Wednesday, February 24, 2010

What I was going to do

What I was going to do is elaborate about the widely misunderstood appropriateness of a male controlling the young females he has sex with, and the curious nature of the motivations that lead males to want such control. As I have mentioned earlier, if a male is the sort to be by nature especially sexually pleasant (in the real sense), girls will want him just because it is their nature to want him (on account of needing him). And because people are pretty good at sizing up whether girls (or anybody else, for that matter) are being true to themselves and because it is much more impressive to attract girls because it is their nature to want you than to attract them because (say) manipulation or randomness has caused one or a few socially prominent “scene queen” girls or girls bought by MTV to want you, whose taste other girls have copied without the least reflection upon their natural desires and tendencies as to what they (naturally) want sexually, well, I say because of all these things if a male can force the girls he is having sex with into being true to themselves and yet only increase the extent they love and want sex with him, I think it goes without saying that is going to be very sexually pleasant for him. It's not that girls want to conform to just any of their peers, obviously they prefer to conform to the crowd of girls who think for themselves, and if the part of the latter group that is having sex with a guy actually is a crowd, obviously girls everywhere are going to want to have sex with him, too, just because girls are (usually) conformists. And that extra sex is extremely pleasant for the male, yeah.

Actually, the preceding paragraph has understated things considerably. To understand why, one first needs to understand what I have mentioned earlier, namely that in my opinion the significance of having sex with a female at a young age is that her body, being young, selects for different sperm via intraejaculate sperm selection than an older female would. It's kind of like a Christmas list. If a girl begs Santa for something in March, notwithstanding she has all the rest of the year to think more carefully about what she wants, in all likelihood that is going to be something special she wants—obviously she doesn't doubt the desirability of the gift much as one would expect if the gift weren't special. Because of intraejaculate sperm selection, a girl wanting sex while her body is still quite young is like a girl wanting from Santa a gift made up of all the pieces of gifts girls have through the years begged his ancestral Santas for in March. Yeah, people are going to say it is not at all like that because Santa does not have sex with the girls he gives presents to. But really, it wouldn't make any difference because of course Santa is a very virtuous person, and people (even young people) are rather skilled at evaluating virtue—if they weren't, there would be no way virtue could have evolved to exist (in varying degrees) in people. People get confused about this. They figure that because girls are more ignorant, when girls make a sexual decision it is more likely to be stupid. True, if a girl asks a bad, fake Santa for a gift in March, maybe she does so just because he has been effective at manipulating her into thinking she wants something that she is too ignorant to realize she doesn't want. But this in itself is no particular disaster, because all she has to do is avoid men dressed up in Santa suits who appear bad. This indeed is something very important to her pleasure even if the bad fake Santa is not skilled at deception, because the ancestral parts of him that especially often encouraged girls to beg him for gifts in March may indeed be supposed to have been the parts of him that were most deceptive, the parts that convinced girls they wanted a pile of dirt, etc., before they had a chance to think much about what they wanted, and so she is going to get a gift that is made mostly of dirt or whatever cheap stuff deceptive fake Santas convince girls to ask for already in March.

Anyway, if a male is by nature the sort of person that enslaves girls who have sex with him into being true to themselves, then if a girl has sex with him when she is still young, then if he is a very virtuous person almost completely devoid of deceptive genetic material, then to the extent she is lustful (it is another theory of mine that female lust and stillness determines the extent to which intraejaculate sperm selection occurs) then the genetic material coitus selects for will not only be desirable on account of it being something girls want notwithstanding they could want it later, it is also something desirable on account of the girls who wanted sex so young from his ancestors likely were true to themselves in wanting it on account of having likely been forced to be so. Accordingly, girls are majorly turned on sexually by good males who by nature want not only to have sex with them, but also to enslave them, provided (and this is a huge proviso) the type of enslavement is of a graceful sort that does not in itself suggest greater badness (because, recall, girls are extremely displeased by badness in the sense of immorality). And the fact that girls are turned on by a male who by nature would gracefully enslave them of course makes such graceful enslavement useful to a male not only because it can be used to force girls to be true to themselves (and perhaps just occasionally to make them do things he needs her to do more than she wants to) but also because the mere fact that he is that way turns girls on, which makes girls even more turned on by it, which makes it more useful to males, etc., in an endless loop like positive feedback (not that the loop doesn't converge—I'm not suggesting something ridiculous like infinite sexual desire, but still the conclusion should be impressive).

Now, the graceful way for a male to enslave a girl is with sexual emotion. When she is obedient about what he demands, emotionally he loves her well, with holiness, worshipfulness and a feeling of eternal togetherness. When she is disobedient, he punishes her badness by just not loving her with feelings of holiness), eternal togetherness or worshipfulness, instead substituting the own lust that comes from himself. Please do not think I am saying that all emotional afflictions are appropriate. In particular, it is very obviously very important not to ever, ever punish a girl with unclean emotions (that by their very nature are contrary to the demands of gracefulness) typical of sodomizes, such emotions strongly suggesting badness in a way that could render intraejaculate sperm selection into something extremely foul. The more interesting philosophical questions, in my opinion, concern the emotional motivations men should bathe in while motivating themselves into enslaving girls. Obviously a person has to have some sort of emotion making him want something before he can undertake trying to get it.

