Thursday, May 13, 2010

Public Display of Affection

Most primary and secondary schools nowadays, I gather, ban public displays of affection. Public displays of affection can affect, disturb, etc., onlookers, which I suppose is largely why schools ban them; students experiencing uneasy disturbing emotions might get in the way of their health and welfare. French movies, in particular, seem to be obsessed with the phenomena and how it can drive onlookers into insanity and suicide. Well, I have thought a great deal about the matter, and though I haven't thought much about it lately, yet there occurred to me the other day [now a half-dozen or so months ago—this post took time to write] a new insight into what often goes on to give that sense of disturbance.

First let me say there are lots of pedestrian reasons for PDA. Some people might think their relationship is beautiful and want to share a view of it with others. Girls may want to show off how affectionate they are. Other boys and girls may want to show off popularity. Insecure girls wanting a stamp of approval may want to see what people at large think of their relationship. I suppose some couples may really be so desperate for each other and yet indifferent to what others think of them that they have to kiss at every opportunity, though in that case, maybe staying home from school would be more warranted; an exception might be if the children have parents who don't allow the kids to be together unmonitored and they don't allow kissing, etc. Anyway, these pedestrian justifications of PDA are not at all what I wish to discuss. I wish to discuss the dark, philosophically loaded reasons for it.

The first disturbing sort of PDA I shall call German militarist PDA, because I suspect that much of German culture was obsessed with it before and during the World Wars. He-man archetypal stud makes out with submissive girl, and with evil glee she relishes her heartlessness toward the kinder males she might have else. If she chooses to be a skank dominated through depravity or violence from he-man, and if some would-be lover finds it disturbing to see her in that degradation, well, in German militarist PDA, that is no concern of hers because her natural desire to advance the master race or whatever delights in disturbing the weak and those who find brutish domination immoral as much as it delights in succumbing to brute power. Whatever. I have always had sufficient faith in the female heart (and in particular, in the female heart of those I admire) to find this a very irrelevant explanation. There might be a few females somewhere sufficiently screwed-up to be that evil, but I doubt decent men would be sufficiently naturally attracted to females that could be so heartless to be much attracted to them anyway (or at all disturbed by what they are doing). But maybe in a few places and times like Germany during the Third Reich females and even fairly good females that screwed-up and deluded were common.

The second disturbing sort of PDA I shall call French movie PDA, because it seems to be the sort of thing many French movies seem to be trying to understand. It's a much more common phenomenon, probably, than German militarist PDA. It's associated with sophistication. Sophisticated girls realize that they are more likely to get abused if they create lots of jealousy. Accordingly, sluttish sophisticates try to make jealousy. Making out in public is a kind of flirting with bystanders that increases both the chances that the guy she is making out with will feel it more necessary to sodomize her often to keep her addicted to him and also the chances that guys thinking of trying to get her will feel that they will have to sodomize her a lot to overcome her possession by her boyfriend. This is of course bad disgusting behavior. Enough said.

The third disturbing sort of PDA is very much more complicated and unappreciated (which is why it took decades for me to figure out more-or-less completely). The obscurity and complexity of it is largely what makes it so disturbing, because one knows one needs to understand, but one just can't. And it is not random! Moreover, if you say there is not a pedestrian innocent explanation or alternative, straightforward disturbing explanation, not many people would believe you. There's no rule that allows one to determine these matters exactly, and probably people lie about these matters so much that no one would believe you if you told them that their standard explanation be wrong. (The scared girls engaging in these behaviors would presumably find it too dangerous to admit their motivations.) And not many people have these experiences and yet be brave enough to be willing to aye plummet them to their natural depths. And it is to put one's sanity at risk. Insanity brings evil spirits to scoff at you, and most people don't care enough to want to have to deal with them. Every few years in pondering the facts of the matter, one has an insight—“Ah! She was thinking that when she looked at me as she did in that particular mental picture I have of her.” The images remain, though sometimes one wonders whether it is not so much the images that remain as the exact emotional impression one had at the time the images were encountered. Then one spends great deal of time trying to fit the new piece of information into a consistent theory, and though for decades there will always be a few things that can't be explained totally, yet one makes more-or-less steady progress. By the time, dear reader, you were to figure out something like this on your own, you may well be beyond the point at which it makes much difference except to future generations. You are the future generations, probably. True, not that there is much chance something so particular is going to happen to any given individual you are likely to be much familiar with in this generation, but the cases, though rare, may be presumed to be of sufficient importance that it is appropriate to discuss the matter

There are. . . various tests. . ., yes, yes. . ., tests . . ., that girls can profitably employ to evaluate the reality of their affections. No reason to hide what these tests are-- I have mentioned them, some of them, maybe all of them, right here in this blog. There are certain shall we say distinctive qualities that the abused, affected by their abusers' sodomy chemicals, are incapable of expressing in a way that just wouldn't happen if the affection were real. They are the same distinctive qualities one would expect to see lacking in someone affected by a rape drug, because the chemical affects of sodomy may be presumed to be similar to those of rape drugs. Not just any rape drug, but a particularly nefarious one that has had hundreds of millions of years to evolve into something especially controlling and insidious. The tests evaluate the presence of the particular distinctive qualities, which qualities the existence of which I have hitherto derived I now duly list. Every last one whose existence I have derived as being probable I list. ALL OF THEM (Unless I forgot some, but I think it rather unlikely I have forgotten any):

Tests girls employ to make more sure their loving and sexual emotions are not of depraved origin

