Friday, November 12, 2010

Sarah Palin, Bears, and Something completely different, namely, An inquiry as to wherein resides a girl's love

This post is going to talk about a good many things. It's going to start off with politics, and then go to totally different stuff, eventually leading to a lengthy discussion of the various emotions females feel in their chest. It's long and involved.

Mamma Grizzly

The sophisticated elite,
whose readings are more advanced than A. A. Milne,
think they know
that no one cares
Whether you walk on the lines or squares.

And when the she-bear coming round the corner
looks so happy
to m...uhh...eet
the plump elite
so care free
with fearless feet
Won't they hug her?

If she seems looking for a friend,
Will they think,
That's just pretend!?!

The preceding poem refers to Sarah Palin, who likens herself and her female supporters
to Mamma Grizzlies. It alludes to "lines and squares", the best (to me) poem in When We Were Young, a popular collection of children's poems by A. A. Milne (better known for writing the Pooh stories). I'm surprised how well the poem turned out. Isn't it neat that m...uhh...eet suggests not only meet, but also meat and eat?

I have been very disappointed with Barack Obama. He behaves as though he has very much sold out to the elites, trying to please them at every turn. I can get despondent about our present political and social situation. The bankers, etc., are running this country into the ground. The only

Anyway, I have asked myself,
"What will be the most likely end of this?"

Well, to answer this, you've first got to be clear about what is at the bottom of the matter. At the bottom is sodomy.

Why don't the elites try to change the evils of our financial system? Are they merely evil cunning deceivers, using their money from greed to push agendas they should know are very bad for our country? Or do they really believe the nonsense they peddle?

I think the correct answer is mostly the latter. The elites in their complacency totally fail to appreciate just how evil and unfair our financial system is. The greed is not so much primary in causing the financial classes to try to unfairly steal almost all wealth to themselves, but secondary. The wealthy elites tend to make out that money is what matters above all things. Virtue, to the rich, is largely believed to be caused by having been to the most expensive schools and having been exposed to the most exclusive (expensive) culture, that comes from having the wealthiest friends. People who believe lacking money causes depravity are hesitant to mate in a way that might cause children to lack monetary advantages. Accordingly, the wealthy tend to stress the importance of money because, to the extent they are believed, they will be seen as the best wives and husbands, the only ones able to keep their children and spouses from getting screwed-up, and so they will be seen as more desirable mates. Largely having believed their own lies (what creates evil) and those of their peers, they find it hard to fathom that the rich, being to their mind so morally and intellectually superior on account of their superior expensive upbringings, could be guilty of heinous evil (unawares or not). Mostly, greed makes the rich value money excessively not so much directly as indirectly, as a result of erroneous beliefs caused by lies stemming from a desire to impress; those who deceive often end up deceiving themselves, or what amounts to almost the same thing, end up being deceived by the like-minded deceivers they largely surround themselves with, partly to make their deceptions work better.

It's not that the wealthy elites tend to be disreputable. Mostly, it is not because there be some uncleanliness about them that has made them unusually enjoy getting their ass screwed that they fear poverty instead of getting their ass screwed. Nor probably do they literally want to screw asses more than poor people do. No. Depravity, like anything besides money that could be used to get mates, is not something rich people can do better than poorer people, and so if anything, the rich are less into it than the poor are. The bible says one can't serve God and mammon. Well, one can't very well serve sodomy and mammon, either. (I like to hope Obama isn't totally doomed to fail and hasn't been corrupted by money so much as he has been confused by the relative cleanliness and respectability of the snooty wealthy into assuming they are wise. Respectability is properly basically just about being free from addictions like sodomy and should not be excessively idolized; in particular, being respectable in the strict sense of the word (the sense that is tied up with pride being appropriate) does not preclude greedy and foolish materialism, holding evil and stupid opinions about the financial system or a tendency to mate whorishly, and does not at all guarantee wisdom.) But it is entirely possible to be indifferent concerning sodomy because stupidly one fears poverty or lack of expensive cultural advantages as though they be deprivations that screw one's ass, and that tends to be the problem of the elites.

People have a natural tendency to fear sodomy, but sometimes the fear gets misplaced and misinterpreted as a fear of something else. Liberals of the sodomy-rights are human-rights persuasion tend to think nothing should be feared, but then they end up feeling guilty about all manners of things and fearing those who fear, because, after all, it is human nature for there to be something to be afraid of (in particular, they seem to have homophobaphobia). For instance, typically, they end up feeling guilty and afraid about most everything our country does by way of defense when it is threatened. It is human nature to fear sodomy especially. Those who are under the sway of sodomy, affected by sodomy chemicals, do have a very hard time emotionally fearing it, and so by nature, people have all manners of crazy-appearing tendencies geared toward fearing sodomy under any circumstances. Those who don't fear sodomy will in all likelihood misunderstand their fearing natures, and fear something else. People who fear the wrong thing will be very anxious people, as their natures try to encourage them to fear sodomy more than whatever it is they fear like getting one's ass screwed. In particular, one who fears the wrong thing will tend to fear excessively that which resembles sodomy but which isn't sodomy. Sophisticated people recognize this tendency and are likely to conclude that, except as regards whatever it is they fear too much, fears tend to be irrational. As regards sodomy, this is idiotic, but as regards matters distinct from sodomy but possessing characteristics akin to sodomy, this being rational can cause beneficial peace-of-mind. But it is unlikely that the sophisticated will be so cunning in their sophistication to believe that only things that resemble sodomy elicit irrational fears. It's hard to be that cunning without simply realizing the truth, namely that sodomy is something people should fear greatly, because why else would people have evolved to tend to fear greatly everything that resembles sodomy? A much more likely scenario is that those who fear the wrong thing will tend to believe (with the exception of whatever their particular bug-a-boo is) that across the board fears tend to be irrational and excessive. But as regards matters that have very little resemblance to sodomy, and more particular as regards matters rather opposite to sodomy, people aren't at all likely to have excess fears. A polar bear, for instance, not at all like sodomy is. It's really a very clean-looking animal, actually, and is from a clean-looking snowy Arctic place not at all reminiscent of sodomy. One should not assume that one's fears of polar bears are irrational, because there is not the least reason to think it's the sort of thing that anxieties encouraging fear of sodomy would erroneously encourage. But rich people tend to think that they irrationally always tend to fear too much everything not involving poverty. So one could imagine the wealthy being just the sort of people one every now and then reads about, the people who discount their fears and jump into the polar bear exhibit at the zoo to frolic with the fluffy white-as-snow polar bears, who of course eat them.