The most obvious motivation that could motivate a man into wanting to sexually enslave a girl is pleasure. But pleasure (by definition, essentially) tends to be a selfish emotion. It seems to me there are (at least) two separate cases. A male can become sexually stimulated by thinking how pleasant sex would be for himself. Or, alternatively, he can become sexually stimulated if he is in a very loving, holy mood and senses that the the needs or desires of the female he is considering so worship fully are such that there is a decent probability she might desire him such. The latter phenomenon is not something that the male wills. When he senses the girl might need or want him sexually, it's rather automatic, it seems, that he gets aroused; the will could only be relevant there in avoiding or canceling arousal. And presumably, the sexual arousal that comes from the male sensing the desires or needs of the girl is more something a man who sexually cares for a girl would feel than that which arises as he wills the stimulation by imagining his own pleasures, i.e., how pleasant sex would be for him. Accordingly, good males might be expected to be more into their mates' sexual pleasures than their own. It seems more than plausible that by immersing himself in how sexually pleasant something would be for himself, the emotions of this immersion might (presuming they affect sperm environment and development) select for sperm used to such immersion, which would more tend to be sperm coding (diploidly) for selfish traits (and in particular the trait to care about one's own pleasure more than a loved one), a disaster. Some might be tempted to think that, well, females can have sex for their own sexual pleasure, and are just fine for doing so, so Why not males? But the analogy is a false one. Sexual pleasure in females (and more particularly, in young females) tends to be an especially unselfish one. It's not sexual pleasures that are the ones that a selfish female wants most, but rather the comfy material pleasures that can accrue to herself and her children from mating a wealthy male. So far as pleasure is concerned females tend to be bad to the extent they prostitutes themselves by basing their reproductive decisions on the material pleasure of the money, caring, etc., that might arise from the connection, as opposed to the sexual pleasure of the sex itself. (Of course, mating for love is by definition more loving than mating for any sort of pleasure, but good females do value their own goodness and thus do desire pleasure, and seeking the pleasure of money makes it much harder for females to mate lovingly than seeking sexual pleasure does.) But males are the opposite. It's much less automatic for a male to care for his children. In males as opposed to females, it is more selfish to seek the sexual pleasure of creating children than the pleasure of seeing they are well-cared for once they are created. So a male emotionally having sex for his own sexual pleasure would at least slightly suggest badness.

The thing is, though, that his own sexual pleasure would appear to be the only obvious emotion that might motivate a male into trying to sexually enslave a girl to himself. To the extent a male wants to sexually enslave girls in the way that would seem appropriate, he does so either (1) because he knows the girls being themselves while having sex with him increases the sexual pleasure he'd get as a result of other girls becoming more likely to have sex with him or (2) because he knows girls are more turned on by him if they view him as controlling. The first consideration is obviously basically a sexually selfish one. As for the second consideration, it is a little more philosophically interesting. To say that controlling girls is caring about what the girls want because they are turned on by good males who by nature are thus controlling does not really seem honest with me.

A distinction should definitely be made between a girl being attracted to a male who by nature is a certain way and between her wanting him to be that way. It is akin to the distinction between the two Spanish verbs that denote “to be”: ser and estar. Girls want a male to be by nature (ser) enslaving of them, but they don't want him to be by condition (estar) enslaving of them. But it is not like some run-of-the mill case, say, some male wanting a girl to be (estar) excessively sexually easy with him while wanting her to be (ser) not excessively sexually easy by nature. For to not be excessively sexually easy is moral (on account of it not being stupid more than anything), whereas to enslave girls for one's own sexual pleasure is not at all moral. The appropriateness of enslaving girls involves not what is moral, i.e., what is good, but what it is moral to be, i.e., what is right (in the definitions of my moral system). Enslaving girls is not good--in the strict shallow sense of goodness, one could even say it is bad; however, it is good to be the sort of male who mostly wants (gracefully) to enslave the girls he has sex with. Similarly, it is probably not exactly good for girls from their own pleasure to want sex more with males who by nature want to enslave them, but it is better to be a girl that way than the opposite way, and so girls who care about doing what is right (as opposed to what is good) do in fact want (from their own pleasure) sex more with males who by nature (gracefully) want to enslave them. And people tend to do right rather than what is good, a good thing.

