempts to connect evolution with morality. It's asinine that some people think "Hitler!" any time someone discusses morality and evolution together. They're kind of like people who think anyone who enjoys pondering nude females is a woot!-hole! person (probably the main reason females are afraid of nudity (as opposed to modelling in bikinis, say) is that they quite reasonably don't want to emphasize the hole-like quality of their sexuality, lest they be seen as trying to encourage woot!-hole! males, who typically are forever insidiously conflating holes). I refuse to let Hitler make me hesitant to consider evolution and morality together just as much as I refuse to let woot!-hole! males make me hesitant to consider female sexuality and the nude female form together. I am not afraid of becoming Hitler or a woot!-hole! male. What is the point of scaring people? Hitlers and woot!-hole! males will be what they are regardless, and so by encouraging people to take care lest they become one, one will only end up making scared and guilty the people who on account of their virtues should not be thus. I should point out that when I say someone is "woot!-hole!" I don't mean to imply enthusiasm, just behavior that mimics enthusiasm. Not that there's any depravity that should be suggested by real enthusiasm, notwithstanding enthusiasm can lead to nerdishness and is typically somewhat crazy.

It seems I underestimated the "stubborn cluelessness" of our leaders

In my last post, I wrote:

Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

Now this from the New York Times:

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

The underlying problem as I see it is that rich society mostly deals with crap by pretending crap is of no significance. They look down on people who are concerned about getting their hindquarters screwed as merely vulgar, as not much different basically from those who think getting their hindquarters screwed is good fun. The evils of the banking system are so similar to the evils of getting sodomized that it very easily tends to make people emotionally paranoid about it. Elitists view the looming financial disaster with the same idiocy they view sodomy, just as some phantom phenomenon people go paranoid about. They know that the people who get scared are not the people who give the best pianoforte and violin recitals, and practically speaking, the nervous people, they don't give the best presentations at board meetings, and aren't the best public speakers, etc. Do you want someone leading our country who at dinner parties over tea, wine and caviar is so unrelaxed that he can't think easily with nice elegant transitions in his speech? Well that's the way people tend to be when they worry about things like sodomy or the financial system collapsing. The rich tend to agree with Captain Smith (of the Titanic) that icebergs are so rare it's vulgar to worry about them.

It is important for those arguing about the evil of the banking system to not emotionally identify our being impoverished by the idiocy and greed of our financial leaders with our getting sodomized. The powerful people will sense your uncouth emotion and any exaggeration that such uncouth emotion might engender, and consider that as evidence of your folly. They won't want to listen to you over tea and crackers if they sense any paranoid feelings. True, better to be emotionally a little paranoid than to just ignore the issue from the disturbing emotions it can produce, but best of all to very sanely hate the evils of the financial system. The current cast of characters leading our financial system are probably not the fascist sodomizing rapists, they are the people who later could cause the fascist sodomizing rapists seem a viable alternative as people emotionally sense that the latter at least feel depravity has some emotional significance.

Of course, there are some rich people who don't ignore strong emotions. They're the sort who listen to opera, who tend I'm suspecting to be the better sort of rich people. But they're not particularly very wise about their emotions, because after all, opera is for and by rich people, and so because rich people tend to be idiotic about these things, it just is not as informative about emotions toward screwed-up things as bluegrass music, for example (though bluegrass music has much dishonest and messed-up about it, because there is no particular reason to think people who like it are better than those who don't, whereas rich people who like opera are probably mostly better than rich people who like some other sort of rich peoples' music).

Ha, to go a little off topic, I am partial to the emotional insights of the model in this music slideshow video, purportedly shot in Hamburg, which video I discovered a few days ago. (The music is I guess also very good, but being a visual person, I prefer looking at it with the music off. The photos would be better without the occasional cigarettes, though.)

My impressions on the financial mess

Since January, when I realized that something ahistoric was happening with nonborrowed bank reserves, I have been examining our country's financial situation with much more than my usual attention. I realized something very dire was happening, and after then studying the matter for a week or so I came to the conclusion I still hold today, namely that there is only one reasonable way out of the mess. And the solution is not at all complicated or otherwise than straightforward. The banks loaned out too much money, as they have done numerous times in bubbles before, and so they should pay the consequences; more specifically they should be left alone, most of them (among them the worst of them) going bankrupt. This will destroy a great deal of fictitious wealth, making people less willing to spend, and thereby causing the threat of a deflationary spiral leading to horrendous depression. But President Wilson created the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt took us off the gold standard precisely so such depression would not be inevitable. All we have to do to cancel the deflation is replace some of the fictitious money created by debt with real money by turning on the printing presses (as we started out trying to do with the tax rebate stimulus checks, a wonderful idea that didn't go far enough). And of course, this money created will in a short while end up being deposited at banks, thereby lessening the banks' problems somewhat, though not sufficiently that many won't fail, probably. So some of the money the government will print would end up being printed to reimburse those with money in failed banks who have insured accounts. That's fine, this money will also go toward avoiding the deflationary spiral.

Houses and mortgage-backed securities (the latter being the fundamental investments created as a result of bundling mortgages together to create investments so banks can more easily unload loans in order to make or process new loans) were overpriced. It is rather like the tulip bubble in Holland; the owners of tulips at the height of the tulip-frenzy never really collectively had the wealth corresponding to the prices of the tulips; the tulip bulbs were not worth nearly as much as they were priced at; it was just a bubble. The same thing is true of today. Those who thought they were wealthy because they owned houses, mortgage-backed securities, stock in Wall Street banks, etc., were not actually as wealthy as they thought, for the prices of these items were all inflated as a result of the bubble, and more particularly, incorrect expectations that they would rise in price. The government should bail out those who deposited their money in federally insured bank accounts, and should let the others suffer for their folly. There is a reason some people put their money in bank accounts and treasury securities, etc., even though in boom times their return on investment is low. They know that when booms end, as they are ending now, they don't want to risk losing their money. It is not fair to those who put their money in safe investments to change the rules when the more risky investments are in a good way to fail.

What is really sinister about propping up mortgage-backed securities and the financial institutions, as our government disturbingly seems to be attempting, is that the average not particularly wealthy person does not invest in mortgage-backed securities, money market funds, hedge funds, investment banks, etc. Propping up financial institutions amounts to taking money from the average taxpayer and giving it to those (usually wealthy people) who have investments in the financial sector. It would be like the government of Holland after the tulip bubble burst buying all tulips at their peak prices, something they couldn't do in those days because money was tied to gold in those days, which kept them from printing it. It should be very revealing to naive people who have grown accustomed to hearing over-and-over like a broken record from the pillars of finance of the evil of government interfering with the financial system just how quickly these so-called pillars are willing to change their tune. What happened to laissez-faire? All of a sudden government interference in the economy is not communist anymore. Government redistribution of wealth apparently turns out to be just fine when the redistribution is to the wealthy people with stakes in the excessively influential real-estate and financial sector. There is talk of the government buying up mortgage-backed securities. This would possibly be a piece of legislation never exceeded in both its regressiveness and unjustness. Those who aren't heavily invested in real estate, investment banks, etc., including all poor people, will endure great hardship as a result of this. Fortunately, I'm inclined to think the government can't pull it off. Mortgage backed securities are largely owned by those overseas. Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

What our government should do:

1. Let investment prices, real estate prices, etc., reach their natural values. In particular, be fair and stop bailing out what the government hasn't promised to bail out. As banks and credit unions fail, reimburse those depositors with FDIC or NCUSIF insurance.

2. Print money to avoid deflation and the concomitant deflationary spiral. Technically, the way the government does this is that the Treasury Department issues bonds, and the FED keeps or buys them (crediting the treasury with money) rather than selling these bonds on the open market. Distribute the money created to ordinary people (and to those with Federally insured accounts which have failed), e.g., in tax rebates or temporary tax reductions.