Okay, so what do polar bears have to do with politics? Well, morally conservative candidates aren't really the sort of people to elicit irrational fears. Moral conservatives more than others tend to realize that sodomy is morally suspect. They are a bit like polar bears. Especially do they appear such if they are from Alaska, a kind of polar-bear den people can go to to get away from the nasty people whose density is higher in more urban areas (because the density of people is higher in urban areas). Anyway, I have decided maybe things aren't so hopeless after all. If people like myself can't convince elites they should fear sodomy more, well, people like me can't stop them from being abusive reckless. But that doesn't mean they are destined to get more and more tyrannical. No. The likeliest scenario is that through their own recklessness will hurt themselves. It is self-destructive to discount one's fears of polar bears and the like, and since that is the way elites mostly seem to be, well, they presumably will cause their own destruction, by supporting a clean-looking politician who they won't realize enjoys (metaphorically) to eat elites along with her breakfast cereal, because they will discount all such fears. True, Sarah Palin might not be quite as pristine as a polar bear. She likens herself to a grizzly bear, which may well indeed be more apt. Ah well, close enough, presumably. Teddy Roosevelt was likened to a grizzly bear, and he turned into one of our better presidents, actually. Perhaps she'll be enough of the polar bear we need instead of just another elite-worshiping politician, and if not, well, eventually one will arise. As for those who might think my writing this will hurt the Polar-bear candidates, I don't care. Get real. My theories are based entirely on my anti-sodomy viewpoints. If the rich people believe me and take care against polar bears, good for them, for they shall also presumably have believed my anti-sodomy viewpoints. The best case is not for the elites to be eaten by polar bears (or to be punished unexpectedly), but for them to reduce their unwarranted reckless materialism as a consequence of having seen they need to put their fears in order, and in particular, the best thing for the elites is to fear sodomy, the lack of which fear is the underlying cause of their emotional cluelessness. (Historically, hatred of elites has occasionally reached disastrously excessive levels, as in the early Y√ľan dynasty or with the Khmer Rouge. I don't think Sarah Palin or anyone else likely to arise in the near future here would be anywhere near so extreme, though.) A politician-bear if like the ideal bears (the ones in Milne's poem) only will hurt those who don't stay in the squares. Metaphorically, staying in boundaries is what staying in the squares is all about, and sodomy quite literally is mostly just respecting a boundary (between sex and sodomy, between one hole and alternative holes). Perhaps good bears would feel guilty about eating obvious anti-sodomy types—I wouldn't be the least surprised if this were so (but I'm rightly way too prudent to test this hypothesis!).

Lately, I have been thinking I am more sane than I give me credit for being and that I should be less concerned about writing crazy. I understand that sodomy is evil, Why should I have much by way of crazy tendencies like people clueless about sodomy do? I don't normally feel like writing about politics, as I can typically think of better things to think of, but the main non-math thing I've been writing about has become something of a slog. Actually, it is a bit more complex than that.

As I suggested I would do in my last post, I have been working on a post regarding why exactly females feel sexual and loving emotions and the like as though they be from the breast as opposed to elsewhere or from no particular location (as with a typical brain thought). So, notwithstanding I'm a male, I wrote 8 or 9 single-spaced pages about it, and then felt once again like I needed (because it be quite relevant) to once again discuss the side-issue of the extent a male should control girls (by making what he wants a prerequisite for his having loving emotions toward them). It is difficult for me to write about controlling girls for a long interrupted space. It is as though after I write about it a little while, tra-la, I of a sudden stop entirely being interested in what I was talking about and move onto something completely different. I think I know why.

Depraved control is something which very few understand, and presumably it has pretty much always been that way. Suppose then, that you are some sort of depraved forcibly-sodomizing rapist. It's not likely you are going to understand why you want to sodomize people. Actually, since sodomizers tend to be idiotic and to have female ancestors who succumbed to sodomy, you might then well be more stupid about the nature of sodomy than the average person (but this isn't totally clear inasmuch as sodomizers who encourage (the inappropriate sort of) lust do tend to be very weird people who accordingly think for themselves, but the weird sodomizers, the ones who encourage lust, are likely to be the most stupid in general—but not perhaps about sodomy, and more importantly, the weird sodomizers probably are not likely to be the most violent and rapacious of the sodomizers, who tend to use female lust more as an excuse for why violence is deserved). If you were rational about it, you'd probably think (because you have no understanding of the addictive nature of sodomy chemicals) that there would be no way on earth that whatever innocent looking person you want to defile with sodomy could become addicted to you as a result of the forcible-sodomy and rape you have in mind. In particular, the least resistance might in all likelihood cause you to give up before the addiction can take hold. So there is little if anything rational about the desires of a rapacious sodomizer. Accordingly, a rapacious sodomizer is one who in all likelihood is emotionally extremely driven to be persistent in trying to control someone once he starts applying depravity to try to get what he wants. It makes sense that it must be very difficult for depraved controlling types to accept that attempts at control are not working, and thus, presumably, it must be very difficult emotionally for a sodomizing male to stop his controlling feelings once he sets them in motion. If there is a proper way for a male to control a girl, one in keeping with righteous etiquette, then of course because one would want intraejaculate sperm selection to only select for sperm whose ancestral sperm came from males controlling in the clean proper way and not in the foul depraved way, one would want proper controlling sex and the emotions that affect it to be very different from improperly controlling sex and the depraved emotions that are associated with such depraved control. In particular, what a fine lightening phenomenon it would be for a male controlling females to periodically of a sudden on a dime utterly stop his controlling desires and think rather of the great grace a girl totally soaring free and high can possess in such freedom and flight. Were it for all his worth, a male controlling badly just couldn't do it, probably. Nor is it likely something he would want to do it he could. For, as mentioned in my last post, if a girl can all of a sudden easily change her emotions, that too is a sign of cleanliness—a sign she is not under the jading influence of mood-altering sodomy chemicals. And it's hard to see how a male can repeatedly suddenly change his feelings from one thing to something totally different while belittling females from doing the same, which last tends to be what sodomizers need to do.