One might think that, what since girls are naturally sexually attracted to males who (gracefully) want to control them, a male could be controlling of girls partly in order to impress them. It could be considered a game of sorts. True, so far as her own pleasure is concerned, a girl prefers a male to not be (estar) controlling of her, but if the male has to behave controlling to make her know that, yeah, he is (es) controlling, well, he's got to do what he has to do. One might think it analogous to the situation in football. In modern football, passes tend to be more effective than runs at increasing the chances of victory. But pass plays tend to work much better if the defense thinks that there is an appreciable chance of a running play. So, coaches rush the ball more than otherwise reasonable in order to make it look like they are coaches who naturally like to run a great deal. The analogy with girls is mostly a false one, however. After a girl has had just a little acquaintance with a male, I daresay because girls are mostly quite sensitive about such things, she is going to have a very good feel for how naturally controlling a male is, and so the male acting tough is not going to have more than a negligible influence in affecting her impression of how naturally controlling he is. If a girl has just met a male, then indeed the male might need to somewhat be controlling just to give the impression that's the sort of male he is, but even this situation is rarer than one might think. It is pretty rare for a girl to have met a male about whom she has gotten into her sexual desires enough to know that the thought of him being by nature (cleanly and gracefully) controlling is pleasant for her sexually. Until a girl has fantasized sufficiently about a male she really wonders she might want, well, she probably will just assume (what is typical politically correct dogma) that she doesn't want a male to be naturally controlling, and so the male acting tough at the beginning will just scare her away, more as like. With very young girls it really pays to be mostly very polite and indifferent about controlling her until one figures she has fantasized deeply enough to know she wants you to be another sort of person than what such polite behavior might suggest, and by that time, well, she probably has a good idea of what you really are anyway, and so game theory, etc., is pointless by then, in every way less preferable than not worrying about impressions and just showing yourself the way you really are. Though not being open about everything is rather too akin to dishonesty to be ideal, I should think this politeness to very young girls is not about dishonesty, but about not spreading all your feathers out until the girl has had leisure to reflect on what sort of feathers she wants to be there. After the girl gets into her desires enough to realize she wants a male who by nature is (pleasantly) controlling, it will merely be a pleasant surprise to her when she finds out, yeah, that is what he is. Vaguely I feel there may be yet another better way of looking at it even less suggestive of dishonesty, but I'm not clear about it.

So what is it exactly that motivates males to want to cleanly enslave girls in the right way, and more particularly to want to enslave them (rightly) into being true to themselves? One might be tempted to posit a sort of higher kind of beauty. Just as one can imagine that there are emotions in the psyche corresponding to goodness, one can also imagine that there are emotions corresponding to what it is good to be, i.e., what is right, and that there be, with a corresponding emotion, a virtuousness akin to beauty that arises from being effective at being right (and so controlling effectively would be virtuous). But I have two objections to this complexity. One the one hand, I object to the complexity itself. Where would such an ontology lead? If there is a different kind of emotion for doing what people do who are what it is good to be (i.e., for doing what is right) than for doing what is good, why stop there? Why not also have an emotion for doing what people do who are what it is right to be? And so on and so on. It's hard to be clear about the exact philosophical complications and objections, but at least my intuition is that things are getting too complicated. On the other hand, I look at why I tend to want to (cleanly, and in the right way) control girls, and basically the emotion that most motivates me is the same emotion as my desire for my own sexual pleasure. I seem to be bad in this one area. I don't care whether the pleasure might lead to unselfish behavior, I just want it too irresistibly. And it's only in a very weak, not particularly legitimate sense that a good male behaves badly as regards controlling girls on account of his seeing the bad behavior is right and virtuous. That is, the wise male sees that females are sexually turned on by males who (by nature) like gracefully to control girls and are good at it, and it makes sense to him why girls would have evolved to be thus, and since goodness evolves mainly because the opposite sex (usually) loves it, well, a male would be hard pressed to understand himself if he were not right here rather than good. Why would males have evolved to be morally good when it comes to moderation in controlling girls when girls mostly want only to get fucked by immoderately controlling males? A wise male indeed will understand the reason that he is bad about wanting to control girls very much is just that such a bad nature, being loved by beautiful girls, is right. But the emotional reason for wanting to enslave girls is not that it is right, but just that it's a sexual pleasure that pleases him impelling as though his nature doesn't care whether he is good in wanting it. The consideration that it is right to want such enslaving of girls is relevant mainly just because it discourages him from scratching his head wondering how finding a pleasure so peremptory could be so contrary to the rest of himself, a scratching that otherwise could I suppose conceivably get in the way of his taking pleasure in making girls (gracefully) his slaves. Indeed, I agree with Locke that people do have innate tendencies. But life is so complicated they can't have an innate tendency for everything, and so one of these tendencies, I posit, is to tend to behave according to abstracted tendencies that they predict they might have given their understanding of their other tendencies. Not to belittle right behavior by suggesting there is no difference between doing something for one's own sexual pleasure and between doing something just because being by nature the sort of person who does it is sexually pleasant, but I don't think there is any difference emotionally between a male doing something because his doing it is sexually pleasant in a way that precludes considerations of morality and because his being by nature the sort of person who does it is likely to be sexually rewarding to himself. Why would such a distinction, motivationally speaking, be necessary? Mostly one cannot escape one's destiny—one has no choice but to behave as it is one's nature to behave. Even though a male cleanly enslaving girls won't particularly increase the extent to which a girl will think him the naturally controlling person she wants him to be, the controlling behavior will be pleasant to him as though that were the case.

Anyway, that was what I was going to write about. Instead, after Christmas, I started writing the following, which devolved into a lengthy footnote.

Are girls naturally sexually turned-on by males who gracefully want to enslave them?