3. For the rest of eternity, require banks to keep much larger reserves so this sort of vile thing doesn't happen again, and so that the underlying cause of the bubble is eliminated (and eliminate loopholes that allow banks to skirt reserves, e.g., as with banks selling loans for securitization). Actually, for many years it has been my belief that low bank reserves have been a huge drag on our economy. Low bank reserves amount to the same thing as easy credit. As long as banks lend like crazy, the amount of money people have in banks will be a little less than the amount they are in debt, and the average person (who is more likely to have his money in banks than in the stock market) is therefore destined to be poor. True, there should be some low level of bank lending. Loan sharks probably would arise when there are no banks lending. And I will admit that there is an advantage to encouraging people to buy houses rather than rent. But the financial industry has so manipulated the public and our government by extolling home ownership, that home ownership has become an idol. As those who haven't studied Economics 101 in college unfortunately don't tend to realize (along with politicians who were more concerned with drunken revelry in college than with learning), banks create money when they lend it. Most money that is created is created by banks lending it, and this money impoverishes the poor people even in economically stable times--every such dollar is a dollar someone in debt has to pay interest on. At least with ordinary busts there can be a kind of catharsis after the bust as lending gets contracted. Now it seems that our government is using its cleverness mainly just to avoid this catharsis. I am not inclined to think they will be able to put Humpty Dumpty (the fictitious financial capital) back together again or increase personal debt to former levels or beyond, but I do believe their efforts will cause great misery (more a prolonged torture-like misery than an all-at-once one), at least to those who are not wealthy and are without a stake in real estate or financials.

The best blog I have found discussing the current financial mess is naked capitalism; even the comments are usually insightful(and eclectic as one would expect from people necessarily on the fly trying to figure out what is going on as new rules get enacted most every day).

The Moral of the Story

Follow the link for a lengthy discussion in the comment section that I am having about metamorals.

Enjoyment of Female Lust

Mostly, there is nothing wrong with pleasure. Real pleasure tends to correspond to what one needs from an evolutionary standpoint. Virtue demands not an indifference to one's own pleasure, but balancing one's own need for (real) pleasure with others' need for (real) pleasure. Love is not sacrifice. Mostly, one should seek to please others more than one's self precisely when it is just to do so. E.g., on the face of it, if I love someone an amount equal to what I love myself, then when I have a choice as to whether I should please her or me, I should determine who would be pleased more, and act accordingly. But when having sex with lustful girls, it is different. The significance of the lust, in my opinion, as I have described elsewhere, is that it occasions intraejaculate sperm selection. Sexual pleasure from females is mostly automatic when having sex with females, and of course there is nothing to be ashamed of in receiving it—the more, the better. But one can go beyond mere enjoyment to a kind of reveling in the pleasure. One can allow the enjoyment to have a large influence in determining behavior: one can emotionally allow it to influence very directly one's behavior. Now, reveling in pleasure is a kind of emotion, and the thing about having sex that involves intraejaculate sperm selection is that emotions tend to matter. If a male revels in his own sexual pleasure, well, probably his reveling will tend to select for sperm whose ancestral genetic material was from males who reveled in their own sexual pleasure. Since selfishness is seeking pleasure for oneself instead of for others who justly deserve it, bad males may be expected to spend a larger time reveling in their own sexual pleasure, compared with good males. At the very least, good males couldn't spend nearly as much time reveling in their own sexual pleasure because they'd be spending some of their time emotionally swept up in sexually pleasing the loved girls they are having sex with, and just in general making the sex beautiful. So in fact, notwithstanding that one's own sexual pleasure may well be as important as that of the female one is having sex with, emotionally it is better for a male not to revel in his own sexual pleasure as much as he cherishes his loving and sexually pleasing her. In fact, as regards standard sexual pleasures, it is best for the male to avoid reveling in them.

It is interesting and revealing that there is a kind of misconception that I fairly frequently see in girls about what a male reveling in his own sexual pleasure says about him. I am sure most decent males will have some experience with girls giving them that hussy look of “I like boys who are sexually selfish because they're such studs they can fuck girls even when they don't try to please the girls they are fucking.” In particular, I remember when riding the subway one hussy gave me just that look while her boyfriend was fidgeting all over her; a boyfriend I may add who was so dangerous looking I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised if his profession was drug-dealer or highway robber. On an intellectual (a word perhaps unjust to use in her case) level, I'm sure she thought me a naïve fool. Anyway, it is a totally preposterous logic. Sexual selfishness is what advances one's own sexual needs. A male behaving sexually selfishly by definition gets more from sex than he would if he behaved otherwise. If a female selects for genetic material from me that was sexually selfish in males, she will select for genetic material that might well have sexually succeeded because it behaved sexually selfish. Is it really easier to fuck a dozen girls at once if I choose not to be sexually selfish? I mean come on, what should girls think sexually selfish males use their selfishness to try to do? Maybe fucking a dozen girls? It sounds pretty pleasant to me. True, male holiness is unselfish, but then males who think they deserve more than what they have got have every reason to be holy; thus, you'd more expect to find unholiness (that comes from the male) from males who deep down know what success they have experienced is undeserved. In fact, it is considerably more impressive when a male who fucks fucks unselfishly. But this is not really the point. A male who fucks unselfishly is much more likely to be unselfish—that is the point. Girls hate having sex with deceptive males; and a male's virtue is her only guarantee of his not being that way. Sex with girls only selects for genetic material that is sexually pleasant to a female to the extent the genetic material in the male has not succeeded (in past generations) in getting sex from girls by deception. When a girl has sex with a deceptive male, the kind of genetic material her lust will select for in sperm will just be that genetic material so lame as to only succeed by deception (girls are more susceptible to deception than women are). For their own sexual pleasure, girls need sperm selection to select for sperm coding for virtuous, morally good traits. Lustful girls (and to a lesser extent, lustful women) need their male partners to be emotionally good and especially unselfish when they are having sex, because else sex will select for sperm coding for selfish traits like deception, and that is disaster so far as the girls' sexual pleasure is concerned.

As mentioned, female lust makes everything different. One might ask, then, whether enjoyment of female lust be different? Indeed, it is different. A virtuous male enjoys female lust because he too needs sex to select for his best genetic material. A male who is not virtuous, on the other hand, prefers girls not to be lustful, notwithstanding more than a few bad males might find it convenient to not much criticize female lust from the consideration that it might trick girls into thinking him the type of male girls would naturally lust for. One would expect there to be a strong correlation, then, between males possessing virtue and their appreciating female lust. Good males, then, would be expected more to revel in the pleasure given by the lust of the girls they are having sex with than bad males would. Bad males can't, after all, revel in something that isn't even pleasant for them. Accordingly, among the pleasures given by sex, the pleasure given by female lust or indeed anything that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, is something that is uniquely appropriate for a male to revel in. And indeed, reveling in female lust (which lust according to my theory possesses chemicals that get absorbed into the bloodstream through the penis, thereupon degrading cytoplasm bridges (syncytia) that exist between developing sperm cells in spermatogenesis, making sperm behavior more under haploid regulation than diploid regulation, effectively enabling intraejaculate sperm selection) is so indicative of virtue in males, that girls are very pleased by such reveling, as long as it is not carried too much to extremes. Indeed, one should be careful not to take these revelings to extremes. As Aristotle says, there is virtue in moderation. People have a tendency to be too black-and-white about things (except sodomy). And the enjoyment of female lust seems more than most things to be capable of tending to lead to that black-and-white insane tendency. Female lust is greatest, according to my theories, when many young females are involved. When lustful girls get their waists next to one another, there is a kind of allergic reaction that makes way more lust mucous, according to my theories. The youth inside girls selects for the sort of sperm females need from virtuous males, provided there is enough female lust absorbed by the male to make intraejaculate sperm selection relevant.. And sperm going from one lustful female to another (as can happen only when having sex with several females at once) selects in intraejaculate sperm selection for sperm able to survive such changes in environment, which necessarily would tend to possess stud qualities desirous to females. So, love of female lust is in a way close to loving extremes. It's not wanting just a moderate amount of females, it's (very close to) wanting a very large number of females (all at once). And it's not wanting females of a moderate age (for females having sex), it's wanting them very young. So a male should be careful to not let the insane tendency to not sufficiently appreciate moderation lead him to insanely want girls to infinity or beyond or to be so demanding of youth as to get him into trouble or to fail to appreciate sufficiently somewhat older females. Fortunately, life is not just sex, so any tendency toward immoderation that reveling in female lust might make a male feel more comfortable with will have a way of being corrected when dealing with ordinary matters. Actually, sex itself is one of those things one is apt to be insanely immoderate about. Get in a good way toward fucking girls, and that will make depraved men want to control you, probably (the tragedy of Robert Crane comes to mind). Emotionally, on some primitive level, males appreciate this, even if reason and understanding is a better defense against the dark arts. Emotionally, once you've resolved to try to fuck lots of girls, well, you'll probably wonder emotionally when (as there always will be) there are girls you want to fuck whom you haven't fucked yet whether your delay is on account of some monster having screwed your ass into thinking the delay necessary. And when dumb laws get in your way, you might feel you feel they are in your way because the authorities have screwed you, whereas they really might be in the way. (On the other hand, one might feel so powerless, gloomy and humiliated as to just totally give up even on what is allowed, but I don't think that is me.)