Anyway, I was going to describe these niceties involved with all this stuff about controlling girls when I just felt I had to stop and instead today felt like writing a poem about what Polar Bears have to do with Sarah Palin's political prospects. And like I said, I see why: because thinking about politics and polar bears is totally different from thinking about controlling girls, which total difference is what one needs periodically as an interruption from thinking about controlling girls. That perhaps is why I feel actually that it's a good thing for there to be one girl, the female one loves best presumably, that one will always want totally free because one always needs to go back to that. One can imagine that going back-and-forth between girls one wants to control and the girl one wants totally free could have a very beneficial effect on intraejaculate sperm selection. Not only would developing sperm have their environments change in an oscillating way one would not expect in bad controlling males, but also already developed sperm would presumably sort of have to swim across the stripes, as it were, stripes where chemicals in one region of semen might be quite different than the chemicals in another region, something which only sperm encountering cleanly righteous controlling striped environments would be expected to have evolved to be skilled at doing. That may be why stripes, e.g., in Kiki Kannibal's hair or in hair curled so it looks striped when light reflects off it (don't know what the style is called), seem to be a big thing among girls and scene girls in particular. And it may explain why girls sometimes seem to act as if males changing their emotions to-and-from thinking of controlling girls are suffering from an addiction, as though they are changeful the way girls wondering whether they be addicted to sodomy change their emotions suddenly all the time to make sure their fears of jadedness aren't founded. This feeling of the male that thinking about controlling girls for too long should periodically abruptly stop shouldn't be seen as a sign that something inside him fears there be something addictive about what he wants. In particular, it's not like his feelings for girls are just addictive feelings which he doesn't realize are addictive because he doesn't understand that what he really naturally wants are cupcakes (which are small and sweet like girls but which unlike girls actually really are somewhat addictive and certainly bad for me—I can't eat that sort of thing). I'm sure girls can be well-intentioned encouraging me to eat cupcakes, but actually, when I think of a female I care for and wonder whether I should do more for her, say after seeing a picture where she looks miserable, eating sacredly seems about the only thing that seems like I might be able to be disciplined about in a way that makes me feel closer to God or whatever it is I vaguely at times feel like I am near when I have praying emotion. (Probably the main reason I mostly usually believe in a God or something vaguely similar is that at times I have praying emotion. I feel like I am quietly praying notwithstanding I am not actually saying prayers or anything. I don't know why I would evolve to feel praying emotions unless I am actually praying to something, inasmuch as it usually is useful to feel like one is doing what one is actually doing, for the same reasons error tends to be disadvantageous.) Sure, work I myself do is useful, but I don't know why I wouldn't, more than with any more willed method, just naturally want to do work in the right amount unless some addiction (such as one to cupcakes) might have made me lazy.

There are other things I have to say about all this, but I won't here. Instead I will just post the pages I have written. (Actually, I decided also to first add one more paragraph at the end.) Notice the sort of outline at the end I figured would help me continue on as though it were just a problem of stuff not being organized. I just need instead to write with less fear of crazy-looking abrupt transitions. At least I hope that's it.

This summer I have accomplished a fair amount with my logic paper (maybe 10 to 15% of what was left). But for a while I have been stopped at a rather boring section. More interestingly, I think there might be advantages to splitting ha into a very silly component and a moderately silly component. It's sort of peculiar though, because if one asserts of a definite sentence with components having definite truth values that it is only moderately silly or only very silly, it is entirely possible that one can't assert that it is only moderately silly and one can't assert that it is only very silly. There is a kind of mixed silliness that arises because the only-moderately-silly truth value neither is entailed by nor entails the only-very-silly truth value. The truth values aren't totally ordered like in fuzzy logic. Somehow this reminds me of how girls can do things from love and because they have to, and not just from one or the other, which may seem a little logically off at first but which probably stands up upon very close examination. (It's also a little like Locke's contention that one can do voluntarily something one is not at liberty to not do, like when someone whose company you enjoy locks you up with him. But I'd say it's important for clear-headedness when using (or avoiding) phrases like voluntary servitude to distinguish voluntarily loving someone one is not at liberty to not love with voluntarily giving up one's liberty to not love someone.) The Winston-Salem area, though not as urban as where we lived in Maryland, is still sufficiently urban that many grocery stores, shops, etc., have doors with newfangled motion sensors that actually sense when someone approaches before the door, triggering fancy mechanisms that open the door automatically! I enjoy as I approach, raising a hand peremptorily and confidently and dismissively before the sensor mechanism, making the door look like it is, OPEN! my obedient servant, notwithstanding it's basically the nature of the door to open when something is in front of it. Is the door my obedient servant? Or does the door just naturally want to open when a hand is before it. Both, I like to think. Or at least, that's how it sort of feels. Anyway, something about that reminds me of the philosophical considerations involved with how I should like to be with girls, or why else would I enjoy playing something most people would kind of think is silly? or at least I don't much see others enjoying trying to command in just the right way automatic doors to open (I try not to be too obvious).

Something else weird I do is that periodically, like twice a year lately, I get so that to have melancholic weighty-philosophical harmony (the sort of thing one gets less strongly also by thinking about particular ship wrecks or train wrecks that for some reason have been excessively ignored), I want to spend several hours or a day thinking of the Lyon sisters, two girls whose disappearance from a shopping mall six miles from where I lived in 1975 scared the daylights out of our county and indeed the whole D.C. area (I was eight-and-one-half when it happened, and the woods a couple miles north of us—around Rock Creek north of Lake Frank (or Needwood?) and Muncaster Mill Rd. too I guess—were carefully searched for bodies, supposedly because a psychic suggested it). I don't like the way people just don't think of stuff like that because they assume doing so can make one a little crazy-appearing angry or sad. That incident changed the entire outlook that parents near D.C. took toward giving their kids freedom. And once parents get more scared to leave kids to themselves, it grows like a snowball going downhill because then there are less kids roaming around, putting each individual kid more in danger, making parents more scared. Historically, this event, and presumably similar such events elsewhere are much more significant in their effects than people give them credit. The spirit of the 60's in the Washington area died abruptly March 25, 1975, at Wheaton Plaza. Why do hardly any people know or remember that? I also disagree somewhat that parents should try to shield their kids from knowing of stuff like this and get really annoyed when people say that this took away the innocence of the kids in the region. No. Rapists and forcible sodomizers (as the child abductor probably was) have a chance of taking away the innocence only of those they rape and forcibly sodomize. But if parents behave all secretive about it like just thinking about it is tantamount somewhat to getting raped and forcibly sodomized, and if stupid adults say that kids' innocence everywhere in the region has been ruined, then that yeah might make kids doubt their innocence somewhat. And doubting one's innocence when one is just as innocent as always is not something a kid needs. And kids sometimes know clues, which they won't remember or talk about if they are encouraged not to think about the crime. (I knew no clues, though.) I wrote a poem about it recently--maybe I'll post that soon, and maybe another I wrote earlier if I can find it. Otherwise, I mostly haven't been inspired to write poems lately.

The preceding I wrote today (the 22nd of October)[save for some minor edits since then]. Now for what I have been writing for months.

An inquiry as to wherein resides a girl's love.