(1)The quality of not being particularly susceptible to dizziness. Indeed, a dizzy person is easier to rape, so one would expect chemicals predisposing one to dizziness to be present in semen emitted during sodomy.
(2)The quality of being easily able to change suddenly one's emotion from one thing to another. Probably sodomy chemicals mainly effect mood rather than causing “love” or “pleasure” emotions more directly. (Prostaglandins, in particular, are neuromodulators, which are considered to more have their effect on mood.) Otherwise their effects would be too obvious to those affected by them, and thus too easy for victims to detect as unnatural. And so people affected by sodomy chemicals would be expected to have a sort of jadedness that amounts to being unable to easily lightly switch quickly from one emotion to a contrary one.
(3)The quality of being easily able to feel hate (for someone else) while feeling love. Love feelings that arise from externally introduced (and in that sense unnatural) semen chemicals, not having their origins in particular impressions of love-worthiness, may be presumed to be quite general in their effects. As with the love potion of A Midsummer's Night's Dream, the chemicals may be presumed to cause love and sexual behavior to seem more appropriate regardless what is being considered. It's hard to hate when your love feelings are just the result of what amounts to a potion. (I think cats test for this quality to an unusual degree; indeed, one may have noticed that cats when feeling affection tend to kneed bedding, etc., with their claws, as if fantasizing about the cruel use of those claws in violence is something they like to do when feeling affection.)
(4)The quality of not feeling pain too easily. Sodomy being largely about domination through terror and physical violence, semen from sodomizers may be presumed to contain chemicals increasing sensitivity to pain, thereby making any concomitant physical abuse more terrifyingly effective. In particular, it is well known that the Prostaglandin E2 in semen is a potent algesic; in fact aspirin produces its analgesic effects largely by blocking this chemical.
(5)The quality of being able to lay out in the sun while having one's unwilled lusts without getting much by way of sun burn. This is a more speculative theory of mine, introduced here and here. It is interesting to note that since originally introducing the theory it has occurred to me that Vitamin D may be relevant here, Vitamin D being created from 7-dehydro cholesterol, the precursor through cholesterol to the other steroids like the sexual hormones. Perhaps when females feel natural lust, they are so rapidly converting cholesterol to sex hormones their body can't keep up, leading to a cholesterol deficiency that makes the higher more desired levels of lust difficult. To try to make up for it, one can well imagine the body produces extra 7-dehydro cholesterol (the primary precusor of cholesterol), leading to high 7-dehydro cholesterol that (provided one has exposure to sunlight) makes for easy more safe Vitamin D production and good tans. If lust chemical gets introduced externally (and thus, by definition, unnaturally—in the sense of adventitiously), well, the cholesterol isn't getting used up, and so the body probably doesn't put forth much 7-dehydrocholesterol. This also probably explains why red meat messes up cholesterol levels. The red meats are from mammals not so much unlike us with steroidal hormones probably not so much different from ours. It may be not just the cholesterol in the meat that is the culprit. Our lust meters when subjected to sex steroids in the diet probably try to compensate by decreasing conversion of cholesterol to steroid hormones, resulting in excess cholesterol.

An obvious point that one can make about the various associated tests that can be used to assay love and sexual desire is that they are most appropriately employed when a girl is at peak lust. Even sodomized girls can feel desires not directly of depraved origin that arise from reflecting on the (false) seeming pleasantness or beauty of past unnatural desires caused by the male having done something depraved to her (sodomy). These muted desires occasioned by recollection of past depravity (rather than directly by sodomy chemicals) are not at all incompatible with the aforementioned 5 qualities. If a female is testing a male by dancing about while thrashing her head around (to make sure she doesn't have an unusual propensity to dizziness), she'll want the male under consideration right there, as he would be presumably when her feelings are strongest for him. If she wants to see if she can go quick from loving her male to thinking about math problems, and vice versa, then when she is loving her male, she'll want to rub against him and be totally in his embrace like she is when she most physically and lovingly feels for him. And when she is thinking about torturing nasty boys to death, she will want her waist and chest to be all over her lover while doing so, so she can know that she can feel the questioned sexual and incipient maternal love in extreme degree while being able to hate contrarywise at the same time. If she wants to make sure that she can be in the throes of captivity without feeling undue pain when she injures herself, she will again prefer to inflict injury upon herself when the male she wonders whether she wants is against her. And when she checks to make sure her lust makes her able to enjoy the warmth of the sun with unusual safety, she'll want him right there with her as she lies out, so her lust will be peak and non-willed. When girls are testing for the qualities incompatible with depravity (and they aren't testing for a baseline), they need fairly intimate contact with the male they are considering. Physical contact, in particular, is best, assuming she's sufficiently comfortable to risk that.