Yeah, but someone might say, I imagine, in response to my entreaty that males should not be reluctant to seek out the enjoyment of females lusting for them, that it would also be sufficient for a male to appreciate female lust from love. All he would have to do is ruminate on the consideration that when females have lust for him and behave with him in such a manner that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, the females get more sexual pleasure, as his love wants, of course. Simple love of making the sex better for the females could by itself make males appreciate female lust and sexual selection, inasmuch as good males tend to love the females they have sex with. Love all by itself could make males appreciate great sex. It is true that love of the girl one is having sex with is important in inducing males to want increased female lust and better sex. However, when it comes to female lust and intraejaculate sperm selection, I really think not only that the more inducement in the male the better, but also that his own needs are a better, higher inducement to correct behavior than her needs are. When female lust makes for a better intraejaculate sperm selection, that gives the girl having the sex with a virtuous male more sexual pleasure. But the pleasure is mostly short-term. After a few generations, only her DNA that is closely linked with his DNA will be able to profit from his DNA being more desirable. This linkage will decrease over time. In the short term, the male's pleasure from female lust is not quite as significant. When female lust selects for his best DNA, it does so at the expense of his less desirable DNA. The real pleasure for a male is long-term. Generation after generation the DNA that was originally passed down on account of the particulars of sex will be more successful merely from it being more fit. But in the long-term it won't mainly be his DNA that prospers. After many generations, only a slight amount of any descendant will be genetically from him. It will be the genetic material that is together with this material that mainly will benefit—material that comes from the myriads of spouses of descendants. And since virtue tends to mate with virtue, this is a very good thing. Those who have read somewhat carefully my writings concerning morality will realize that a major theme is that the idealism selection that selects for ordinary goodness just doesn't work very well when selecting for the tendency to want to evolve well. Caring about mating early, being true to oneself (so one succeeds or fails more according to one's own nature than according to the nature of whatever persons one has in conformity copied), appreciating others when they are true to themselves—none of these things are people good about to the extent it is in the interests of good people to be. Fortunately (as I have explained elsewhere), there are secondary considerations causing good people to take pleasure in these phenomena encouraging good evolution. Girls tend to want to have sex with good males while they are still young, because intraejaculate sperm selection makes it pleasant for them to do so. Similarly, they are pleased by authentic character probably as a result of female lust having certain epigenetic consequences that makes genes effected by these consequences especially expressed by those striving to be themselves. And males appreciate similar authenticity in girls having sex with them because such girls are the ones other girls are pleased to imitate. Mostly, males are not good enough to be very unselfish in desiring female lust from the beneficial effect that lust will have for distant descendants. These distant descendants just aren't related enough for it to have much force to evolve. If there is some pleasure in males in desiring intraejaculate sperm selection for the beneficial effect it will have on descendants, this should not be looked on as a bad thing. On the contrary, what a wonderful, higher, very beautiful thing. The only thing, perhaps, that can make up for the immoral tendency of people not to care sufficiently about the difficulties distant descendants will have. To care about distant descendants is a higher, more unselfish thing than to care about near descendants. Whether this caring is a result of pleasure or something else, it is beautiful and should be venerated and seen as something deep with possibilities to merge into some sort of higher obscure phenomenon. Males should be especially appreciated if they tend to revel in the pleasures female lust could give them. There is something akin to goodness, a higher goodness in which people are sorely lacking, in a male thoroughly enjoying and reveling in the pleasures female lust can give him in sex by way of its making intraejaculate sperm selection better. Accordingly, girls would be expected to find it quite pleasant sexually when a virtuous male they are having sex with does revel in their lust for him and when he wants that lust not just for their needs but more importantly for his own. They lust for his dick to long for the pleasure their lust can give it. Such girls are not hussies (or, alternatively, if you define hussy so inclusively that they are, then they are not bad hussies, but good, clean virtuous hussies). Indeed, emotions in males that suggest virtue in him, and more particularly, a higher virtue, do select for that sort of sperm girls want, yeah. Sometimes pleasures are so strongly associated with higher virtues, the pleasures are more strongly suggestive of virtue than the virtues people possess directly as a result of a willingness to be directly unselfishness.

Alas, almost all females seem to be very confused about their sexual feelings toward other females, and this confusion is associated with confusion about the respectability of a male wanting to revel in female lust. Sophisticated girls know that when a disgusting male gets jealous of other males, that is when he is likely to especially want to do disgusting things to her. Skanky sophisticated females even sometimes stupidly exploit this to encourage males to sodomize them more. The more jealousy in the males screwing them, the more controlling, disgusting, and sodomizing the males screwing them will be, they figure. Indeed, bad males become even more controlling when they are especially given to feel as though if they are not controlling they will be displaced by someone else. A clean girl with her big heart doesn't want to be that way, even if she is quite comfortable with changing her mind about her evaluations and not particularly worried about her general friendliness giving some fussy males a (false) argument that she leads males on for foul reasons. She understands the evil of the situation, and so when a thought of her lover having sex with someone else ignites her sexual pleasure and lust to new levels, as one would expect from sex that is shared being so much more sexually pleasant and lustful than ordinary one-female/one-male sex, it is only understandable what interpretation she is likely to put on her sudden increase in the lustful carnality of her desires for him which other girls can induce in her. She will think that her newly awakened sexual desires are a result of jealousy. Female lust, like all lust, is frequently (and wrongly) identified with depravity. If she comes to want him more when something gives her occasion to imagine him in bed with another girl, she will think maybe that jealousy is causing her to want to be more addictively controlling and carnal in bed. “Fuck you,” she might say in her new lustful abandon, something after all there is a kind of appropriateness to her saying when fucking. But she'll probably say it like it is a bad thing, that competition with other females has given her the need to control him with lust before other females do, whereas of course he needs her (and lots of other girls) to fuck him in the carnal lustful way. Her being all carnal and lustful when having sex with him is just what he needs, and his wanting to take pleasure in it is not some sort of bad addiction, but a higher , more beautiful emotion even more respectable probably than his appreciating her lust from his love of her. And something similar happens when she interprets the newly awakened sexual desires for other girls that a desire for increased lust can cause in her. When she thinks about a female sharing her would-be lover in bed, it makes her want to get all lustful and carnal not only for him, but also for the girls sharing him in bed. She will of a sudden have homosexual desires! Well, we all know how pathetic people are at asking the wrong questions. It is sodomy (semen in the digestive system) that is properly disgusting. Male homosexual behavior is wrong because basically it means sodomy. Males sodomize males to control just as they sodomize females to control. Jealousy leads males to sodomize males and thus to homosexual behavior—girls know this intuitively. So girls figure that if they of a sudden have sexual desires for other girls caused by mutual love for a male, well, what underlies this sudden homosexuality may well be the same thing that can make a male want to sodomize a competitor—jealousy. In a way, it might be surprising girls would be so quick to think badly of themselves, but remember that when girls become addicted to depravity, they behave unjustly in a way that hurts other males. When a girl feels like maybe she wants to hurt others, as she might feel if she of a sudden wants to screw with lustful carnality in a way suggestive of jealousy in her, she doesn't need to think that she is fundamentally a bad person. All she has to think is that somehow she is under some sort of addictive influence. She will probably think on some level that her new found sexual desires for females are an addiction. She will wonder about herself similarly to how she wonders about the male she loves. She will wonder whether the desire for sex with limbs all intertwined in a bed full of young lustful wet females has addicted her just as it has addicted him, even to the point of wanting to use her lust to addict all of them and her lover to her as well. It is all the more easier for her to feel bad about herself because she knows she doesn't want her lover's own lust, and he's not the sort of person that in bed with them would make in himself his own lust, anyway. It might seem that she want to addict him to her even though he is so good he doesn't want to addict anybody to him.