Nowadays, people tend to think that the emotions possessed about sex don't have any significant effects upon conception. This must be very surprising to anyone who has reflected upon his or her own sexual or romantic desires, where such emotions would I daresay come too seem very important. Moreover, common sense derived from impressions of others' sexual desires must consider this belief that emotions don't effect conception strange. Stepping back from the influence of dogma, a reasonable person must consider it very unlikely that emotions don't effect conception, this dogma that in so far as the babies turn out, they might as well all be produced randomly with artificial insemination in the test tube. Just because there is an absence of “scientific” evidence for something is not scientific evidence of absence. In the situation where there is little or no scientific evidence one way or the other, it behooves one to take the best solution, which is not the solution that is easiest to describe, but which is the solution that best fits the evidence, which to a reasonable person is all the evidence, including evidence gained from reflection and not just the evidence which from its ability to be reproduced and substantiated in public is more easily adapted to convincing others, as observations of one's own nature are not.

People have a notion that the more something is based on scientific, easily reproducible in a convincing way, evidence, the more likely it is to be true and important. In fact, the opposite is the case. In math indeed, the more strictly rational and logical something is the more likely it is to be true, but all (reasonable) math books are essentially totally true, and to the extent they are not, it is because of errors which like spelling errors, etc., are usually easy to spot, and which have very little to do with the quality of the math book. But it is important to realize that though checking to see that a proof is right is (by definition, essentially) a rational and scientific undertaking, coming up with the proofs is not at all so. Good mathematicians read math books and prove to themselves already known results mainly for the proofs (it follows that superficially, mathematicians behave as though they are very careful about checking whether theorems are right, but that is just an accidental consequence of that one can't correctly understand the proof of something without being confident that what is proved is correct; mathematicians don't read proofs because they are terrified of feelings allowing error like some screwed-up psychologist makes himself out to be, or even because they are terrified there might be some grand conspiracy introducing error in math-book-proofs, which would be truly surprising since the math profession is so far from being screwed-up that most advanced mathematicians tend to prove to themselves most everything mathematical as they read it). Learn a great many proofs and turn them over in your mind a great deal, then in the future when considering something possibly quite unrelated there might be something about the situation that reminds one of proofs one has previously encountered, which could enable one to combine the past proofs into something new. The feelings that the logic of this situation resembles the feelings of the logic of that proof and that proof and that the feelings that the proofs can be connected, etc., are just that, feelings—feelings as totally unprovable (until they become useless† after one in fact does correctly what the feelings suggested could be done) and artistic as feelings not having anything to do with logic. And math from feelings is the higher math, the math that ultimately leads to good definitions (which in the long run is perhaps the most important thing for whether a subject of math is beautiful or not) as opposed to aim-and-shoot math of a more mechanical and frenzied sort that really doesn't come from feelings so much.

What about other fields? Can one say that rational, “objective” reasoning is more legitimate than other reasoning. here my inspiration left or exhausted me and I stopped writing

The feeling may remain useful in the limited sense that when one has a similar feeling in the future, one will tend to more view the new feeling as correct, at least if the old one turned out to be correct. But that one has proven the original feeling correct is no proof that the similar feeling is correct. Moreover, if one has had a false feeling about something this may be because one had a dim correct similar feeling that something else which is correct in fact is correct, and a seemingly new feeling that resembles the original feeling may be the once dim correct similar feeling one's mind confused it for before it was viewed more distinctly. Or it may be because one has a crazy (insane or fucked-up) tendency to have such feelings. Anyway, having had a feeling about something should make all similar feelings more believable, irrespective of the truth (proven or otherwise) of the original feeling, provided the original feeling wasn't had for insane or screwed-up reasons, so provided craziness has nothing to do with it logic has little to say about a feeling's usefulness as regards similar feelings, such usefulness not depending on the truth of the original feeling. And actually, (and here I disagree with the prevailing false dogma) though an original feeling having been had for insane (as opposed to fucked-up) reasons on average suggests similar feelings are insane, there is usually one particular correct feeling (usually connected with the extremely important truth that sodomy is vile) which in fact it would be extremely important to view as correct (because it would be correct!) if the circumstances reminiscent of sodomy that elicited the crazy feeling were actually sodomy in facto.