When testing for emotional capacities incompatible with depravity, it doesn't take much reflection to see the importance of moderation. Thrash your head about too much in dance and you risk hurting your neck. Jump too much too suddenly from one thing to another, and that might be expected over time to lead to emotional instability. Probably even lustful girls can only get so much sun before experiencing dangerous sunburns that could lead to skin cancer. And then there are the two tests where it is especially obvious that moderation is called for. Injuring oneself to make sure the pain is not unusually great has the obvious drawback that it causes injury—obviously one doesn't need too much of that. And as for fantasizing about being cruel toward one person while feeling love for someone else, that may be reassuring and hence useful if it's just fantasy, but obviously if one goes too far, into actually being cruel or homicidal to people, that's foolhardy and could cause one to spend much time in jail. It is a testament to the natural tendency of people to be moderate here that it's pretty rare for people to seriously injure themselves in sexual contexts or for clean cruel thoughts associated with sex to get out of hand sufficiently to lead girls to actual serious crimes. But as one might expect, there are a few cases that look like such feelings might have been contributing factors. For instance, just recently there was the case in Missouri of Alyssa Bustamante, a girl who allegedly killed another girl just because (her words) she wanted to know what it felt like [to kill somebody]. There's a youtube video of her enjoying shocking herself and her brother on an electric fence. People say she was “emo” (which definitely doesn't stand for Eastern Missouri, but for “emotional”, a kind of music that according to Wikipedia was actually developed in the Washington, D.C., area (where I was from--I had no idea then) about when I was leaving high school and which supposedly is very popular among people who like to inflict injury on themselves), and though I don't know enough about emo to really say, yet I will trust those who say emo people more tend to have a tendency to enjoy injuring themselves, like a girl might if she was testing whether she was under the influence of foul emotion. But people also say that she was going to parties where drugs were prevalent, so yeah, even here in cases that most obviously could be a girl taking a test of a capacity to feel cruelty to immoderation one sees that a hope for sexual delight in cruelty isn't all or probably even the majority of what was involved; probably almost always there also needs to be something making her stupid. And the reason her case made the national news is the obvious one, namely that it was so unusual as to be bizarre. It is very important to recognize that the inappropriate acting out resulting from girls excessively testing their ability to be cruel while feeling love is often confused with a much more pernicious and common kind of wanton cruelty, namely that resulting from sodomizers tending to love to torture in order to get control. Males alone being sodomizers, they much more engage in the nasty wanton cruelty than females do. In particular, males with something of a conformist streak that causes them to view themselves by whatever the hype produced by their sort suggests do fairly often think their controlling torturing desires are more about killing than about controlling, and that their fondness for demeaning comments toward girls are more about simple hate than about convincing their victims that they deserve the foul punishments they got or are about to get. (On TV, it seems like people who knew them growing up almost always say about serial killers that they seemed so normal, the last ones would expect to be such, and I suspect there is truth to that—that sodomizers have to have a conformist normal streak to be a serial killer, whereas your weirdo sodomizer is more the sort, e.g., to keep a girl locked in a cage in his basement for decades.) Annnnyway, cruelty arising from just plain nastiness is often made by nasty males (like Charles Manson) to appear by way of justification as essentially some variant of the clean sodomy-testing cruelty that girls especially can feel. They are totally different! Probably most girls who engage in superfluous cruelty do so from the standard run-of-the-mill screwed up reason, i.e.,from being under the influence of sodomy, thereby making them zombies of sorts in the control of their sadistic sodomizers. The archetypal example there would be Killer Karla. But still, there are important reasons for girls to feel the importance of being moderate in their tests for qualities incompatible with sodomy, and these reasons apply especially when it comes to tests for a capacity for cruelty.

Girls are cleanly into cruelty when they're scared of what they wonder they love. They want the pleasure of being able to feel hate for one person while loving what they are scared at. It's funner embracing him while feeling hate, but they might not view it prudent to be next to him, because they're scared of him. (Physical proximity is fun, since to be a very good test it needs to test emotions felt when proximity and desire is the greatest, that being the situation where a girl is at greatest danger of being under the influence of sodomy.) So be it. But here's my main point: moderation is sometimes dangerous and very wrong. The dire mistake is to be a scaredy compli-cat. I don't think it happens very frequently, but girls being confused about the sense in which they should be moderate can lead to it, and for sure the echoes from it are so far reaching and long-lasting one can't discount the importance of the (dark) phenomenon. The horrendous half-measure is for a girl to attempt to love the male she's scared of while hating someone else while embracing yet a third. For such a test is no test whatsoever of what she fears, it's a test of the virtue of the male she is using as a tree. And males used as trees have a vested interest in FUCKING UP the experiment (and the girl) when she'll take the results as applying to his competition. The layer of falsehood one can imagine may give rise to extreme evil. The girl affected by the “tree's” sodomy chemicals stupidly concludes intuitively that since she can't love the guy she is scared of at the same time as having cruel feelings, the love must not be real. That even the very grass is incredibly loveable after she sucks cock or whatever she on the other hand takes as a sign of how love and her sodomizer just go together and that the cruel feelings that were a test of her love for the loveable person she concludes are sordid themselves (being incompatible with love) and evidence of his not being nice. The people around her, seeing how beautiful she was when thinking of loving the person she actually loved, wrongly think her tree and those like him must be something very special and loveable, especialy if emotionally they take her cruel fantasies as signs that she very surely is careful about making sure her love for the guy in her arms is real. The guy in her arms is likely to take her cruel fantasies a little bit differently, of course, e.g., as proof that girls surely are in every way attracted sexually to his desires to torture so natural for sodomizers. Anyway, the fellows in his gang begin to trust and look up to him as they never did before, and he and the girl, Nadezhda Alliluyeva, get married, and after he has mostly finished getting control he decides to apply more directly his newfound faith that girls just want sadists, and so in his confused cluelessness, he slaughters a few tens of millions of Ukranians and others just because vaguely he feels that will make people want to get sodomized by him more. One day Nadezdha blesses him out and kills herself, and his faith crumbles--she must have sucked some other guy's dick! he thinks, and so he kills a few million people who might have somehow been involved, including Bukharin (I don't read Communist literature, so this would be a very uninformed guess) or whomever Nadezhda actually loved. There you go. But Stalin had bizarre honey-colored eyes that gave him an extra appeal, and hopefully he was a great deal worse than most bad trees, and Nadezhda wasn't very beautiful (in my opinion), so hopefully that would be just a worst case scenario, which might not even have happened the history being so obscure. But no mistake, evil is more than selfishness, it's also stupidity. Stalin's behavior wasn't just selfish, it was stupid, as evil always is. And mistaking cruelty that arose from fear and hatred of sodomy with cruelty that arose from sodomy having enslaved one to an evil sodomizer is stupid and potentially a cause of great evil like Stalin's.