The feelings girls have toward other girls tend to differ depending on the degree of intimacy involved. At first, I think girls are mainly afraid of the pleasure they feel toward other girls. But upon intimacy, the increase in the lust and its concomitant pleasure that this intimacy brings, not being something willed, is a great deal more innocent feeling than internal lust that was willed would be (especially, perhaps, if sunbathing be involved). Once intimacy occurs between them, this probably makes girls much more comfortable with the sexual pleasures they take in one another. But I would expect this would feel like a sudden increase in love that itself would be scary, especially since it would seem to have to do with chemical effects of lust mucous on one another's waists (sodomy, after all, has its effects chemically). So I think at first sexual fears in girls toward other girls have more to do with fear of false pleasure, and then later more to do with fears of false love. (Perhaps on rare occasions things can occur totally backwards; a girl can be in love with another girl first or more surely, and then interpret increased sexual desire for a male occasioned by thoughts of the other girl having sex with him as a desire to keep the male away from the girl lest he take her away from her; this would be a likely explanation for one girl suddenly making another girl feel very contrary toward some male who indicates he wants the former girl, even when such contrariness is not deserved.)

Sometimes it can be hard to determine from girls' behavior what exactly it is that girls think they want. For example, a girl can give the impression she likes music in which males scream and rant about how terrible lustful girls are. But it may well be that she doesn't like the music because it expresses her true feelings so much as it is relaxing to her that she can appreciate emotions so contrary to the feelings she mostly feels are more her own, but which she be afraid of. If she be worried that maybe some addiction has caused her not to sufficiently appreciate males who are skeptical of female lust, well, she will find it relaxing and suggestive that her emotions are real that she can emotionally appreciate males screeching about sluttish girls feeling lust (girls sometimes do actually feel lust for sordid reasons). Or maybe she be worried that her heart will be broken if the male she would otherwise want to love beautifully and cleanly make it impossible on account of his being addicted (as though that be possible) to the desire to absorb female lust chemical through his penis; a female wanting sex with scads of males is a pretty sure sign she be screwed-up, maybe she wrongly figures males don't naturally want sex with scads of females, and that accordingly there be something swinish in a male about him desiring quantity in his mates, even if he is very careful about protecting himself from venereal disease. (Actually, the more males think about maybe having sex with lots of females, the more careful they would tend to be about avoiding venereal disease and appreciating virginity, as makes sense inasmuch as the more females one has sex with, the more harm that will be done from getting such a disease.) If a girl is worried whether she be wrongly willing to let some other girl screw her over in a bad sense, and whether she be crazy for loving a man who is perfectly comfortable with it, it may well be relaxing to her if almost at the same time she is lusting for what might screw her over, she also can appreciate males criticizing girls for breaking other girls' hearts. Usually, girls straightforwardly like to explore emotionally what rocks their boats. But maybe if a girl is sufficiently afraid, the emotions she plays with tend to be the opposite of the ones that she mostly lets hold sway.

Advice to Members of the Various Social Classes

I wrote this post a little over a month ago. The tone of it I didn't like, and so I didn't post it at the time thinking I would later improve it. But I don't see myself revisiting the matter any time soon, and so I decide now to post it. It might get people to thinking more correctly about the main idea even if it has an imcompleteness and a black-and-white rich vs. poor quality about it I didn't intend.

Snobbery is a bad thing. I don't think many would deny that. However, sometimes the various classes have certain peculiar capacities for virtue that, to the extent interactions between classes occur, are more likely to be encouraged from within than from without. Take the wealthy. The wealthy I'm afraid do not tend to be particularly discriminating when it comes to discriminating depravity from innocent wildness. Why? Partly because it is to a certain extent in their interest to encourage people to have sexual relations from money rather than sexual abandon. Having money, rich men are very capable of attracting females with money, but, relatively speaking, not perhaps as especially capable of attracting females with sexual abandon. But I would say that it is a great deal more in the interest of the rich for them to discriminate between depraved sexual abandon caused by depravity (sodomy) and innocent sexual abandon caused by great sex than they realize. If a woman leaves a wealthy man because she quite innocently thinks it beautiful or pleasant to get fucked by some less wealthy man, well, chances are if she had the choice she'd still probably leave the wealthy man, anyway. I'd even bet that in all likelihood she wouldn't have trouble finding a wealthy man whom she would also prefer to get fucked by than to remain in her present situation. And no matter how great the stigma against such unbrotherly behavior toward members of one's own class, men being what they are, it's going to happen no matter what the level of snobbery. And of course, more than occasionally poorer females can fall in love with richer males and have (free) sex with the latter--fucking between the classes goes both ways, and isn't always just prostitution one way any more than it is always just depravity the other way. Here's the thing, though. Rich people do tend to be cleaner than the poor. Not for any unselfish reason, but from a kind of snobbery. The less females have sex from the depraved addiction of sodomy, the more they will have it from money or the admiration of an ability to make money, what rich males want. But in contradistinction to innocent fucking, if a female leaves her wealthy mate on account of sodomy from a poorer male, well, her adultery or leaving him is something that very likely would not have happened otherwise. The wealthy are less likely than the poor to (wrongly) respect sodomy. This is one of the reasons the party of the wealthy, the Republicans, are more anti-sodomy than the Democrats. And I think mainly this is why (sodomy being strongly associated with violence) private schools tend to be safer and less free of physical bullying than public schools (at least it is my strong impression that private schools are safer that way).

The rich tend to be kind of clueless when it comes to depravity. They tend to group depravity with innocent fucking and file it all away as "vulgarity" and just forget about it. I notice this when I listen to opera, the rich man's version of hillbilly bluegrass music, or at least that’s the way I look at it. Opera is preposterous. That said, opera is not morally annoying and conniving the way most bluegrass music is; it is just stupidly naive. I rather think that I would like most rich people who like opera; rich people especially are to be admired when they possess an interest in art forms exploring the emotions involved with depravity and failures to distinguish it from innocent mere sexual lust. Operatic emotions are what the rich would do well to think more about. Actually, I'm inclined to think it is not the wealthy who are most to blame for the wealthy's frequent lack of discrimination in the depravity sphere. Lots of poor males want to screw rich ass. It is not in the interest of these truly vulgar poor to encourage in the rich a sense that sodomy is something they ought to watch out for more than an innocent desire to get fucked. The poor may be better than the rich classes at discriminating depravity from innocent sexual pleasure, but they tend to be selfish when it comes to edifying the rich. Needless to say, this particular ignorance causes it to be convenient for the rich to look at all the wildness of the common folk as mere vulgarity. The rich know they are ignorant about wildness and so are scared of it; scared rightly. So scared they often decide to live in gated communities and socialize just in country clubs, etc. They make sure their lawns are mowed carefully and be free of weeds, because for all they know maybe it's letting the lawn go to pot that makes depravity--they don't really know to more fear getting screwed by the occasional molester in the horde of transients they let in their communities to do all this work. But they still lock their doors and put their alarms to the on position. Indeed, with little interaction with the other social classes, snobbery really can take hold in the wealthy; a worse snobbery that is so isolated from the poor it doesn't even have to feel the need to view depravity as vulgar. Then vulgarity is criticized not from fear of depravity but from possible guilt arising about the clique necessitating justification of exclusiveness. Once the wealthy are totally isolated from the poor, there is no particular reason to think they won't be just as depraved (among themselves) as poor people are.