I have earlier discussed the love that girls can feel. For instance, I have pointed out that, much more so than older females, a girl's nature is such that mostly what pleases her sexually about a male is the same as what makes her love him—girls have an unusual capacity to be pleased by a male being by nature non-deceptive; and his moral goodness, which is a key component of his loveability, is the best evidence of his honesty. Also, I have pointed out that girls are naturally especially quite scared of having sex more from love than pleasure. Indeed, the evolutionary forces causing people to misjudge pleasure are brutally direct. A female who has sex with a male wrongly on account of misjudging the amount of (real) pleasure he gives always suffers (by definition); that sort of female strongly tends to die out. Even in girls, a girl's sense of what (naturally) pleases her is likely to have evolved to be fairly spot on. But if a female is the sort who more especially can tend to have sex with a male wrongly on account of misjudging his virtue, she will only be punished to the extent that virtuous people, sensing her insensitivity and incompetence at promoting beauty do love her less. The evolutionary forces causing people to be loving in the right way are more indirect and weaker than those causing them to be pleased in the right way. (Of course, if males of bad character are also unpleasant (as they tend to be to young girls), this is also a punishment, but philosophically, it seems to me, basically such a punishment is more properly classified as resulting from the girl's reckless presumption, and would mostly be peculiar to a girl (as opposed to a woman), where alone the correlation between her mate's loveability and pleasantness is strong.) Anyway, though girls are also naturally hesitant to have sex regardless (unless a male seems exceedingly pleasant), it typically is especially prudent for girls to be naturally quite hesitant to have sex at a young age from love—girls really are more vulnerable than older females. Besides, it's not like it benefits the greater good to object to girls having sex from pleasure instead of love when what gives girls pleasure in a male is mostly what makes her more love him. So I have discussed what, why, how, etc., girls love before, but what I haven't discussed much (except in pointing out that sodomy is not love) is where exactly girls love; in particular, what part of their bodies if any would seem to be most involved with their loving feelings.

Naturally, love being a complicated phenomenon, it starts in the brain. But girls have natural loving tendencies encouraging them to love in the right way. Naturally tending to feel love as though it has a position outside the brain can usefully encourage a sort of behavior associated with where the love is felt, when such behavior be appropriate. Sex tends to be loving for the female to give, so one obvious possibility is that when girls feel love for a male, they tend to feel the love in their waist, in such a way as to (eventually) encourage them to have sex. This seems to be the case somewhat, but it is not as though you see many poems, etc., by girls romantically describing the great beauty of penis, as one would expect if their love emotions were mostly associated with their waist. The key reason for this, I am inclined to think, is that girls are naturally quite selfish when it comes to wanting sex to be just so; in particular, they tend to very much want any male having sex with them to have holy, loving, non-male-lustful feelings toward them. If the romantic love girls can feel for a male were naturally more waist-oriented, they might all too easily be led by a loving attitude toward his penis to make the mistake of wanting a male to be lustful (unless it be lust absorbed by his penis from herself) and unloving in bed. Once a girl decides for sex, it is unusually appropriate for her to be sexually selfish and needy about whatever sex she gets, something her feeling love mostly in the waist might discourage her from doing. A more important place for a girl to feel love, it seems to me, is her chest. Quite generally, the most important way for a female to love is to base her reproductive decisions more on the love she feels for a male than on what she can get out of him by way of money, caring, commitment, etc. Since (cheap) prostitution is (properly) frowned upon and tends to be more stupid than selfish anyway, what makes a female have a morally good nature is mostly her naturally willingness to get fucked, i.e., (using my definition) her willingness to have sex freely, without there being any male commitment of resources or caring. Of course, since the good, more caring men from whom alone marriage tends to be a significant reward naturally tend to care more for unselfish people than selfish ones, and thus more tend to want to marry good girls (and good females naturally are more willing to fuck), it doesn't follow that girls more willing to fuck will fuck a great deal more (as opposed to having children in marriage) or that they will on average be less cared for by males, but anyway, virtue in females is perhaps best measured by their natural willingness to fuck more than by anything else, just as virtue in males is largely measured by their more spending time caring for a well-loved female as opposed to their spending time, energy, and money trying to fuck females. A behavior which it is selfish for one sex to chase tends to be unselfish for the other sex to allow when there isn't something intrinsically parasitical about it (sodomy would be an example of something that is intrinsically parasitical, and so unlike fucking is something parasitical for a male to inflict and stupid rather than loving and unselfish for a female to accept). Love in a female is mostly suggested by her natural willingness to have a child without much help from her lover—to raise a child mostly just by herself.

Largely it is incipient maternal feelings that constitute loving feelings in a female. When a male occasions in a female much maternal feelings, she loves him enough to start loving the thought of having children with him and thus having sex with him; when he occasions a great more maternal feelings in her, she loves him enough to be willing to get fucked by him, because what differentiates fucking from sex that is less unselfish of her is her being unusually willing to be maternal as required by fucking—to do the child raising by herself; when he occasions an extreme amount of maternal feelings in her, she loves him so much more than herself that she doesn't much feel it would be appropriate for him to spend effort caring for her and so she is not only willing to get fucked, but wants to get fucked and to care for the children all by herself (or with some help from her family) more than to have sex with caring strings attached (though she is likely to have enough respect for him that she will take seriously his arguments to the contrary if he feels she has underestimated herself and deserves caring from him). It may be presumed, however, that not all feelings in the breast have the same meaning. Obviously, it stands to reason that a female can feel a kind of anticipatory pleasure from being cared for. Since this amounts to a sense of male help in taking care of children she has with him, I shouldn't be at all surprised that a girl can experience a kind of pleasure in the breast at the thought of having sex with someone who she thinks will greatly take care of her children (and thus herself). Similarly, if it is the nature of the male to be good at taking care of children, the female might feel a sense of something beautiful in her breast when pondering his exceptional caring abilitites. I think what differentiates such pleasure and beauty from the pleasure and beauty that she feels in herself when imagining caring for her children is that only the latter feelings are associated with physical sensations of touch. When a baby suckles milk, it obviously occasions physical sensation contemporaneously with the mother's giving. But when a husband entertains her children or works to feed them, she may feel a pleasant or beautiful sensation in her chest, but she won't actually feel physically like something is rubbing against her chest the way she would when (necessarily all by herself) she feeds her baby from her chest. So that everything is right from a metaphorical standpoint, I can well imagine therefore that when a female imagines the incipient maternal love (and pleasure, since it can be pleasant for a female to care for her children) that a would-be mate occasions in her, it is natural to her to physically stimulate her chest while doing so. It's not so much that one occasions the other, it's that touching the breasts and getting swept away by incipient maternal love go hand in hand, each feeding off the other. It's important for a girl's clear-headedness that she not confuse the feelings she feels in her chest that go with physically stimulating it with those that don't, and so this would seem to be the reason why girls mostly need to stimulate their chest to feel a great deal of love there, and that girls are such should not be seen as a sign of some sort of primitivity but rather as a sign of females being of a discriminating nature that doesn't treat all the desirable feelings in the chest as being equivalent each to the others. Feeling like a man is going to take care for her children if he has sex with her may occasion a pleasant or beautiful feeling in a girl's chest, but it won't be the sort of thing that encourages or is encouraged by stimulating her nipples; it will presumably be a more generalized less physical less at-the-surface feeling in her breast than what her own loving feelings would engender (not that it isn't possible for a female to feel both sorts of feelings simultaneously, but properly speaking they should be considered separate simultaneous chest feelings rather than just one sort of chest feelings, I should think).