I can well imagine it being surprising to many boys who are the object of sexual desire that girls can at once have strong sexual desire for them and yet be frightened of them at the same time. But of course, it is not supposed to be natural for girls to have strong sexual desires at their young age. Moreover, stuff can have happened to girls to make them extra suspicious of their sexual sensations. Molestation can cause unnatural (in the sense of adventitious) sexual feelings in the molested person. But unless a girl decides to be a nun or conformist for the rest of her life, it is not as though she can just ignore her future sexual desires from their having in various ways resemblances to feelings she felt when molested. The tragedy from being forcibly sodomized or otherwise molested is not only that it can cause one to desire unnatural perverted things, but also that it can cause one to throw out clean, innocent natural sexual desires from fear they be unnaturally perverted. If you look at a girl and she of a sudden looks down and sideways with something of a gasp as though she wonders whether you are thinking right then how to rape her, well, one may be pretty sure I think that the girl was raped (unless, of course, you are something of a rapist!); especially would this be a reasonable inference if during the look that occasioned such a reaction one had especially nice and nonphysical thoughts about her, say, thoughts of how beautiful and holy she looks. In fact, I daresay it is so safe an inference that your judging her behavior as indicative of her having been raped is something ideally one would have the opportunity of communicating to her, since of course if one is a rapist there would be so many girls behaving towards one in similarly defensive ways that one could not easily use such a test to detect girls that have been raped. Ideally, males should not be too public about their suspicions that a girl has been raped, since as I have just mentioned, the rape not being public knowledge gives girls some protection from future rape, on account of it then being the case that a rapist male has a hard time telling whether a girl having physical feelings towards him which she is unusually scared of has been raped. (But females who have not been raped, forcibly sodomized, or otherwise molested should ideally make it public knowledge that such-and-such male wrongly thinks that she has been raped, etc. Otherwise, rapacious males might profit by accusing many if not most females who are disturbed by him that such disturbance is a sign of having been raped, etc.) Even if a girl doesn't resort to horrible scaredy-cat PDA, it's horrific tragedy when a girl feels something deep inside her about you, a non-rapist, that she wrongly discounts or unduly fears from the consideration that it in some ways reminds her of a past rape; since you are not a rapist, the only reasonable possibility is that she has felt deeply-loving or pleasant sexual feelings toward you; but this situation is pretty obvious, because most girls feeling that would be like “fuck yeah!”, so it's a pretty certain sign of rape. As an aside, I should say that what's not so obvious, it seems to me, is girls discounting shallower more exploratory feelings. For instance, a girl who has been groped who is experiencing pleasant sexual-exploratory shallow feelings in the waist for you that she unduly fears will probably appear fidgety rather as a girl in need of going to the bathroom. One isn't sure, really, whether she is a girl falling in love with you who has been groped or whether she is just a girl whose urinary bladder is full. (I just thought I'd mention this curious difficulty, circumstances having once led me to wonder with respect to a particular girl who was thus fidgety both times I saw her what was the case, it seeming quite the coincidence she would both times need to urinate.) Ideally, people would be clear-headed that it is sodomy that causes people to get screwed-up. In particular, a parent does well to encourage sodomized children to be very leery of any emotions experienced during or immediately after the sodomy. If sodomy makes a girl feel humiliated, well, yeah, that's because humiliation is a natural and appropriate response that can keep her from becoming addicted to sluttishness. But if a girl has been groped, say, then, yes, that can damage the girl very much and (peremptory and undesired) groping is something that also should be illicit, but the damage is the humiliation itself causing her to doubt her future sexual desires, notwithstanding these sexual desires will tend to be just as innocent as if nothing had happened. Eliciting anti-sodomy defenses is the proper way of healing the sodomized when there is danger they might get addicted or confused by what they felt, but with people who wrongly feel sodomized, the danger of whatever caused them to wrongly feel thus is precisely that it excessively elicits such anti-sodomy defenses, and so elicting further such defenses by behaving toward the girl like she is equivalent to one who has been sodomized only exacerbates the situation considerably. Porn that is nasty-looking is similar. Sure, (nasty) porn is something parents should encourage children to avoid, mainly because it can make the viewer feel unclean. But for parents to be too indiscriminate by causing the child to believe that viewing such porn actually makes him unclean as if porn has some sort of weird magical chemically-enslaving sodomy properties that in some sense sodomize the viewer is to set the child up for big problems if he or she actually encounters such stuff when young (as seems almost inevitable now in the internet age given its ubiquity).