So I guess my main point about the wealthy is that there is a kind of desirable clean attitude that can arise in the wealthy from individual selfish snobbery, so long as snobbery isn’t so excessive as to preclude interaction between the rich and the poor. Because it is in the selfish interest of wealthy males for females to mate more from money or respect for money than from depraved emotions, wealthy males have an unusually selfish interest in viewing sodomy with contempt. But what really is the benefit to the wealthy to view females seeking innocent fucking pleasure with the same contempt? Perhaps wealthy males are just deceiving themselves in thinking that they really could cause their women to not want to fuck from general principle. A group of mostly like-minded people who espouse the truth, even if the truth is espoused for selfish reasons will have force to protect the few in the group from lies. In particular is this so regarding depravity, what people are more conformist about than anything. In a society where almost universally depravity is viewed as such and where almost universally there is no confusion between depravity and the innocent pleasures it is frequently identified with, there will be little danger of anyone in that society coming to view through addiction depravity otherwise than what it is, even if there be a few in the society secretly pushing depravity on others. But to view innocent fucking pleasure as akin to the sordid addictive pleasure of sodomy is a lie. A group of males might think that by forming an exclusive social group holding to their own views on the immorality of fucking that will keep their females from going astray. But that fucking is evil is a lie. There will be males in the group who secretly are not quite as against fucking as they make out, and there will be females in the group fucked by them. Such snob associations serve but half a purpose to rich males wanting to keep their women folk from straying. They mostly don’t do anything if their females really want to fuck from innocent reasons, and if the females want to fuck from not innocent reasons, well, the standard opinion of the group, being half lie, won’t be nearly as effective in protecting her as the truth would. Snobbery is a bad thing, but if rich snobs would only be smart enough to be snobbish in their own selfish interests, i.e., in a discriminating way rather than as vulgar interests have encouraged them, it wouldn’t be nearly so bad. Whenever I go to rich communities, I get the impression that these people would be unusually discriminating in distinguishing depravity from innocent sexual wildness, it’s just they lack understanding. More than other groups, they would believe both in innocent wildness and the importance of sexual cleanliness if they only were not so totally unfamiliar with wildness for wildness to be a great risk akin to sailing a ship in uncharted waters.

An Untitled Poem

(Usually I write long poems, but for some reason the poet muse just stopped after having written just a few lines)

I know not what
God would have of me
To do now.
I'd like to return
To a safe discovering—
The very sort I had
As a child
Reading a book
And marveling
At the world of safe adventure
Learning clearly bode well
To present before me
A river flowing
I only had to float upon.

Girls and Concentration

Every so often I encounter a young female in what appears as a kind of constant fixed concentration. Emotionally, it hits me, “whoh”! Just a glance at such a female instantly gives me an awakened feeling notwithstanding I had before had no occasion to consider myself as asleep. But unlike waking up in the morning, when a girl's look awakens me thus I feel more dreamy afterwards than before. It's as though it is a sudden intimation that there has been frivolity in my life that needs removal. Like a sudden realization my brain was considering the planet Crouton all this time when it should have been planted here on Earth. Who would have thought? And yet there is terror in my emotion, too, like waking up on account of a nightmare. A beautiful nightmare. Like from sleep lifting my torso perpendicular to the bed all of a sudden to stare forward into the abyss before the bed, because I feel in my bones the nightmare was the warning of a benevolent monitory spirit who knows just where the real danger lies, aye!

This I know: that there is a peace in loving, a peace much desired that can't be gained merely on account of being sought. A coolness rests in the level gaze of a girl in concentration. It's a sacred thing, a girl like that. It's a trance.

I myself have been at times in a state sharing certain particulars with a trancelike state. But it is not the same thing, the thing that I have felt. I have been so that my holiness, my worship, my purity of thought and even my caring did seem not just as essential to what my love demanded but as the most necessary proof that my nature remained undefiled. Was I undefiled? Was my love virtuous? They became the same question. Were I to have stopped loving, it could only have meant to my emotions that some abomination had been afflicted upon me to change my fixed opinion. The best way I could gain the sort of peace I needed to do math was by never suffering myself to stop feeling even an instant the holy pure emotions involved in my worship of her.

When in such a trance-like state, I never had much occasion to consider sex that much. It was my love that was special and had to be kept sacred, and if I wanted to have sex with her, well, big deal, that's a fairly run-of-the mill emotion for a male to have—not really any need to focus on that. But when girls love, they tend to think of it as a wanting of sex. Girls love most importantly through sex. So when love makes a girl go into something of a trance, I daresay it is sex the girl is concentrating on. I think girls go trance more than males, actually. They are more often targets of molestation, which makes tests against such more useful there, in the females. The difference is that when girls go into trance, it is an obviously sexual feeling that they keep constantly inside themselves. If the flame of sexual love is not out, it can only be because depravity has not blown it out. And so long as the flame is not out, there is real peace for her in being able to continuously recognize that, notwithstanding that if depravity didn't blow the flame out, it wouldn't have stolen what she needs to relight the flame either, and so the flame probably would be easy enough to relight.

Sodomy warps the sexual emotions of girls. It is what sodomy does. When people try to deny girls their natural sexual desires, the victimized girls are inclined to emotionally view that control as equivalent to molestation—an act of sodomy. Even when society tries to make girls scared of their sexual wants and needs by trying to make the wants and needs seem as being depraved and therefore untrue, what can happen when a girl's sexual desires are thwarted is that she can view the thwarters' methods for altering her sexual desires as likely depraved. And when a strong girl feels as though depravity is trying to warp her sexual nature from what it naturally is, she will need proof to herself that this is not the case to fully maintain her sanity. She will quite possibly need to concentrate on her sexual desire all day long just to be cool, even if that be quite opposite the intended consequences of the restrictions from those wanting to thwart her sexual desires.


So there's the thing. I love girls who concentrate on sex. The way they look when they are into the sacredness of their sexual desire, it is beautiful on what I can only say as some sort of higher religious level. It is transcendental. It's as though there is a rip in her brain through which one may see the higher universe. And on a mundane level, I daresay there is a kind of concentrated practical understanding of how sex should be to be more fun and beautiful that I see in females that I doubt could come to me so easily. I despair of having in me that same stamina of focused concentration a girl in a trance presents; my consolation is that perhaps this is not a faculty very developed in males, notwithstanding its use in sex is obvious. But when girls concentrate on sex, I suspect mostly they do so to remain sane. At least, all the girls I have seen in this state of total concentration appeared mostly in a trance, largely as if because they needed to be there to stay cool and focused. I would like to see a girl concentrating on sex as though she be in a trance, but for her not to be in a trance (though the state would so much resemble a trance, one might choose to define things so as to still classify it such). I can't say sufficiently how much I admire girls who view the vampirish thwarting of their sexual desires by society as a great evil, as something worthy of making one wake up screaming. And yet, when society thwarts a girl and the guy she wants, typically they don't do this by screwing them up with nastiness. It's all done very politely, really, in the name of religion and keeping girls safe. The underlying causes are more nefarious, but on the fundamental level, that wouldn't touch a girl who loved me, nor me either. Our separation would leave us just as clean and uncorrupted as before. Better for a girl to concentrate on sex for her sanity than to not concentrate on sex at all, but better still for a girl to concentrate on sex without her sanity depending on her ability to keep concentrating on it. It isn't right to try to make people love you by for that reason putting them in a state such that their sanity depends on loving you well, or to refrain from disabusing them of incorrect notions because so doing may cause them to no longer need to love you just to stay sane. I don't actually think people are of a nature to do this—the drawbacks of putting someone you desire in an emotionally unstable state are obviously very significant, and actually there are more things than sex or romantic love that sometimes people need to think about just to prosper enough to be useful—but I do think that there are people who think they want others' sanity to depend on loving them. I'd say that they just don't very well know what they really very well want.