Of course, it is also useful by way of encouraging sensible behavior that a female have generalized chest feelings of pleasure and pain that correspond to how much caring she and others will give to any offspring she might have. It's not very sensible to have children if they are going to starve.
A troubled feeling in the generalized milk producing sources of the breast is indicative, I posit, (at least metaphorically) of a more general sense that the sources of caring, either from oneself or others, for a child just aren't quite sufficient to bring together sufficient sustenance, and so the connections between breast feelings and sexual ones can discourage females from having sex (even with great males) when there is a sense that the children produced will starve or suffer extreme deprivation, a good thing. Perhaps the reason girls have evolved to be able to have sexual desires before their breasts have grown much arises mostly from the rewards of sexual pleasure being greater in them than in other females. The more sexual pleasure is important compared with caring and money, the more breast feelings being localized encourages proper behavior.

I would say that mostly people think it more proper for females to have sex from love than from pleasure. And of course, typically it is better to do things from love than from pleasure, pleasure being more-or-less by definition motivated by one's selfish interests. And I would agree that it's really totally innocent for a girl or indeed a female of any age to first feel love in the chest and for this love to move to a loving desire in the waist for sex. It happens and that is OK. But I will be the first to admit (as I have done a few paragraphs ago) that in girls, at least, it is quite seldom (relative to how often they have sex) that they feel love so strongly that they would have sex mainly for that. It's only prudent for someone of any age to want to be quite sure that love felt is just and not caused by deception before allowing that love to induce loving behavior, and girls seldom have that level of assurance. But pleasures are different. The self-inflicted harm of wrongly judging pleasure is so great that when a girl feels pleasure at the thought of having sex with someone, it really has the capacity to make her view her judgments that cause such pleasure with much greater credence than she would if they were judgements merely as to whether something be just. Unfortunately, most people do not credit girls for their natural innocence caused by their natural tendency to be sexually pleased only by morally virtuous males (these being basically the only obviously non-deceptive ones). Sure, maybe as females age they more tend to see the appropriateness of having sex from love rather than from pleasure, which is beautiful, but maybe the reason virtuous women more-and-more sense the virtue of having sex from love as opposed to pleasure has less to do with increased wisdom and more to do with losing the physiological tendency to be sexually pleased by moral virtue in a male.

It seems to me that there is a strain, not probably one of the worst strains, that teaches girls that the right way for females to approach mating with a male is to first feel breast or heart-felt love for him and then, gradually, this love will cause the female to want and have sex. This strain of moral viewpoint suggests that sex should first be motivated just by love in the chest and then by a comparable more mature love in the waist—considerations of her own sexual pleasure should, in this view, be minor lest the female be a bitch (the label many people throw around at girls who care greatly about their own sexual pleasure). People with this moral viewpoint basically don't worry about their children playing with baby dolls, for instance, even if it involves holding the dolls up to their chests, because by encouraging girls to become more acquainted with their innocent maternal feelings they are learning about the beauty of love; the viewpoint is that such love won't much lead to sex because love doesn't cause the dangerous sexual pleasure. The more puritanical of this strain, being averse to girls having sex, also produce in girls a certain fearful hesitance to touch their waists even from motivations of love, girls fantasizing about sex being unnatural in their view. I don't think this strain too harmful in its effects, though. As if this is something girls have had to deal with for many ages, they have a fairly foolproof defense--nature is just to girls. Sure, a girl may be hesitant to sexualize her loving feelings through stimulation of her waist, but it seems to me, if the male she is considering is truly loveable, her natural tendencies are bound eventually to break through her chains, and at last the obvious appropriate naturalness of sexual fantasy will cause her to lightly touch her waist as she stimulates her breast when she's full of love. If (because of foolish fear) she first does this only after the loving feelings in her breast have gotten so intense she can hardly help it, then her first physical sexual pleasures, being appropriate to the amount of love she then feels will be so intense that it won't matter how much she has resolved to resist them. Having postponed sexual fantasy until her love has become extreme, the pleasure occasioned by her sexual touches will at once be so intense and extreme that resistance on her part will probably be futile—more futile than if her puritanical fears hadn't prevented her from first playing with her sexual pleasures when her love was not so great as to make such pleasures irresistible, and these desires will lead to her desiring sex presently.

I think good males tend to be confused by their tendency to behave very modestly toward girls, more precisely to not have physical thoughts toward them when around them. These modest tendencies in good males probably are more about effectively appealing to girls in a world where young females are disrespected for desiring sexual pleasure than about some sort of nicety lest the physical thoughts corrupt her innocence (innocence is not ignorance). Sexual looks have a way of encouraging girls to have physical (front-of-)waist feelings before their love has increased to the point that such feelings can become irresistible; what's more, physical feelings that come from girls playing of their own accord with themselves doubtless would seem less suspicious and forced than if such feelings were directly encouraged by sexual looks; what passes for good etiquette toward girls is often just seductive behavior—a seductive behavior that is nevertheless good and moral because, after all, doing to a girl what she is uncomfortable with makes her scared, and her fear makes for less fun all around. True, girls majorly love honesty, but this does not imply that males should be totally open toward them. If one has a true piece of information, and if withholding it until the right time makes it more believable, then patiently withholding it is the right thing to do, since the most moral desire is to be informative. In a climate where girls are excessively afraid of desiring sex, communicating to them you want them sexually before they are comfortable with your communicating this is not only inexpedient but slightly inappropriate. At any rate, if a male is loved greatly by a girl and he is wise enough not to get too hasty and aggressive about it, then any artificial fears society has created that make her afraid of sex basically will not suffice to create much by way of intractable resistance in her; eventually, once her love becomes great enough, her sexual curiosity will get the better of her, and at that point her fears won't matter compared with the pleasure she will to her surprise find. The fears, by causing her to postpone her investigations of sexual desire until her breasts are so very full of love as to make the investigations suggest extreme pleasures from sex, will be responsible for their own deaths.