If people more recognized that the reason girls are bemused at having cruel thoughts for one male while loving another male is mainly that it reassures them that the love feelings for the latter male are not a result of some sordid addiction rendering hate impossible then obviously it would be a great boon for peace as fewer people would be tricked into hating wrongly by being confused between this cruelty and inappropriate cruelty. Cruelty is just like any other behavior in that the more distinctly one sees when it be appropriate, the less confusedly one sees when it be not. (True, one could argue that realizing that an emotion be appropriate under a certain circumstance gives the emotion more legitimacy, but in truth people have an innate sense how much an emotion should play in one's worldview, and so belief has less of an influence on how much to respect an emotion in general than on exactly where the emotion should be applied. For instance, in America liberals less tend to feel that there is a place for guilt as regards sex (or sodomy), and as if to make up for it, they more tend to feel (inappropriately) guilty about non-sexual things like their country's foreign policy.) That said, since feeling cruelty and love at the same time suggests cleanliness, since girls enjoy anything that suggests cleanliness that affects intraejaculate sperm selection, and since maybe cruel feelings affect sex in a physiological way that could influence sperm success, perhaps girls would like to feel cruel thoughts during sex even if fear is absent? True, if a girl is frightened of a male, the fear itself is rather suggestive of her love for him being less sure than otherwise, so it is dubious that girls who feel cruelty from fear will on average be more truly in love, and thus more selective of ideal sperm. But that is not really the question. For a calm relaxed girl can be cruel if she wants to while a sordid girl can't. Assuming cruelty affects sperm selection, girls feeling cruel must select for clean-coding sperm, but there is no reason they must select for sperm from ancestors conceived by girls in terrifying sex, because maybe girls get off sexually on being cruel regardless, whether they are scared of their lovers or not. Here's the interesting thing, though. Suppose the level of fear a girl has also significantly affects intraejaculate sperm selection. Then in this case sex with a girl feeling cruelty from fear would be vastly different in its physiological effects on sperm from sex with a girl feeling cruel just because while totally relaxed. Sure, a frightened girl can sexually get off by feeling cruel, because being able to feel the cruelty makes her more feel safe, and maybe that is the most important sense in which girls get off on cruelty, but the pleasure there is probably not very much due to the effects of her feeling cruelty on intraejaculate sperm. Mostly intraejaculate sperm selection itself can make girls sexually get off on feeling cruel only to the extent the girls are totally calm and relaxed, a fortunate thing.

Since girls can enjoy feeling cruelty when having sex, one might be concerned that girls while thus feeling cruel might actually do inappropriately violent things that are unduly cruel; but since they only enjoy cruelty when they are scared of their lover or not scared at all, the danger is slight. When a girl is actually scared of a male to the point of wondering whether he has cast some nefarious addictive spell upon her, the last thing she would feel morally confident in doing while next to him is some violent cruel act toward someone else; as bad as murdering, torturing, etc., be, certainly they are worse when under the influence of some scary male. And if a cruel girl is not at all scared of her lover, and so enjoys feeling cruelty just for sexual kicks, then since her pleasure is incumbent upon being totally relaxed and not scared, she will be very hesitant to do any dangerous things. And fortunately, murdering, torturing people, etc., are dangerous activities. Unless she and her lover have something akin to ironclad world domination, or unless society has institutionalized ritual violence, any violence she inflicts for kicks will of course be dangerous. But perhaps a male could use his girls to form the nucleus of some sort of army that could lead to world domination? No, because gaining world domination is dangerous. The male would not have an army of brave warrior girls. Anytime world domination might appear risky (as it presumably often would), the “warrior” girls would lose interest and go off to get their nails done or the like, because when they are scared, violence would lose all its sexual pleasantness to them. It basically wouldn't be an army of brave warriors, but an army of chicken people and would be totally useless for gaining world domination. As for gaining world domination by more peaceful means, it would seem to necessitate convincing people that there be nothing immoral or foolhardy about letting oneself take over the world. But it is always foolhardy and immoral to allow somebody to take over the world, for obvious reasons. If the would-be world dominator has great moral virtue, then yes, he might improve overall world governance if he becomes dominator, but such great moral virtue implies that he would stress the inappropriateness of people allowing somebody to dominate the world. The good males who girls love when they really love are honest and wouldn't be any good at lying if they tried, and so for them to take over the world somehow magically people would have to become convinced otherwise than by argument of the error that it is OK to allow someone to take over the world. So it really is an unrealistic expectation of girls to think that enjoying cruel fantasies about others while having sex with a male is some sign that, wow!, he can take over the world. There is a better time than the present to start taking over the world—never. Basically, since taking over the world is not an option, the only sort of cruelty that girls can act on because they get off on it sexually while having sex is that which society approves of. In other words, unless society approves of human sacrifice and makes girls the executioners, there is now no more than a negligible chance girls in their right minds will actually do significantly cruel things (killing, torture, etc.) as a result of their sexually getting off on cruel feelings.

I think it is pretty obvious given its rarity that humans nowadays mostly find human sacrifice abhorrent (e.g., people say there is a slight amount of it occurring in Uganda, and they are up in arms about it). But human sacrifice used to be very common. To just assume that humans as a result of civilization or whatever have permanently outgrown desire for their society to perform human sacrifice is just that, an assumption. There may be something peculiar to our own time period in history that causes almost all people now to find human sacrifice vile. To my mind, the more plausible significant difference is not that nowadays people are more civilized but rather that nowadays people, as a result of much migrations, travel, immigration, etc., have recently become much more genetically diverse than they were formerly. I am not saying that there is anything unreasonable in people nowadays having distaste for human sacrifice, I am just saying that in all likelihood it is naïve to believe that better civilization, government, education, etc., is the cause, and that in fact the most important cause is something that may fail to hold in future generations. Centuries or (more likely) a millenia or two from now, it is possible that societies will mostly practice human sacrifice again, perhaps on quite a significant scale, and that this will seem quite right to people then.