Dicot phylogeny

Lately I have been dabbling with learning botany. Below I link to a list I've made to help me memorize both the various families of dicots and the evolutionary relationships between the orders. The lists on the internet I could find are too detailed and spread out for beginners like me trying to get a big picture to paste details on. I post it in case someone else will find it useful. Later maybe I'll extend it to the monocots, the rest of the flowering plants.

Files last updated: July 22, 2008

botany.odt OpenDocument text version (view the .zip file in open office or save with extension .odt (e.g., as botany.odt) if browser tries to save it as .zip file)
botany.pdf Adobe pdf version
botany.doc WORD 97 version

The Rubbish that The Washington Post Will Print When it Promotes Oral Sodomy In Our Nation's Youth

Yesterday afternoon I heard on NPR about a new study suggesting that teenagers don't engage in oral sex to avoid losing virginity. "Hmmm," I thought, "sounds like something I should check into." Well, anyway, after forgetting about it for a while, I recollected to look into it, and it appeared the ruckus leads back to yesterday's Washington Post story, A Debunking on Teenagers and 'Technical Virginity', whose lead is that "Contrary to widespread belief, teenagers do not appear to commonly engage in oral sex as a way to preserve their virginity, according to the first study to examine the question nationally."

Reading into the story, one becomes confused, because at first the story quotes an author of the study (Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute) as saying that "Most teens don't have oral sex until they have had vaginal sex." An extraordinary and surprising claim, I'd say, and quite contrary to my belief that oral sodomy (I refuse to consider oral "sex" sex) is an addiction that screws up sexual desires. But then later one reads, "Jones noted that the analysis could not determine which sexual activity [oral or vaginal sex] tended to occur first." So what is it? No evidence mentioned in the story corroborates the former claim. Perhaps the latter remarks only apply to sexual activity initiated more than three years earlier? Conveniently, the article links to the "full report" of Non-coital sexual activities among adolescents, so one may check for oneself.

Going to the latter link, one finds the paper is full of arrant impossible nonsense. For example, “The overwhelming majority of non-virgin teens, 87%, had ever had oral sex, compared to 23% of virgins.” But then later, “Relative to adolescents who had not had vaginal sex, those who had sex within zero to six months of the survey were 9 times more likely to have had oral sex, and this effect was incremental. Adolescents who had had vaginal sex more than three years prior to the interview were 33 times more likely than those who had not had vaginal sex to have had oral sex.” And the words “adolescent” and “teen” appear to be used interchangeably. So simple math indicates that some people have had oral "sex" 9 x 23% = 207% of the time while others had had it 33 x 23% = 759% of the time. I don’t need my graduate degree in math to see that when probabilities are greater than one something is wrong. The most disturbing thing is that the Washington Post would print an article about such a ridiculous non-sensical paper and that other news organizations would pick it up. I can’t believe anyone with above average intelligence at the Washington Post bothered to read the paper and think at all critically about it, or How could they have judged its conclusions newsworthy? It is hard to say exactly what mistake the study paper makes that causes it to refute basic axioms of probability theory; my guess is that the study authors are confused about the meaning of "times", which refers to multiplication and not addition. Or maybe they were confused about the difference between addition and multiplication. Needless to say it is more important to first understand the basics of math such as the differences between multiplication and addition, and that "times" means "multiplied by", and that percent means "per 100", than to venture into "multivariate logistic regression". And it is totally irresponsible to give the impression one is competent enough to understand the latter when one doesn't understand (I'm guessing) basic arithmetical concepts.

What is really wicked about the Post's decision to print an article dignifying a research paper of absolute rubbish (before it was even published) is that The Post encourages the falsehood that sodomy is not something that addictively can screw-up sexual behavior. What a cheap heinous way to sell newspapers, to publicize bogus studies couched in the language of statistical analysis written by people who give the impression they don't know enough math to understand the difference between addition and multiplication, just to be able to have extraordinary headlines that appeal to people's most insidious addictions! Like an aggrieved camelid, I spit at The Washington Post. And I spit at most of the rest of the MSM for blindly picking up the story without using any thought to evaluate it.

Kudos to The New York Times for ignoring the story. They ran a story a few weeks ago, Students of Virginity, dealing with similar issues which was actually insightful and sensical.

Should males make much use of their own practical faculties?

This is a post based on very recently discovered ideas (like last week). In particular, I have but a very vague idea of the niceties involved in distinguishing the practical from the theoretical, not having thought much of the underlying philosophical distinction. Nevertheless, I thought it well to throw this out so people can chew on it.

As readers of this blog should know, I believe that intraejaculate sperm selection is responsible for females wanting to have sex with virtuous males at a young age, a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia. If a female when young wants sex with a male before she becomes adult, it is a sign that she is unusually certain she desires him—she doesn’t need to wait to make sure he’s right for her. And so if a male is not deceptive, his being wanted sexually by young females is accordingly a strong sign that he is exceedingly desirable to females. The particulars of sex between a virtuous male and a young female would accordingly be supposed to select for sperm coding for qualities that are especially desired by females. But just the other day I was thinking about this a little more carefully, dotting all the i’s and crossing all my t’s, so to speak, and lo! I noticed an important subtlety that I had not erstwhile observed.

The part of beauty that is easiest to judge is character. Accordingly, if a girl knows a male to be good, why wouldn’t she just ask him whether he has talents worthy of her, and use his estimation heavily in making her decision? Being good, he wouldn’t be dishonest. And doubtless he knows the extent of his talents better than she. And I think that’s right. A male should be open with a girl evaluating him insofar as his talents are concerned—it’s not immodest for him to display his talents. And males being open thus allows bad males to be open without stigma, ensuring that deception will be a tool employed by bad males, ensuring that intraejaculate sperm selection will tend to cause girls to reject bad males. But a male shouldn’t do all the evaluating of his prospects, no; besides being ridiculous, it would ensure that girls would not gain by waiting in evaluating the prospects of a good male, inasmuch as such prospects would not be measured directly by her; nymphetal philokalia would be hindered.

The distinction important to make is between a girl largely taking a male’s word concerning his talents and between her largely taking his word concerning his prospects. Once a female knows a male’s abilities, she is scarcely less able to evaluate his prospects than he is. And this evaluation would be expected to improve with her age and worldly wisdom. But notice something that this implies, namely that evaluating prospects through worldly wisdom is something more useful to girls (and thus females) than to men. But how really can one go about intelligently evaluating prospects (and in particular, the relative usefulness of talents) otherwise than through worldly, practical wisdom? So maybe when it comes to practical knowledge of how to be successful financially, socially, and sexually, or even of how to reform the world through (teaching) truth provided one knows truth, females would be expected to have evolved to be more skilled at it. Maybe even girls are not particularly annoyed at males who just sort of aren’t very concerned with figuring out how to get ahead or to accomplish things, because it indicates a tendency to delegate practical decisions to females. And a male who delegates such practical decisions to females is a male who presumably encourages girls to make their own decisions regarding his prospects. And sexually that is the kind of virtuous male a girl might be expected especially to be sexually pleased with, because intraejaculate sperm selection that occurs in sex between a male and a girl only would be expected to select for characteristics especially pleasant to females to the extent the male’s ancestors also shared this tendency to insist females use mostly just their own worldly wisdom in evaluating his prospects. But it is more than that really. For what has such a male use for internal worldly practical wisdom anyway? It’s mostly girls with worldly wisdom who would want him sexually, and eh, heh, if females with worldly wisdom are in love with him, Why not just make use of these females’ worldly wisdom to guide him in his practical decisions? He does better to concentrate developing his talents and theoretical wisdom—to understand why as opposed to how. He won’t have much need of practical wisdom. When it comes time to making practical decisions, he can just trust the most loved and practical of his lovers to nudge him in the direction that they find most likely to be profitable, ehheh.