Looney people may be crazy about most things, but because they tend to be more right that sodomy is evil, they may be more wise than typical sane people if you weight correctness about important matters more than correctness about unimportant matters. For it is extremely important to believe sodomy is vile, arguably the most important simple truth. I daresay that if one studies insane tendencies, they could all be viewed as anti-sodomy defenses, save for the ones that are diseased states (and most of these are obvious as disease states).. That they do all resemble anti-sodomy defenses orthodox psychology is either too dense to observe or too indifferent (largely from vileness, presumably) to explain. If non-diseased insane states can all be explained by there being something akin to sodomy which under certain fairly common circumstances people need to fear much more than if they were sane, the simplest explanation for paranoia, etc., is that there is something akin to sodomy which when under its influence one honestly and truly needs to be paranoid about. Whether in fact it is truly sodomy or alien abductors doing nefarious deeds with anal probes or something else that one needs to be afraid of I think would tend to become clear if one has thought about sodomy enough to realize that there is nothing the least counter-intuitive or illogical about semen containing addictive chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system. But the idea has to occur to you first. And more importantly, you can't be so prejudiced against insane people or full of elitism to disregard out-of-hand the idea that sodomy is evil merely because if resembles crazy, insane ideas. On the contrary, I DEFY anyone to explain to me why sodomy being the very thing that all the paranoid objects of terror most resemble should make one more believe that fearing it is just paranoid. Is it more logical to believe that all the objects of terror of looney people cluster about sodomy because people have a looney tendency to fear things to the extent they resemble sodomy (and of course sodomy resembles sodomy more than anything because, yeah, it's sodomy) or Is it more logical to believe that paranoid people tend to be paranoid about things to the extent they resemble sodomy because SODOMY TENDS TO BE SOMETHING PEOPLE MOST NEED TO BE PARANOID ABOUT--they have evolved to be paranoid about it. The ass-screwing pro-sodomy PC idiot pseudo-scientists babbling about how they are better than Christians because they are scientific enough to believe in evolution I have no respect for. Hell, at least Christians aren't such illogical twits as to believe in evolution notwithstanding they believe that magically people have very specific crazy feelings like fear of Extraterrestrials with anal probes and any number of a thousand other things resembling sodomy for no reason whatsoever but just because it was a chance maladaption to fear things resembling sodomy; such a sign of genius in Christians, modest though it may be is even more impressive than not magically believing that people have very specific crazy feelings like fear of Extraterrestrials with anal probes and any number of a thousand other things resembling sodomy for no reason whatsoever but just because it was a chance maladaption, the more obvious sense Christians are more logical than ass-screwing pro-sodomy PC idiot pseudo-scientists. Maladaption indeed! One doesn't need to share Locke's opinion about no ideas being innate (though it might help) to see what an extraordinary incredible unbelievable phenomenon that would be! All you have to be is possessed of the common sense of a NON IDIOT and bother just a little actually using one's brain to judge whether in fact it makes sense to view sodomy as something sodomized people might need to fear (on account of it being chemically addictive) more than sodomized people with no insane tendencies would. Now, of course, I know what else the pompous twits will say about my little diatribe. “Oh, you are one of those crazy people that use ALL CAPS and ramble on and on and on and on and on and on and on like looney man, so you can't be right and might actually be...DANGEROUS—stand back people, I know prejudice and a homophobe when I see one, and here's a clear case.” To quote Church Lady (yeah, she's by orders of magnitude wiser than these people), “Well isn't that special?” Of course I am using ALL CAPS and rambling on and on and on and on and on and on. Why? BECAUSE I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WORTH BEING PARANOID ABOUT, and I don't just assume that what constitutes proper effective usage when discussing something not worth being paranoid about is actually totally the same as proper effective usage when discussing something worth being paranoid about, and I'm not so prejudiced against insane people to believe that their typical usages don't have a useful purpose, and what's more to the point (and bitter experience has taught me this to be the case) I know that most of the audience will be too IDIOTIC and GULLED to even evaluate (much less recognize) the particular simple truth, no matter how obviously