Something I have not mentioned before is that I rather suspect there is a genetic grand cycle to human affairs that makes different generations have different attitudes toward sex and the rate of genetic selection. The amount of heterozygy in an individual is something that one can quantify; i.e., in any given chromosome pair, one could measure the extent to which the alleles of genes on one chromosome are identical to the alleles on the other chromosome, and then one could sum over the pairs. It would be very easy to imagine that the body could and does more-or-less sense the amount of heterozygosity present in his or her own genome. Heterozygosity and diversity can be new or it can be old. If it is new, it is very useful for much genetic crossover to occur. If it is old, having been present for a fair number of the immediately preceding ancestral generations, well, much genetic crossover isn't useful, but perhaps diversity doesn't tend to exist a long time because selection largely tends to weed out less useful (alleles of) genes. As I have described elsewhere, the significance of lust (both male and female) imao is that it tends to encourage genetic crossover. So it makes sense to me that a diverse society, or more precisely a society in which there is much heterozygy as a result of recent breeding between different ethnicities, would tend to be very lustful. Heterozygous mongrel people would be expected to be more lustful than homozygous purebred types. As I have mentioned before, there is good reason to believe that at least female lust creates epigenetic inheritable changes on chromosomes; presumably if the matter were understood chemically, one could measure exactly the amount of lust paint that chromosomes have upon them. So then, after a fair number of highly lustful generations, chromosomes would be expected to be quite laden with this lust paint. If in the interim since society were most diverse there has been much splicing and dicing of chromosomes as one would expect in a lustful mongrel society, it ceases to be important that selection be slow. (In a newly more diverse society, it is especially important that selection be slow lest useful alleles die out just because they happen to have been adjacent to lame alleles before the society became mongrelized.) Thus, one would expect that there being much epigenetic lust paint on chromosomes would tend to encourage highly selective behaviors encouraging of very fast evolution. The period of lust would be expected to be succeeded by a period of much fucking and (possibly) human sacrifice. Eventually, the fucking and (possibly) human sacrifice would weed out a large fraction of the (alleles of) genes that are (on average) less useful, resulting after many generations in a period of low diversity. Just as high diversity causes lust, one would expect low diversity to occasion its opposite, namely holiness. So the period of fucking would be succeeded by the period of holiness. The absence of lust in this period would cause a decrease in the amount of lust paint as the lust paint wears off. Eventually, this decrease in lust paint would lead to chromosomes mostly devoid of epigenetic lust paint, which would lead to an era of little genetic selection, i.e., an age of much marriage (which would find human sacrifice repugnant). This would over time lead once again to a lustful era of high genetic diversity, where we originally started.

The same tendencies that tend to work cyclically presumably work in response to exogenous changes such as increased immigration. (There might be other effects involved, though; starting from very high diversity might create so much lust that the time until the period of low diversity would be about the same as with starting from merely high diversity, whereas certainly if the very high level is a one time deal resulting from migration, the rate of selection should be dampened to get the result. Vaguely, mere amplitude modulation of the diversity waves feels not best for humanity and hopefully not what humans naturally do--the waves need to take on FM characteristics also.) Today, many societies have seen much recent immigration, over distances until recently quite impossible. I daresay, the average heterozygosity of people is still increasing as people become more and more mongrel. Though it is misleading to think of humanity as just having come from a previous cycle, practically it would seem to me (assuming mating between races increases as seems likely) that we can best model our society as one between the age of marriage and the age of lust. We are still quite a ways away from the age of fucking where human sacrifice might be significantly desired.

I don't really know whether there will be a period in the human future where societies frequently practice human sacrifice because their citizens want it for fast evolution. For instance, the greatly increased size of the human race obviously could be a very relevant factor, and I don't really have much sense on what its effect would be on how people feel about human sacrifice (say) a millenium or two from now. What I don't particularly feel is as relevant in making moral judgments against human sacrifice as one might think is the effect of it on producing a calamity such as the extinction of the human race. Maybe a period of human sacrifice is a dangerous period where humanity might unusually tend to become extinct as human sacrifice being considered appropriate makes people much more feel there is a moral place for killing. But people are what they are. And what definitely strikes me as extremely dangerous is for human sacrifice to explode upon humanity as a result of having been unnaturally for ages restricted by excessively conservative policy that has outgrown itself. It is important that attitudes and restrictions toward human sacrifice be allowed to change because it is extremely important that restrictions on human sacrifice not change abruptly, which would tend to lead when the restrictions are overthrown to a period of massive killing in the name of human sacrifice (or even worse, just as a result of feelings about human sacrifice) notwithstanding society until right then had no or little occasion to be able to take the time or risk the stigma to have had a careful honest dialogue about it along with time to have thought and reflected about it. If human sacrifice starts again, it definitely is extremely important (say to the survival of humanity) that beforehand it has been well thought through by humanity. In particular, even in times where human sacrifice has little or no appeal, it is prudent to consider the moral issues involved with human sacrifice—in particular it is important to the survival of humanity in the future that right now even in our newly diverse age that people not be so adamantly against human sacrifice as to institute virtually unchangeable barriers against it. Barriers against human sacrifice increasing greatly all at once, indeed, are likely appropriate, but that is different from instituting barriers trying to make it impossible for human sacrifice ever to be practiced again, efforts which if people really will greatly in the future desire human sacrifice (as seems at least plausible) would significantly increase the chances of humanity in the future destroying itself (and perhaps many other plant and animal species in the process), immediately upon the barriers being tumbled down.