But it does seem to me that prudish people and more especially prudish women do sort of realize that telling girls to fear the sexual desires they might have in their waists is often not very efficacious, and that because something like what I described in the previous paragraph happens it therefore is appropriate also for mothers, etc., in their view, to make sure their daughters fear their breasts as well. Since love tends to be centered in girls in the chest, this of course is a hard sell, almost as preposterous as saying love is bad, but some mothers feel compelled to try. The most standard approach among females, at least the conservative ones (leftist women sometimes employ a different approach I will discuss shortly), it seems to me, is to encourage girls to imbue the feelings girls might have in their breasts with a meaning contrary to what it seems to me sense would suggest as most sensible. The breasts, of course, produce milk useful for feeding babies. So it is not perhaps entirely looney to suggest to girls greatly in love that what they are feeling in their breasts is not so much representative of love for the male under consideration being so great that she wants to take care of his babies regardless, i.e., of being willing or desirous of getting fucked by him, but that the breast love for the babies themselves is somehow so special that it would be sacrilegious to help create such a baby unless the baby is more-or-less totally showered with the caring that after all breasts can give to babies. In other words, because male commitment of course tends to increase the amount of resources children get, people like Doctor Laura (of “I-am-my-kid's-Mom” fame) and the other caring fanatics actually try to represent breast love as symbolic of the universal inappropriateness of fucking, notwithstanding the most coherent construction is the exact opposite, i.e., that breast love to the extent it is extreme indicates a (loving) desire to be fucked (in my aforementioned limited sense of the word). I recommend to females to look inside themselves sufficiently to ask themselves whether indeed females and girls in particular do not feel love in their breasts more or less in proportion to the extent they consider the male under consideration loveable. If indeed, as seems so obvious to a reflective person as not to require justification, girls do feel more love in their breasts when they are in love, I defy anyone to explain to me why girls would be created so as to perversely most want to disallow fucking from the males she naturally loves! For if indeed loving feelings in the breasts are there to remind girls that babies are so sacred that fucking is evil, damn what a shame girls only get reminded by their breasts that fucking is evil to the extent they are in love. Evolution (or God, if that's what you believe in) sure did goof big there when making breasts, they only reminding girls that fucking is evil when the male under consideration is loveable (in other words, to the extent fucking is not evil). As preposterous and vile as such a notion be, God (or nature or whatever) is a just God, again giving girls defenses against this evil misrepresentation. Defenses which if conservative mothers appreciated more I daresay they might not be so quick to confuse their daughters in the name of marriage by misrepresenting the sexual significance of breasts.

As seems so obvious it needs no justification here, there is a natural consequence of idolizing maternal breast feelings at the expense of sexual waist feelings by suggesting there be something evil in sexual pleasure which somehow the maternal breast feelings can transcend: wanting sexual desire to be motivated just from appreciating that sex creates children. Viewing sex dryly with indifference to any consideration other than it creates children naturally creates an emotional overappreciation for feelings in line with such a belief, and in particular for feelings that are associated with increased fertility. What makes a female more fertile doesn't make her getting pregnant a more sexually pleasant experience (otherwise than by increasing its likelihood) or make her lust for the male she wants sex from more intense—it is just something a female does to get pregnant. Since the conservatives in question believe that sex should mainly be just to get pregnant, to create the all-precious babies that the breasts virtuously want to be cared for totally, and since as we have just seen behavior that increases fertility actually has this property (i.e., the property of being something a girl does just to get pregnant), girls misled by erroneously conservative mothers, etc., naturally tend to be led by them into finding behaviors that make them more fertile extremely beautiful and right. Now, it is very important that girls not get pregnant by males they very much should not get pregnant by, and obviously the younger a girl is, the less her defenses against being forced into making such mistakes. That very young girls are not fertile or only very slightly so does give them a useful defense against the consequences of wrong sex. But if older females around her consider a male she loves as being a safe, not bad person, then the chances of her sexual decisions being very wrong become much less likely than they otherwise would be. Accordingly, it seems to me that older females might have some way of encouraging fertility in young girls near adolescence. My intuition and thought suggests to me than when a young girl rubs the front of her waist against the front of the waist of an older female in the right mood, the waist secretions of the older female tend to induce increased fertility in the young female upon being absorbed by her waist. But the important point is that the females most wanting to do this sort of thing to a young girl are not necessarily mothers, etc., very much wanting the daughters to be able to enjoy getting pregnant early (though probably mothers feel this way a great deal more than people give them credit for, since there is very little mothers have evolved to do better than to sense when their daughters are making big mistakes, and if her young daughter feels like a male would be very pleasant sexually if she hasn't been seduced in a depraved way she knows would make sex a ginormous mistakes, the mother can get frustrated by her daughter's fear and reluctance to trust her that, no, the male she knows she would want sex with presently if she knew he is not a big mistake is not a big mistake). Older girls desperate to lust more tend to want to absorb the lust from younger girls and to want that lust when having orgies with the male under consideration. In other words, females who want intimacy with younger girls tend NOT to share the conservative, lust-fearing views that can lead young girls in love but confused by conservative silliness from parents to especially want physical intimacy with them. Hell no! Older girls want physical intimacy with young girls for one reason—to increase their own lust. Accordingly (conservative mothers tend to be naturally loath to be sexually intimate with their daughters, even if it were not illegal), girls confused by erroneous conservative mothers into wanting sexual intimacy with other girls somewhat more than would be the case otherwise end up being influenced by the lust-worshiping older girls desperate to convince the young girls into helping make their orgies more lustful into appreciating lust for penis more than their mothers would think appropriate. To me this latter lust that older females feel for girls is more definitely innocuous than desires mothers might have to be intimate with their daughters (one has emotions that incest is vile, and so it is fitting to be prudent in one's interpretation of these feelings). At any rate, as if God or nature seems to be looking out for them, girls with conservative confusion about their breast feelings naturally tend to be led into admiring and loving the older lustful fuck-desirous girls who are most inclined to want to reform them away from the error. (Of course, the lustful girls may well view their feelings for the young girl more as a desire to fuck her brains out, which could cause the reform to go rather inefficiently or in directions that conservative parents rightly fear because not everything that conservatives fear is innocuous and feared wrongly—even with ideal, self-correcting safeguards present, you can't expect the harvest of a belief that was initially erroneous to be quite equal to the harvest of a belief that what has always been wisdom and truth, but one shouldn't be too much of a perfectionist, and so rightly one should rejoice that nature, God, or whatever has so ordained that girls are not to be so easily led into conservative sex heresy.)

But there is yet one more error that can lead a girl to underestimate the significance of her breast feelings, an error especially rampant, it seems to me, in liberal feminist circles today. Oftentimes nowadays, especially with respect to the influential older women who matured in the anything-goes leftist youth circles of the 60s and 70s, women have been influenced by bad skanky experiences when young. Eventually, reality has a way of setting-in and showing young women who were erstwhile skanky that the young males who drugged and sodomized them in their teenage years really aren't going to be the wildly popular millionaires that the sodomizers' lies so easily made them think back when they started wearing the beer-and-sodomy goggles through which sodomizers seem so special. Thing is, though, reforming a skank is no easy task. And for a young greedy yuppie male surveying the field in (say) the 80s, though doubtless he was gratified that the young women he wasn't cool enough for a decade past ago began to be more monetarily motivated, yet doubtless there usually seemed a more realistic and fun option for obtaining a claim on a young woman than reforming her from sodomy. Much easier by way of separating a young female from the male or males of her sordid past than reforming her from sodomy is to sodomize her yourself! Easier than to convince her that sodomy has messed her up is to convince her that girls are weak and that therefore her mistake in having chosen a ne'er-do-well for a lover was from her having engaged in sex, etc., too early and not from having been skanky. So what that 60s generation when it was young felt that youth is so great they should be allowed to do almost anything? Now that they weren't young anymore, it felt better for the skanks to blame their past mistakes on the dangerous weaknesses of youth rather than on the skankiness they had become so fond of.