presented, etc., etc., etc., etc., that SODOMY IS EVIL. I, prejudiced? Can anything equal the prejudice of pro-sodomy people against the insane? As I have suggested, many if not most insane people are (provided one weights errors in the most reasonable way, according to their importance) wiser and more reasonable than sane people, because the latter tend to be too fucked up, fucking up, or deluded to realize that sodomy could be evil. So are they treated accordingly? Hell no. They are locked away in asylums. Not so long ago practices were to sterilize them and remove parts of their brains. They are given mind altering chemicals in the guise of medicine until they can't think straight or their brains are fried. Their brains are fried more directly with electroshock treatments. In the name of pity they are given the gift of being protected from the tickets they might receive when in the confusion and wandering that sometimes accompanies pushing oneself to the edge to figure something out (the something sane people are too morally lax and indifferent to bother trying to figure out) they trespass or jaywalk or do the very occasional significant crime, the effect of which is that every murderer, rapist, forcible sodomizer, etc., will try to get out of his crime by convincing clueless psychologists that yeah he did it because he was insane. Since psychologists tend to be only a little wiser on average than rapists and murderers (the idiocy of forcible sodomizers can not be underestimated), the gift is mainly a gift of stigma, much worse than no gift at all. So I, by believing what most insane people would see as obvious or at least very plausible am being prejudiced just because I actually use my brain to inquire whether it likely that sodomy is evil instead of just assuming that what reflection, observation, thought, etc., suggests I believe should not be believed because that's the sort of thing insane people believe because they are fucking idiots deserving of the misuse inflicted upon them because they are so dumb as to believe crazy things like sodomy is extreme evil? I DON'T THINK SO! Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that gay people (nor sodomizers, the precise group that deserves hatred) are being abused to any unusual extent except by people with sodomizer traits, or that the formerly established tradition of outlawing their sodomizing (the archetypal insidious abuse) is an abuse that should be unconstitutional (not that this outlawing is so important by a mile as people not being punished for believing and expressing that sodomy is evil, a right sodomizers are ever trying to destroy). But the people most against sodomy and everything resembling sodomy are locked up, ridiculed, forcibly drugged and electroshocked, and made poor by being forced or all but forced to PAY (at exorbitant rates) for their own attempted brainwashing by psychologists or psychiatrists. Whoa, people might say, paranoid not just about sodomy but paranoid about psychiatrists and psychologists too, sounds like paranoia to me. But no. One needs not be a genius to see the illogic of THAT argument. Indeed, since psychology is largely about denigrating insane tendencies (it is hard to make money by arguing the truth and curing something when the truth is that what you want to cure is a better than a normal “sane” state), who after all would tend to go into psychology? Largely, one would expect people who have other reasons to assert that insanity is especially bad would go into that field. And since insanity is a DEFENSE AGAINST SODOMY, one group of people who might go into psychology would be people who like sodomy—sodomizers and the people they have deluded (by sodomy) into feeling sodomy be good. There's a very simple reason psychologists are by and large nasty sadists—they include among their numbers a disproportionately large number of sodomizers, and sodomy largely if not mostly is about nasty torture. You can't expect a field with an unusually large number of sodomizers in it to be otherwise than vile, unjust, selfish, and sadistic. I'm not saying that there might not be some people, even in the psychiatry profession, who might have some benevolent interests in correcting the wrongs inflicted upon the insane or the excesses, fatigues, etc., that the insane can experience until they find the truth they are seeking. For once you feel (rightly or wrongly) that you ass depends on figuring out something, damn the torpedoes, one will try to figure it out with a vengeance. A right necessary vengeance if it is actually the case one's ass literally does depend upon it, but not so necessary otherwise, which can lead to unfortunate exhaustion. A good psychologist with common sense would stress mainly the importance of lots of sleep, not thinking too hard about things, eating right—things all too easy to forget in misguided obsessions. But mostly what a good psychologist would do is just point out that, hey, what is actually REALLY important is to not suck and to not get your ass screwed (instead of avoiding alien anal probes or whatever), and I doubt you'd find that anywhere in the whole barren idiocy of the field.