Latent feelings about human sacrifice may be important to understand when evaluating the appropriateness of cruelty in a sexual context. Since it is probably inappropriate and dangerous to the survival of humanity to fight human sacrifice in a society whose members greatly desire such, the right thing for a good person to do in such a case is to concentrate on encouraging the society to sacrifice people in the right way. If you are a good male in a society that believes in human sacrifice, then quite possibly (much more than with bad and more particularly than with sodomizing males) girls can get sexually off by killing and torturing people while having lustful sex or fantasizing about having lustful sex with you, and that gives you a certain power that you should use to ensure that it is the morally bad people who seem unlikable to you that end up getting killed. After all, the sodomizers, akin to Nazis, would be more than happy to decide who gets sacrificed and how. Indeed, in all societies, sodomizers enjoy torturing and violence. Since ritual human sacrifice is violent and such an easy opportunity for torture, there is great danger in any society adopting ritual human sacrifice that the rituals will become dominated by sodomizers. It is not probably an accident that semen contains algesics such as prostaglandin E2; presumably these chemicals are useful to sodomizers by making concomitant torture more terrifyingly painful. But also, presumably these chemicals make the testicles of sodomizers and more particularly sodomizers contemplating sodomy unusually susceptible to pain (though, not probably to the same degree as in camelids and carnivores, say, who lack seminal vesicles). Anyway, like with brave fighting llamas who not infrequently rip into testicles with their teeth, it may be presumed that anti-sodomy sentiment tends to be associated with desiring a particular type of torture, namely that of the testes. In a sexual context, the sort of cruelty that girls get off most on is the sort which makes her know sodomy hasn't corrupted her. The cruelty girls can get off on when having loving sex tends to be directed at males (who alone can sodomize) and more particularly young males (since girls' maternal feelings, artificial or otherwise, are for the young, being able to hate young people makes her sure her incipient maternal feelings aren't a result of addiction), and in its most extreme anti-sodomy form involves hatred of testes (kicking the balls is the archetypal anti-rape anti-forcible-sodomy defense). If girls sometimes nowadays inappropriately actually act out (little pieces of) the cruel desires that can turn them on sexually, perhaps part of the reason is that inside them is an innate tendency to actually want to act on those feelings in a certain situation, i.e., when they are in a society that practices human sacrifice because it wants to do so. Wanting to go all the way to act out those feelings fully is important and good in a society with human sacrifice, because if you don't, the evil sodomizers sure will instead fulfill their selfish torturing desires. Girls wanting to kill boys by ripping into their balls or whatever basically just when having or fantasizing about sex with good males ensures that, in societys practicing human sacrifice, to the extent the girls and their parents who care about them, etc., are empowered, they will tend for the sake of the girls' fun to make it so the girls captivated by their good male lovers control who gets killed that way, as opposed to (say) sodomizers controlling who gets killed, e.g., according to their own selfish clannish or racist reasons. It is hard to say exactly to what extent historical human sacrifice was corrupted by sodomy. That sacrifice was often practiced in fertility rites suggests people often did get off sexually from it. But I can't find much evidence girls did the killing or that hate was directed in anti-sodomy ways, e.g., at the testes (though I suppose the Killycluggin stone found in Mag Slecht, where the Irish Gaels supposedly sacrificed one-third of their children to Crom Cruach, could be representative of a testis carved out all around in some sort of death by torture ritual). Probably human sacrifice in practice was often screwed-up (perhaps especially so in its later years, when St. Patrick put an end to it), and given that it was something sexualized, perhaps the main thing that kept it from being completely screwed up is that girls can only simultaneously feel love and hate easily when the love is real and not caused by sodomy. To avoid guilt or wrong behavior, girls nowadays need to correctly recognize exactly when it is that their nature naturally acts just for sexual kicks on cruel homicidal feelings, viz., when they are living in a society that practices human sacrifice because it wants to do so. In particular, girls should see today that, what since they don't live in a society practicing human sacrifice or desiring to do so, acting on their feelings is wrong and basically unnatural, which of course is mostly what they do anyway, as evinced by the dearth of murderers who are girls.

I daresay it well for people to remember, as evidence of the extent to which the existence of sodomy can have far reaching effects on diverse matters not properly in its sphere, that were sodomy to disappear forever tomorrow, then before many generations girls wouldn't gain anything whatsoever by hating people while having sex, and so they'd cease to enjoy doing so, and the dark lore that one could write about while thinking about girls being turned on by their own cruelty even when they aren't in danger would become as relevant as the dark lore of Dracula defense after his heart has been staked through. Doubtless it is a loss to a girl's understanding of sex if she uses part of her brain during sex to feel hate, a matter rather extraneous to the rest of her sexual feelings. It's rather like a computer—the more cores and threads in the processor that are being used, the worse its programs can run. Security programs (say, antivirus programs) running in the background are a tradeoff—they give protection, but then they use up processor resources. Vaguely I feel that oftentimes if not usually it just isn't worth the distraction for girls during sex to feel hate. If feeling hate simultaneously with love can select for anti-sodomy characteristics in sperm, maybe using the entire brain to think about love and the other aspects of sex selects for males with thoughtful mates, a good thing also. Indeed it is a mistake to say that one way of behaving is better than another. If a girl feels a main problem with society now and in the (fairly) near future is that the iron-butt/depravity ratio is too low in people, indeed may she hate during loving lustful sex. Alternatively, if she feesl like it is more important that people be just a little more thoughtful, let her not hate during sex. If I were to say girls should all behave one way, and they believed me, their change in behavior would be so effective that presumably, they would need to behave the other way. So in respect of telling them how to be, I say let them be as they would be. I'm not really particular, one way or the other.