Sadness, Holiness, and Piety Explained

Though I have blogged about the ideas in this post numerous times before, I haven't posted a good summary of them that could easily be linked to by way of justifying them or bragging on them, so here goes.

I believe that the main significance of sadness is that in males it restricts genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Selection selects not only for gene qualities, but also for how well genes harmonize with each other. Accordingly, genes close together on a chromosome are more likely to have alleles which harmonize well together than one would expect merely from looking at overall allele frequencies; the disharmonious chromosome regions tend to die out. Genetic crossover has a large chance of destroying harmony and a small chance of creating harmony. Nevertheless, people have evolved to crossover their chromosomes because the occasional small advantage can compound generation after generation rather like interest on an investment does, to eventually create large gains. Thinking in terms of this simplistic compounding model, something that gives a 1% advantage each generation can after 100 generations turn into a 1.01^100 = (approximately) 270% advantage. But no compounding can ever cause a disadvantage to be any more than total; a –100% advantage is the worst case-scenario, corresponding to the chromosome region dying out. The important point to distill from this is that the disadvantages of crossover are short-term while the advantages are long term.

The genetic material of a male will mostly be separated from that of his mate after just a few generations. A male's mate can't significantly benefit from the long-term advantages which might accrue from his having heavily crossed-over his chromosomes during spermatogenesis, notwithstanding she can be harmed by the likely short-term disadvantages. Accordingly, it stands to reason that females are sexually pleased by males not crossing over their chromosomes, provided they have the capacity to sense whether such crossover is occurring or not.

Clearly genes will evolve more useful traits if selection is determined more by actual life skills determining mating and survival success than by luck doing so. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, that genes in males would try to make males sexier when they are unlucky than when they are lucky, provided that there is no overall harm to these genes in the long run by so doing. And mostly all that matters selfishly to genes so far as crossover is concerned is that on average over the generations the crossover rate is about right; no harm in regulating it from generation to generation according to circumstance. A male who feels himself unlucky becomes sad, and this sadness (I posit) discourages crossover in his developing sperm. Mostly females have the ability to see whether his sadness is authentic, and so females find him more sexy-like-a-Keats-poem as a result of his sadness, and as a result his ill luck less influences his reproductive success. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (by more sex, on average). Similarly, if a female has had bad luck, she will be sad. This should be a sign for her mate that she expects him to reward her by feeling her sadness—by making it his own—so that as a result her offspring will have an advantage. (In a female, eggs mostly develop while she is just a fetus, and so she probably has no control over how much genetic crossover occurs in the genetic material of such eggs.)

But a male could also restrict crossover just because he loves a female unusually much. In my opinion, this feeling is best described as being "holy" for her. (Amazingly, according to the dictionary, the word "holy" actually comes from the Germanic word for "whole", as makes sense if the significance of holiness is that it causes chromosomes to remain whole.) I will leave it to your own judgement of your experiences with people (and yourself) as to whether you agree holiness be related to sadness. I think it is, and that in fact the emotions are the same in their underlying biological effect.

Also, there is what I call piety. Ideally, males who feel themselves unusually morally inspired and beautiful would assist themselves by appealing to females by keeping their chromosomes whole, taking away from their genetic material in distant descendants, who from randomness aren't likely to be quite as special. What I think happens is that feeling special morally can cause a male to feel a "pious" emotion that restricts crossover, making him more sexually desirable to females. It is subtle, though, trying to imagine a process whereby males would evolve to care in this manner. That is where nature comes into play. Birds, squirrels, other animals and maybe even plants—they all probably just don't love otherwise very good humans as much if the humans aren't pious. And when nature wants to reward someone, it can give subtle hints about truths that can be useful to sensitive people—hints that people can benefit from which can probably, among other things, make genes evolve to encourage piety when nature expects it.

All this said, there can be something insane about gloom. Sometimes misfortune can make one feel screwed up, leading to insane emotions appropriate for people who have been defiled, but quite inappropriate for others. The way I see it, though, is that the main reason sadness has gotten such a bad rap is that lucky people, having been lucky, tend to have more power and influence than the unlucky. Powerful lucky males can selfishly benefit by disparaging sadness. They quite likely won't be disparaging their own emotions, while they may encourage their unlucky sexual competitors to feel emotions making them less sexy to females.

Financial meltdown

I am alarmed that the government's main response to our financial mess is to encourage more lending and to shore up what loans already exist. Trying to return to the situation we just came from is not a reasonable option. The correct method of dealing with this mess is to put more money, money not created by lending, into the hands of citizens, and gradually to restrict institutions from lending, by requiring higher reserves, so the underlying cause of the fiasco will not repeat itself. Easy credit is what started this mess. It is as though there is mass denial that there was any thing wrong with this easy credit system. The stimulus package as first proposed, just giving rebate checks to ordinary citizens, was a very reasonable if not very quantitatively signficant response. But since that time the responses by our government and the Fed have been quite idiotic, imo, just a kind of delaying the day of reckoning, the upshot being that the time of suffering and economic uncertainties will be prolonged and that everything will crash harder when it does crash. I predict a time of great suffering for Americans (and much of the rest of the world) as poverty spreads from the stupidity of our leaders in dealing with this economic crisis. Perhaps the suffering will be great enough that it eventually causes people to see that the easy-credit banking system has all along caused poverty and suffering by ensuring with mathematical certainty that the debt people have to banks will always be just a little less than the money deposited there. Perhaps it will mortify people into seeing the truth. But the Great Depression and the Savings and Loan crisis didn't teach people, apparently, so who knows?

A couple poems

Here are a couple poems I have written lately, after thinking lazily about the ideas in them for a few weeks or months (usually in the morning). Don't just assume that my having written the poems implies that they are about real people or thoughts I sort of wonder might be in girls' heads. I find that the most interesting poems are about sex, and writing poems like that you've just got to assume that the various girls imagined in the poem like you awful much or, I don't know, the poem would be about having sex with girls that don't like you much, which I ken is kind of too rape-like to make a good poem. So, not that I'm saying girls don't like me a great deal to the point many of them are perfectly willing to become totally captivated by me, but not that I'm saying that some do like me that much, either, since I am not above being fanciful when necessary.

I think I am getting better with age at deciding how much sexual explicitness to put in a poem without getting emotionally cowardly or bull-headed depending on my then attitude toward censors and whatever exists of the police state. Ironically, I feel that makes the general tone of the poems more safe, making them less something a prude or a censor might find offensive, yay, which makes me feel unusually at ease posting them, yay. I actually think most people will find these poems unobjectionable, especially if they look to the main meanings of them. The first poem starts out prose-like.

Beautiful girl

Something strange has bothered me for some time.
The most beautiful girl (judging by her pictures) I have seen,
I sometime wonder whether I love her best.
Intellectually I love her most, probably,
but emotionally, I just seem to feel more holy feelings for a few other girls.
I think I’m finally beginning to figure out what the situation is.
I knew there was an answer, now I’m beginning to see it.
Most lovely girls, even most girls who are very beautiful,
they try to look beautiful.
But this girl goes beyond that.
It’s as though instead she actually tries to be beautiful.
It’s as though when she arranges her appearance she thinks to herself,
“this is more beautiful than that, I’ll do this.”
This might seem a subtle difference, but it is quite significant, I’m inclined to think.