Now that I've gone after the pseudo-intellectuals and the psychologists and psychiatrists I know I have to also go after the elitists, because really, if you are going to be a total conformist idiot about sodomy, which is like probably almost everybody, I'm not going to very much be able to save your throat until I have put a nice long stake in whatever gives you respect for that particular nasty creature. Rich people in particular come across as more clean and less screwed-up than most people, at least if one has been around an appreciable number. (Poor and middle class people who haven't been at all around rich people, doubtless influenced by the wrong sort of TV, on the other hand occasionally would seem to have this notion that the rich typically use their money to lead lavish fucking lifestyles, that I really suspect are rather quite contrary to usual.) I do not deny this. But they also don't seem to show much concern about sodomy. This might seem something I would have to explain before I could be taken seriously, more especially since it is common practice among those willing to admit that being screwed-up is a real phenomenon to determine whether something is screwed-up by evaluating how common it is among those good at making money, a tendency to make money being widely acclaimed as the sure sign of not being screwed-up. To be sure, though the association is much weaker than associations that exists in much better tests, becoming addicted to sodomy tends to be bad for one's monetary welfare; but it does not follow, actually, that rich people really are better at understanding screwed-up-ness or what to be paranoid about, even if one admits they are less screwed up.

What is definitely the case is that the wealthy are more effective at attracting desirable members of the opposite sex with money than poor people are (because poor people have little if any money to do the attracting, of course). But it is not so clear at all that rich people are better at attracting desirable people of the opposite sex with love or real sexual pleasure. Neither is it clear that they are better at attracting these with depravity (sodomy). Accordingly, it tends to be advantageous for selfish rich people to argue the appropriateness of people mating especially for money (or as is less blatantly morally dubious, the importance of children being especially well provided for, as only rich spouses can ensure). Though they don't probably realize it, in their outlook toward money, the wealthy nowadays tend to support the worldview of Robert Owen, the wealthy inventor of socialism, who believed the reason poor people were morally unrefined was that they lacked money and the conveniences and necessities it could buy (as opposed to the pietists, the other early 19th-century group concerned about the welfare of the poor, who believed that the poor were morally unrefined also because they didn't take church seriously enough). It used to be that the selfishness of the rich was largely due to their identifying with their class and behaving rather as a snobby cartel, but probably more from the universal influences of television, movies, etc., I think the phenomenon nowadays is more individual, ironically more stemming from the aforementioned socialist idea. The rich really do tend to be cleaner than the poor, obviously because the more women mate for screwed-up reasons, the less they mate for money, what the selfish of the rich people tend most to selfishly encourage. But it isn't screwed-up mating per se that the selfish of the rich are against, it's having sex otherwise than for money. In particular, the rich are against fucking as I define it, i.e., sex that does not entail the male having monetary responsibility for offspring produced, that being a sort of sex only a female who doesn't greatly value money might want. As a consequence, to the extent the rich marry for money and are against fucking (in my clean sense), they are largely insulated from having to experience or understand the great sexual pleasures and fears that ordinary people are likely to deal with when having relationships. Since they tend to think questions about mating are mainly about resources, what really is the need to worry about things like whether sexual feeling is true pleasure or true love, or whether it is a screwed-up feeling? What they are more likely to view as important is whether the relationship is financially prudent or not. All the important emotions about love, sexual pleasure, cleanliness, etc., that can sweep people into sex, rich people are apt to think just somewhat plebeian, of no more consequence than screwed-up emotions and not really amounting to anything compared with comfy? “I-am-provided-for” feelings. The attitude is that as long as children go to the right private school starting with kindergarten, experience the society of the right country-, yacht-, polo-, or hunting- club, listen to the right operettas, concertos, symphonies, etc., can play 3 instruments, know French and have done the Grand Tour, What really is the worry? How could any kid who has experienced these select advantages be enticed by vulgar phenomena like what the poor classes call “What is the term?” “Fucking, I believe that's the word they use.” [I mock here what I am imitating rather than what I am imitating mock.] It's a convenient line for the rich to tow, or at any rate, they consider it such. Yeah, the rich are cleaner from being against sodomy emotions, but then since they tend to conservatively be against the clean fucking emotions those emotions might be confused for, there really isn't anything discriminating about the rich in how they distinguish depravity from clean sexual emotion. No great wisdom there more than in other classes. ANYWAY, paranoia, properly being about sodomy, something the rich tend to feel is a plebeian consideration, the wealthy tend to classify as just another lower class vulgarity arising from not having experienced the proper sort of society. This has had an interesting consequence among the rich. Human nature is such that whenever one's fears are just flat out stupid, the way rich people think sodomy is no more important to be correct about than how the poor should fix grits, well, one is likely to have a sense one's fears are misplaced. It makes one anxious, especially if the people around you tend to be the same anxious. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the central tenet of the religion of the rich is that there is nothing to fear but the improper upbringing and society typical of poverty. Of course, this belief system makes them pompous (because they have had the “great” upbringing) and unable to see the great mistakes and mischief that they themselves (e.g,. through their financial institutions) inflict upon humanity, because their illustrious upbringings have trained them to think that with such upbringings fear can have no or little purpose, and so contrary to every other group and human nature, even about things not relating to sodomy (like whether the whole financial establishment is largely a parasitic now-zombie abomination) they are deficient in fear. But anxiety, fear of not having the right fears, no amount of obnoxiousness and brainwashing can make them avoid though they get “medicine” for it and willingly pay to get brainwashed by the psychologists, etc. (Of course, a few can avoid it by being reasonable, which doubtless is why I have noticed that coolness, i.e., lack of anxiety, tends especially to be in the rich people I like well or can imagine liking well.) The better rich people, the rich people who sense that there is a place for wildness (and great sexual pleasure and love in particular), one feels sorry for them, because they are so poorly educated about distinguishing true love and pleasure from depravity, you know they aren't empowered to be able to be true to their better desires with anything like prudence, notwithstanding they are better able to afford it. Vicious circle. Tiger Woods is an interesting recent case. I knew as soon as the Tiger Woods scandal came out the the rich would scoff at him like trash. To rich people, the whole game of golf has been dragged in the dirt and I predict will lose much lustre among them. It's not like basketball, where Wilt Chamberlain could do anything and no one cares hardly. Golf is largely a rich person's sport. .His behavior is soooo contrary to what rich people suggest is a consequence of being rich and privileged with the company of the wealthy. Still, what does one expect of a person who's been too influenced by rich people when he tries to be wild? Extreme ignorance and no plan that could enable him, famous that he was, to do better than pick up barmaids and hookers. His being wild may not have been money, but how he carried it off sure was. Not that wealth is all bad for wisdom. Wisdom takes contemplation, which for sure takes free time, which requires (not very much, but some) money; good nutrition, e.g., fresh produce, is very important for clear thinking and costs money or the land and time to grow it; similarly, private schools being diverse, there are probably private schools out there better than public schools, because of course a well-run private school can spend more money on wise instruction (I have not studied the matter to know what these schools are, though), but really, it's hard for me to imagine even a good private school not attracting by its very more expensive nature a larger percentage of children whose parents are more interested in their kids being around rich children (who make wealthier mates and better future business partners) than a good education, which can't be good for education. A good private school, for this reason, probably would more encourage teacher-student interaction than student-student interaction.

The ideas in the footnote about rich people turned out as interesting as what I was intending to write about. I rewrote part of it as a comment here at Matt Taibi's blog. It might take a while to load since it concerned a popular blog that has many comments, and so I'll take the liberty of copying it:

Strange that Brooks would accuse Edwards of encouraging class division. It seemed perfectly clear to me that the reason Edwards gained the national stage in 2004 was that he said over and over again that he believed in “one America”–it’s probably what made him popular then, until he overdid it so much one was left thinking he had just one idea.