What also might be relevant is the extent to which the male is controlling. Though much of the fear girls have toward being controlled by sex partners presumably comes from lack of discrimination and unthinking acceptance of prevailing inaccurate dominance stereotypes, it might be well nevertheless for girls to be just a little more careful about those males wanting to control them, because perhaps the majority of times males are controlling girls during sex, they aren't controlling innocently through captivation by adjusting holiness and loving emotions, but in sordid graceless ways that actually could be used to force the girl to have sex. (Adjusting loving emotions is useless at forcing girls to have sex since girls who are more-or-less certain they are not going to have sex with a male have no interest (beyond vanity, which self-confident wise girls don't care about) in whether a male worships her or not; e.g., holiness having its effect on genetic crossover during spermatogenesis, a girl who isn't going to have sex with a male has no stake in whether his sperm would be free of much genetic crossover and thus in whether he has holy emotions toward her. Moreover, indeed, girls not sure about having sex with a male actually are somewhat sexually repulsed at the thought of him innocently captivating them notwithstanding of course they are attracted to his being the sort of person who wants and, impressively, is able to do that.) Anyway, when a male is controlling a girl in love with him, she might more particularly have and feel the need to check that her love for him isn't depraved, as she can do by having cruel thoughts toward other (disliked) males while having sex with him (or by bipolar loving, thrashing her head about in a standard familiar amount just short of what ordinarily makes her dizzy, laying out in sun, etc.--but insofar as intraejaculate sperm selection is concerned, not by inflicting injury upon herself like an emo, her injuries willy-nilly suggesting physical abuse in a way that if they affect how she selects for sperm it can only be bad). The extent to which such an extra need for cruelty has to do with cruelty's effects on intraejaculate sperm selection (which effects again tend to be sexually pleasant for the girl just to the extent she is relaxed and free of fears) would presumably depend on the extent to which a male by having controlling emotions creates a clean different environment for sperm that has its own peculiar effects on sperm selection.

It is not unusual, per se, to meet people so bad one can't help admitting that the world would be a better place were they dead. I imagine most people have met at least one person so obnoxious as to have occasioned such thoughts. What is much more unusual is to feel about a person hate so strong that one would kill the hated person if one knew one could get away with it. There is a distinction between what is right and what logic entails is behavior that makes the world a better place, i.e., what is good. And thankfully people have evolved to be more inclined to do what is right, i.e., to do what a person who has a good nature does, than to strictly do whatever makes the world better. It is not good to be the sort of person who kills whenever killing could be expected to improve the world. For if a person were such an uncivil moralistic fanatic, people would sense that she be a dangerous person worthy of being avoided. Being the sort of person who kills whenever moral dictates suggest the murder would be expected to lead to a better, more evil-free world, might, like all behaviors that make the world a better place be good in the strict sense of the world, but a person whose nature is to behave with such uncivility is bad, because his homicidal nature, circumspect though it be, is something people as a whole are likely to sense more-or-less (especially if he is a good person ), and of course people feeling you are homicidal rather makes it difficult to get along in society. Being bad natured is bad.

The emotions that govern right behavior when it is different from good behavior are, I am inclined to think, the same emotions that one would feel if the behavior had consequences that were the same as the consequences of being the sort of person who by nature behaves thus. Captivating girls in clean appropriate ways is enjoyable as though the benefit to oneself includes impressing girls, whereas in truth since girls are sensitive yet dislike being enslaved, girls are mostly only impressed rather at a male being the sort of person who by nature captivates, and not so much not by his actual captivating (though girls do tend to like to copy one another). Similarly, sacrificing oneself for a random comrade in battle or at work may be heroically enjoyable as if there were an advantage to oneself by sacrificing oneself, which by the definition of sacrifice is impossible, whereas the advantage to oneself lies in being the sort of person who by nature behaves with such selfless team spirit (and thus in being the sort of person more likely to be the recipient of unselfishness by others possessing such camaraderie). As for acting out murder, being a homicidal person has social consequences—it strongly tends to make one shunned. Accordingly, a girl would tend to fear murdering people as though a consequence of such murdering is no one wanting to be her friend anymore and people shunning her, notwithstanding (if she keeps it secret) the mere act of her murdering would not be expected to cause such isolation. Accordingly, unless a girl is very befuddled, there isn't much danger that she would feel comfortable at the thought of murdering even if she knew for sure or almost for sure that she wouldn't get caught. Even if a girl knew she wouldn't get caught murdering, she still would fear murdering, and so since girls can't get off sexually from cruel thoughts when they experience fear, there is negligible danger that in our society which disapproves of girls killing that they actually would go beyond fantasy and kill people just for clean sexual kicks even were they sure they could get away with it. Common sense of course tell us as much anyway.

Well, I think that is pretty much all that I had to say about the topic of this (unusually long) post. I am maybe a little more than half done with a post started a month of two ago about the extent to which girls feel physical love feelings, etc., in the breast as opposed to elsewhere, and the various philosophical implications; perhaps I can finish and post it before too long. As for the silly-logic paper I'm writing, I think I figured out what was bothering me about models, namely that once one introduces universes into set theory, a simple change needs to be made in the axioms of set theory so everything can be enumerated one level up. There shouldn't need to be sets that one can't write down just because there are sets that are uncountable, and yet that is what follows from set theory as usually done, since formulas are all finite strings of countably many symbols, and thus the set of formulas must be countable. I figured out what the axioms should be, but I'm not 100% sure that they are free of contradiction if one allows everything to be denumerable at a higher level, and thus whether my idea is right. Anyway, at this point mostly I'm glad I didn't just plow through with writing my logic paper once I encountered something in what I was going to write that felt artistically off.