In fact, there is a particular sense in which girls naturally are especially sexually attracted to males who seek to cleanly control girls wanting sex with them. A male is much more impressive if he is having sex with girls who are having sex because it is the nature of each to desire him. Affection from a girl is more impressive if it comes from her own true nature and does not come merely from having copied girls seen on MTV or the Disney channel. Only a male who is naturally desired by girls can do this sort of thing, i.e., force girls wanting sex to be true to themselves, without putting the sex at risk of disappearing. And a male must be very sensitive (which girls totally want) to be able to know what a girl's true self be, which a male must know before forcing a girl to be true to that, because a girl will be repulsed if he tries to force her to be something contrary to her own nature. And a male must be very pious to be willing to be holy and loving toward all the girls who are willing to be obedient toward him, and piety is a sign of a male who considers himself great, usually because he is great. And a male who tends to make appropriate demands of girls he has sex with is a male whose ancestors who got girls likely got more than a male who is less demanding of the girls he has sex with. And girls don't tend to like losing freedom, and so if a male can take away much of her freedom as a cost of her having sex, without making her no longer want sex, that's impressive. For all these reasons (and maybe more that I haven't though of), intraejaculate sperm selection presumably selects more for what girls want when the male having sex with the girls is the sort who (cleanly and rightly) controls them (an exception being a female he loves most—more about this exception later). More particularly, to the extent his controlling emotions and her helpless emotions select for sperm that in his ancestors were from (cleanly and rightly) controlling males, girls will want the whole control business to be a thoroughly emotional one both in herself and in him. Girls are turned-on by a male who naturally tends to force girls he has sex with into being themselves. Girls don't so much want a male who from piety is holy and emotionally loving toward any girl he has sex with, but rather a male who tries to force her to be true to herself by simply not emotionally loving her else—she has to have this degree of obedience toward him for him to view her as a good, holy, emotional-love-worthy girl. But it is not as though girls are naturally sexually pleased by having freedom taken away from them, and presumably evolution has caused them to avoid making the mistake of getting such pleasures in being controlled by causing the pleasure that accrues to them from desiring sex from a properly controlling male to not be directly attributable to their waist, but to another location, viz., the breast. It's not that girls are rewarded by being controlled, and thus not that they should feel pleasure at being controlled; it's that they are rewarded by having sex with (virtuous) males whose nature is to (cleanly and rightly) control girls they have sex with. True, the emotions associated with control can please girls too, but the emotions don't have to correspond to any control that in reality exists for the female to enjoy them (though she can only enjoy them if her male is especially the sort to insist any such emotions be real, i.e., caused by a real desire to control or by real subordination). This pleasure that girls can feel in the chest at the thought of a male rendering her (cleanly) helpless indeed does make her weak—never mind that it makes her weak in a good sense, it can make her weak and subordinate and therefore is just the sort of emotion that became the bete noire of your former hippy girls upon their adopting a skanky older-female-rights-only feminism upon succumbing to the greedy-yet-still-nasty yuppies. These skanky women along with their also nasty new mates tend in their unenlightened or downright dishonest self-righteousness to make girls especially scared of becoming subordinate, and in particular, have made girls unduly scared of any pleasure the breast might (appropriately or otherwise) take in feeling helpless. They have also confused many people into failing to see that sodomy is a (very inappropriate) form of control, but that is another matter, tangential to this particular post.

Now some might say that good males seldom have the difficulty of what to do exactly with their cult following by way of turning it into a following based upon the natural reasoning and natural tendencies of their admirers. Great males, being great, are naturally loveable, but they aren't by any means likely to be great at the cunning persuasions necessary for the production of a cult following. So Why exactly is it so important for great males to insist on authenticity from lovers when it's the more authentic females that are most likely to be his lovers anyway? The point is that it is not a black-and-white affair. A girl can always choose to base her reproductive decisions more on her own feelings and thoughts and less on general dogma about what she should do. Similarly, if she doesn't quite feel up to judging danger by herself, she can be more herself by allowing her parents (who are half like her) to inform her about what is dangerous instead of allowing general dogma to dictate whether a male is dangerous or whether she is messed up. The more a male has been analyzed by a girl, the more impressive her affection because the more certain her affection is natural to her and not just a mistake. True, the mere fact of her being willing to have sex with a male is not more impressive from her having spent a great deal of time evaluating him; on the contrary, if a female has sex quickly upon meeting a male, she is likely to want him greatly, which if he is not a cunningly deceptive sort means that he is in all likelihood great. But girls can communicate to other girls more than just the mere fact that they are sleeping with some guy. A girl can communicate the extent to which she wants him above and beyond what would be necessary for her to want to sleep with him. If a guy is extremely desirable, the more a girl feels and thinks about him, the more she will want him—and not just because the increased certainty of her own judgements quite reasonably has caused her to more rely on her own judgements than on his reputation. It's not only that the more certain her judgments of a male becomes the less she biases her opinions of him with what common dogma says of him, it's also that the more certain she becomes of him the less she biases her opinions of him with her prior knowledge of how rare males of various levels of desirability be, likely leading her to want him more regardless if indeed it is her nature to desire him greatly.