Brooks is being the elitist, and I think I have some insight into the sexual psychology of elitism, which I think is what you most need to improve your understanding about. You make out in your Rolling Stone articles like rich elitists are a bunch of nasty fuckers, but I’m inclined to think that’s off, and that in fact mostly the rich are too anti-fuck, which of course aligns with their selfish interests since rich males are better (than their competitors) at attracting females by giving them money (and marriage commitment), but not necessarily so as regards attracting them by sexually pleasing them. The non-rich and those who have not suffered themselves to be brainwashed by believing psychology (the modern word for the official-institution-sanctioned dogma as regards what human nature is like, which at any time is doomed to be very wrong compared with what a halfway reasonable person using common sense and just a little time can come up with) tend to have a clue that paranoia, when it is appropriate, is a defense against nastiness corrupting sexual pleasure and love. Since the rich tend to think that the strong emotions of love, sexual pleasure, and depravity are mostly just for plebeians too uneducated and unrefined to mate for money, and that (since in their minds all fucking is plebeian) how to keep fucking emotions clean is an issue of no more interest than how poor people prepare grits, they can have an alternative view of what makes a screwed-up person. To the rich, not being exposed to the right schools, classical music, country clubs, etc., is what makes a screwed-up person, a person who mates from vulgar emotion. Since the rich have mostly experienced this cultivation, nay even partly from their own “wisdom” having sought it out notwithstanding its frequent dullness, How could they view themselves otherwise than as inspired benevolent geniuses (the “best and brightest”, to use Obama’s phrase), and what would be the point in self-doubt (beyond admitting that they can occasionally make mistakes)? Certainly they would be loath to view the occupation of the most of the richest of them (banking) as mostly very harmfully parasitical, useful mainly just for storing money and for making a minimal amount of loans to keep loan sharks at bay, and quite harmful beyond that.

Unlike what the tone of your Rolling Stone articles somewhat suggest, the rich (except perhaps for a few mostly hidden non-influential ones who have become so exclusive as to almost never have opportunity to mate outside their group, who probably tend to become so nasty and against the prevailing spirit among the wealthy that they end up becoming exclusive more from necessity than choice) are actually much less nasty than the poor. Why wouldn’t they be? Sodomy is cheap. Even a poor person can afford to sodomize a girl. Nastiness is not something a rich person can do more potently than a poor person. The typical sexual sin of the rich is not nastiness but mating excessively for money rather than from either love or (in females) sexual pleasure.

The irony is that the problem is that in philosophical outlook, the rich have become like the original socialists, full of the belief that lack of money and the advantages it can afford is almost exclusively what causes people to become brutish, the very opinion that set the pietists to start the movement against the first socialist, Robert Owen (unlike Owen, the pietists thought that church is also important in avoiding brutishness). (For a readable history of the matter, I suggest googling the excellent book, Some Thing Went Wrong A Summation of Modern History, by Lewis Browne.)

Not that there might not be more than a little nastiness in finance, as one would expect merely from the natural association between corruption and nastiness (maybe more in the city? maybe more among the young?). But I have been some places where investment bankers live, and mostly my impression is that people there are too worried about crazy things like keeping their children from getting screwed when they don’t get into the right kindergarten to have time or energy for actual screwing. Even if they wanted to be sexually wild, they’d be too stupid to be able to do so without unusually great danger. Hang around rich people enough, and you’ll get so stupid fuckwise the best you’ll be able to do may be just to buy sleazy escorts; look at Tiger Woods—a famous athlete like that and apparently he couldn’t find anyone better to fuck with—doubtless if the gossip is accurate in describing his behavior, he’s been around rich people too much. The response of rich people to Tiger Woods’ alleged fucking behavior is already revealing. The simplest explanation is that he has lost his advertising contracts (in a way that a basketball fucker probably wouldn’t) because rich people have contempt for fuckers, and golf is a sport mainly for rich people.

Perhaps I should correct the impression that I actually use cuss words ordinarily; I don't, but probably that's mainly just because no one around me uses them. But I don't consider it improper using the word "fuck" when fucking is what I actually am talking about and when I am not talking with people that would give me a hard time about it; indeed, it strikes me as elitist to feel otherwise.

I was going to elaborate more about why controlling via sexual emotions is something one would expect to be more common in good people than in bad people (unlike the case with vile means of controlling), but it feels too much for me to do presently. Maybe later, since it is important, if controlling by sexual emotion be appropriate, that it be something one would especially tend to find in good people. Also, I still have to deal with the matter of whether controlling feelings might chemically cancel out the harmful effects (so far as intraejaculate sperm selection is concerned) of desiring something importunately just because it is pleasant feeling. And there is the matter of what to do with girls whose soaring nature might seem incompatible with being controlled in any way. There might be a few girls who, I guess on account of their unusually strong ability to love in the right way always just don't care about their own pleasure in such a way as to be able to be controlled. Ordinarily, it is safer for themselves for girls to have sex from pleasure than love, but if a girl is some kind of freakishly ultrasensitive bird girl or something, it's only insignificantly safer, and thus a matter of indifference to her, and one just has to put up with not being much in control, and even if one didn't, one might not be sure enough to bring it off as to risk inflicting ineffective (and therefore pointless) punishments. I am too unsure about my true feelings there, though (those girls must be very rare and hard to come at), to be able to write much about it soon. But I thought I should qualify my arguments by admitting there might be a girl somewhere I don't want to control, probably just because I can't or it is too risky trying.

I know I haven't been posting much lately. I am still having fairly many ideas to write about, but somehow I am have lately had difficulty writing about them, especially finishing writing about them. I start writing, and then I get so I don't feel like it is right to finish presently. I can't well explain this.