Most pretty girls are like,
“I will get more sexual pleasure from a possible lover if he thinks me beautiful,
so I will try very hard to make sure he finds me beautiful.”
Trying to look beautiful is just a subset of their main objective, trying to look so they might be worshipped
in the way that gives them the most pleasure.
Mostly, girls aren’t wise enough for it to be prudent for them to have sex from love rather than pleasure,
especially because what gives girls (real) sexual pleasure is extremely close to what is good.
But there might be a girl or girls so virtuous and good, they rightly would have sex more from love, because they are so wise, it isn’t really imprudent.
But the thing is, girls are very good at trying to be loved emotionally.
If a girl tries to be loved emotionally, well,
if she is worthy of it and very beautiful to begin with, she may well succeed better than a girl who isn’t trying that, I’m afraid, notwithstanding the girl who is trying to be beautiful may actually be more deserving of such love.
For instance, it is a beautiful thing for a girl to try to be sort of encouraging of a fanciful aspect in her lover.
One isn’t quite as accurate when one is fanciful and dreamy,
but one gets new ideas better;
they’re largely silly, but
time can refine out what is not quite right,
and the new ideas might some of them be great discoveries
beneficial to humanity and beyond.
It’s quite the magnanimous thing to do.
I say magnanimous, because I don’t really know whether it isn’t sacrificial at least in a limited sense.
A girl might make me so fanciful
I could do all kinds of funny things.
Maybe I’ll start flapping my arms like a fairy
so I can imagine myself flying away with her.
The thing is, though,
if I am next to her,
observing her beautiful person,
trying for a more pleasing, more sacred devotion,
and then
I’m flapping my arms like a fairy,
How am I supposed to be possessed of the holy pious sadness
which is also appropriate and which she would need for sexual pleasure?
Notwithstanding an understanding that such fancy is no occasion for impious laughter,
I might find it difficult,
when flapping my arms like a fairy,
to be entirely myself to the extent
that would be virtuous.
It would be quite difficult not to consider
I’m being very silly
and not to allow
common misconceptions about the connections between silliness and the jolly
to intrude certain misgivings that could cause in me a jollity
that just wouldn’t be holy,
no,
not very holy at all.

I guess I should be more precise about what I mean by a girl trying to be beautiful.
After all, the way I define beauty in persons, it is mostly something innate.
I think the way the word is used, basically beauty (in adjusting appearance) is what beauty does (in adjusting appearance); anyway, that’s what it means to me in that connection.

So what am I to do?
Oh no,
and how can I force a girl to be true to herself if she doesn’t have sex mainly for pleasure?
My powers, my abilities to adjust love according to my perception of how true she is being to herself will be largely useless.
Fortunately, I don’t think it matters much.
Remember, a consequence of a girl thinking for herself is that by so doing she will do sex better.
Especially will this be the case if she already has much understanding
(not for any profound reason, but just because using your own skill works better when that skill is significant)
and love
(love is very close to sex in females).
So I figure if I ever have a relationship with her,
she would be herself, anyway.
I just have to concentrate more on loving her better because it is the right thing to do,
because she is worthy of it.

Actually, though, there is another consideration.
There are girls I kind of look at and think,
Wow! all that girl cares about now is sexual pleasure,
Excellent.
And some of her friends look like they think that of her too
(and I suspect they might feel mostly similarly)
And she, and they, are beautiful.
But then I consider my feelings about it a little more, and no,
that’s not quite true she has no place for feeling love.
It’s like she sort of senses something in my brain she loves.
Whether she actually has been webspying or just can peer into my mind,
no matter,
she just wants to love the girl I find most beautiful,
the girl I have mystical fanciful feelings for.
She doesn’t love me, she loves herrrrrrrrrr.
And it’s like,
that could be useful, actually.
Sacred girl will try so hard to make me love silly girl more,
it will work.
A division of labor.
One girl trying to inspire me,
because it is beautiful,
another trying to make me love both,
no,
she wants me to love silly girl more than herself.
Even though else she has total contempt for what is called love,
as if
girls being supposed to be led first by that is what gets in the way
of her own sexual pleasure.

I enslave girls,
I will enslave her
to be what she already would recognize
is more herself
than
what she allows to live her life.
Imagine the comfort to her
of knowing what mainly she loves
loves me too
and yet is not my slave
at all
but my equal.
I wonder whether you can set her free,
and if so,
Should you?
Would you?
Will I ever love you more than her?
Do you expect me to?



Or After

Sometimes a girl will give herself up
to sexual pleasure
and sometimes
she won’t.

Sometimes a girl will think
“if I only don’t get emotionally
into
it—
the sex —
he can’t hurt me
too much.
I won’t be his slave
because then I can resist his charms.
I know how to please him,
I’ll love him so,
we’ll see who’s slave
and who’s not,
yeah.”

Funny it should give her such solace
Not to feel it.
I think she thinks she’ll get just as much pleasure
not being totally into it:
That being totally into it
And losing oneself
Just a phantom seasoning
be
Of no real consequence.
Lust willed less easy to judge than lust unwilled?
That’s true, especially when sunbathing,
but I am thinking of her pleasure here
in a more direct way than of what pleasure her lust will
give herself in bed.
It’s the pleasure herself that mostly scares her.
If she doesn’t seek it
when she’s getting fucked,
she’ll get the same amount,
at least if it’s real—
she thinks that,
but she’s all wet,
and wrong.

I will love her so well
in bed
she won’t be able to help
being into that.
She will not be able to resist
not trying to increase the pleasure
inside her.

But there’s something graceful
almost
about her reluctance.
She’s really too sacrosanct
for me to force her to grasp pleasure
if she were in bed with me.
She’ll become a slave
as she feels my forearm slightly brushing up against her back
because I’ll love her so well she won’t resist getting into
her own pleasure
while she’s having the sex.
She will become a slave because my love
will be too beautiful for her for it to be in her nature to resist wallowing in the pleasure from it.
My teeth and tongue will be mostly well-brushed,
I will be clean!
and she will remember I am the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist
and most everything I do will remind her of my appreciation of her gracefulness.
Giving in might cause her enslavement
but enslavement won’t cause her giving in.

Girls need to be true to their own tendencies when having sex,
and if they ignore some of their emotions then,
that won’t happen
to the same degree.
They, I, everybody else—
We won’t get as much
if they don’t really allow themselves to consider,
while fucking,
what their own sexual pleasure is telling them
about how to get more,
because I am clean.
That’s right,
girls have brains,
and I don’t want them to not use any part
when I’m fucking them.

And yet,
there is something good-naturedly seductive
about a girl being as true to her fears as they are.
Girls like that,
who try to please
almost as best they know how
without emotionally seeking the pleasure themselves when actually having sex—
they are so innocently seductive.
They’ll wear such skimpy clothes
before taking them off
and are sexy
because it is what they want to be.
How nice the way I could imagine they’ll milk it,
all intellectual and rational-like, yet loving and gentle.
Yeah, a girl being that way,
not getting emotionally wrapped up instantaneously as they arrive
in the pleasures felt from a penis as it’s fucking her,
reduces fears
of loving too much.
Fear is emotional too,
and gets in the way of pleasure.
I will be so lovingly appreciative of
her kindnesses,
as she senses my forearm against her back,
she won’t be able to help not getting more into herself,
because getting more of it
will just seem so much more important than anything else right then
and later,
because it will have been so beautiful so far
because her fears of emotion
that I couldn’t make disappear
by informing
were respected
by herself
and by me,
it will become more beautiful
to her
(and thus more beautiful)
to no longer fear her pleasant, purely sexual emotions
and to instead let them inform
her sexual behavior
while she is actually getting fucked,
and not just before.