But all these considerations, true though they be, might be a little besides the point. The main significance of a girl's chest emotion-wise is that love tends to be felt there. What one notices takes a girl aback is that the love emotions in her chest, as a result of her youth, makes her sexual fantasies and explorations very pleasant and encouraging of wanting sex now. Girls are notorious for being supposedly led by their sexual desires into badness. Who teaches girls the truth that they are naturally innocent and that what makes a male virtuous and loveable is what because of her youth she is naturally most pleased by sexually? One doesn't see that on the Disney Channel and certainly not on MTV. And preachers are too busy preaching about the dangers of premarital sex. Annnywaay, if a girl's love emotions are such that they make sex with a male such a pleasant consideration that she knows he can make her helpless, and if he's the sort to want her that way, well, maybe that might introduce into her considerations an explanation for why exactly loving him makes sex with him seem so pleasant. After all, if a male rewards a girl more when she does loving things to him than when she does less loving things, no wonder it is pleasant to do more loving things to him! So to the extent a girl conflates her doing loving deeds to a male with his apparent loveability (the girl's faith in his virtue), a girl is afforded a possible explanation for why loving a male seems integral to the amount of sexual pleasure she gets from him. An explanation, by the way, which makes all the more sense if she feels what is the case, namely that she'll get more sexual pleasure from him if he be a rightly controlling person. It's hard to see how a girl wouldn't wonder whether a male might control her if it is pleasant to her and a sexual turn-on thinking how sexually controlling he looks. A girl might think that she wants to be extremely sexually loving to a male mainly just because his being so demanding necessitates it, but there are consequences to such an error. It's hard for me to imagine that a girl could want a male just because his love is so pleasant it makes him incredibly skilled at enslaving girls for his own selfish needs. A girl may want a male who can make her totally obedient and willing to do some things mainly because he needs them done for his sexual pleasure. But she also wants to be loved totally (on an emotional level) and does not want to be forced to do things that it is not just for him to demand. There basically are no limits to a male's sexual needs, so it's hard to imagine a selfish male would ever love a girl totally and not demand an unjust amount, because being by nature unloving, he'd never be restrained by the pain his demands would cause. A girl can get confused, though, because though of course the thought of a male controlling her in an unjust way is abhorrent to her, the thought of him being able to demand way more than it is just to ask for and get his way doubtless would turn her on greatly. A girl wants a male who makes girls more-or-less total slaves (well, except as regards a power to force girls to do depraved things) and this naturally makes her wonder whether he will use his power unjustly. The great males, being great, loving, and ever-concerned for what is just, though they indeed will tend to enslave the girls they have sex with more-or-less completely (at least as regards the doing of non-depraved things), yet being virtuous and ever desirous of being just, they will not demand what is excessive or fail to love totally when obedience has been given. A bad male wouldn't be that way. If a girl wrongly thinks a male's love is just a game he uses for control, she will greatly underestimate the extent he will love her, which tragically could lead to her not being as willing to have sex as she would were she totally clear-headed. And clearly if a girl feels that the love she feels in her chest for a male is just something she feels because it is pleasant for her to feel that way (on account of her getting punished else), there is no reason at all for her to want him. She'd be more likely to want to dance an Irish jig on his carcass than to have sex with him.

Sometimes girls can get too black-and-white about things. A girl does not have to choose between being loving just from love and being loving because she wants her lover to love her so much she is (rightly) terrified of being disobedient. Entirely possible it is for a girl to be loving about a particular matter both because the love she feels inside naturally makes her want to be that way and because she is forced. A girl being very loving toward a male from her own love is impressive. But it is not as though if she loves from necessity as well (because she is in her lover's thrall) that necessity makes her love less impressive. It's impressive if a male is so loved by a female that she loves from love. Similarly, it is impressive if a male can make a female do what he wants just because her sexual desire for him is so strong that he can have his way with her without much risking losing sex. But clearly the most impressive situation is when both phenomena happen.

A girl shouldn't just assume that if a male is into controlling a girl, he will exercise such control in a tyrannical, unjust manner. What a virtuous male mostly will use his control for is to ensure that girls are themselves, really putting much of their own thoughts and feelings into their desires for him. This will make girls wanting him much more impressive—he needs that to attract other girls. And forcing girls to be themselves is of course a good thing inasmuch as were girls themselves generally when mating, girls would tend to succeed or fail in mating according to their own natural mating tendencies, which of course would encourage the evolution of these all-important tendencies much more than is in the interest of the individual girls themselves, a good thing. (People tend to be very selfish about not encouraging their own evolution, the benefits being largely to mates of distant descendants.) One sees it most clearly with a rock star or other male celebrity who suddenly as a result of media acclaim gains popularity with girls. No matter how so much his popularity be at first, if after a time the male can't force his young groupies to be themselves—to love him for who he appears to the girl's own true self to be as opposed to mindlessly having believed other girls or media hype, the love girls claim to feel will change to contempt or indifference. Indeed, if a male is given bounteous opportunity to force girls fawning on him into obediently being themselves and he doesn't do it notwithstanding he has had plenty of time and opportunity, it is strong evidence of his not being what girls want. Either he is not a controlling person or girls naturally want him so little he can't enslave them, or forcing girls to be themselves be unacceptable because it is not their nature when themselves to want him; whatever the case, girls will lose interest in a hurry.

Rape is bad because it forces a girl to choose sexually contrary to her own nature. Controlling a girl by withholding loving sentiment only works when the girl already wants to have sex, because else Why would she care about the effects which loving sentiment would have on sperm development, genetic crossover, etc. (the reason, in my opinion, females like males to have holy and loving thoughts toward them)? Since rape is evil because it is something that tends to force females to have sex contrary to their nature, it is quite appropriate and important that males having sex not control girls in ways that suggest the control is for forcing the girl to have sex. In fact, on account of intraejaculate sperm selection if nothing else, males should strive to be the opposite. But what is the opposite of sexually controlling a girl in a way that suggests the girl was forced to have the sex? Is it not controlling the girl at all? Or is it controlling the girl in a strong particular way that suggests that before having sex and also right now the girl wanted and wants sex so much that no way he would have found occasion to need to force her to it (and so wouldn't have forced her to it). Just something to think about.

--control not at all like rape
--so, two kinds of ways incorrect atititudes concerning control mislead girls about the feelings they feel in their chest:

1. Girls are made to think that the pleasure their chests can feel in being helpless is caused by depravity.
2. Girls are made to think that the special love their chest can feel for a male is likely just something that she has been forced to feel because she be in a game in which she needs to love in order to be loved.
--young girls not having large breasts protects them from becoming prostitutes (love is game delusion). Arrgh, sort of, but in special girls it's much more subtle than that because I can only imagine with great difficulty such wanting to become prostitute.
--also, mothers tend to throw anti-control theories out window when daughter actually wrongly fears being controlled.
--sodomy like appropriate control? Hard for sodomizers to change desire for control. Accordingly,
a reason why it is probably best for there to be well-loved girl not controlled. Also, because control is more impressive if it's always associated with little of child raising or monetary caring.


John E. said...

Mr. Meigs, have you considered the possibility that you might be insane?

Stephen A. Meigs said...

Mr. E.:

First, it is very foolish to worry whether one is by nature insane (if that's what you mean). Any general concept of insanity that might encompass such a permanent infliction must be a very vague or arbitary one, and it is foolish to worry about whether one is something one has a ridiculously vague or contrived notion about, since one's thoughts should be about (ideally fairly distinct) ideas and not names. I would not do such a thing. I might as well worry whether I am an ilasludgfueualuoiudgf. Sure, I might consider more specific questions about my nature as, for instance, whether compared to others I think rationally and creatively (I believe I do), but that's not what you're asking.

Perhaps you wonder whether day-to-day I might ask whether I am being sane in the sense whether my brain is operating as well as usual? Indeed I might ask that. On a day I think the answer might be no, I might take it as a sign of needing sleep, better healthier food in more appropriate amounts, or a period of rest from taxing thoughts. I'm afraid you will have to be more specific in your question. In particular, the way you mix tenses makes it difficult for me to clearly see what you are asking (it would indeed be preposterous for me to ask in the past whether I am insane now), but anyway I have explained a sense in which the answer is no and a sense in which the answer is yes.