Wednesday, April 04, 2012

I'm just against sodomy, not same-sex attraction

I love her
More than anyone else.
But I don't think she loves me.
And I feel really silly writing this.

I love other girls
a lot.

I guess,
she is full of lust for them.

Yeah, that's about right.

That's what happens.

You know how it is.

Girl A
loves him.
He loves her most.
He doesn't mind girls B-Z, either, though.

I'm sure it would reassure them,
her being full of lust for them,

They think it's something I put her up to faking.
Wahh, she's a bird--I have no control over that, not possible--
An argument for marriage, I suppose.
Girls pondering a male find an older respectable female (wife?) wanting their backsides for lustful purposes reassuring,
but not if the older female's lust for the younger females is male-forced fakery.

Girls getting it in their minds they want to sodomize each other.
Like that is possible!

Somewhere, sometime.
Maybe just in her dreamland, maybe not,
It's not as important which as whether--
and mostly I do think whether,
and maybe perhaps that didn't matter much either,
(compared to that it rang a bell I hadn't heard)
a girl did want me most.
but not really,
because yeah I did like that girl lower in the alphabet, too.
And if that made girl A want me most, yay!
But not really, because how can a girl love a male most and awful well without wanting his backside
when she considers girls-lower-in-alphabet?
How dare, she grinched, you pretend to try to make me jealous.
That's what she said, as I see it casually in this poem, in so many words with her grinchy growly face.
Well, I just chalked it all up as a strange inexplicable phenomenon, to be filed away for future investigation.
But then there was more.
I do believe after further investigation indeed she did theorize it not at all unlikely her first impressions were erroneous.
She had decided, yep, other girl made her want to violate me so she could get all my lust, etc., for herself, never having to share it with girl lower-in-the-alphabet. She could and would not accept that level of selfishness in herself. She indeed saw the appropriateness of an application of her willpower to avoid sodomizing me in order to get any sodomy from me all to herself.

So, so, sad. So, so, erroneous.

But gradually she came to think maybe that wasn't right either. After all, not that she would mind particularly girl-lower-in-the-alphabet being on her backside. Who would mind the respectable older female? Certainly not her. Yeah, I do believe she came to think of girl-lower-in-the-alphabet as being something of the great diaper-changerer-goddess of backside protection. Great. And that made her think, yeah, that maybe her own desire for me was just to protect my backside and maybe she herself was something of a lesser but still great diaper-changerer.

It is not reassuring to consider that a girl thinks you might be gay. It can be a sign that a boy or boys around her might be telling her lies, presumably because they want to SODOMIZE you and in their excess bold stupid effrontery (at least when dealing with me) thereby make you gay. But by the time you realize she was thinking at a certain time that she just wanted to improve your hindquarters like a mother changing diapers, the usefulness of any fears that a girl having such a strange notion would generate would, well, be mostly be well past their expiration date.

That wasn't really important, though.

What was important is what girl-lower-in-the-alphabet thought.

Girl-lower-in-the-alphabet was worried. Worried she wanted on my account to sodomize the girl I loved more. And that just was not acceptable to her no way no how. Survivor's guilt. Having been the one who escaped unharmed. Children are never to blame for protecting other children—they're all terrible at it, but still, they get blamed because after all if they had been perfect.... I should have been more perfect. Perhaps if I had been more clear to myself that holiness was a more generally applicable phenomenon. Perhaps if I had been a little clearer, too, about the extent and manner in which I presumably wanted to control girls-lower-in-the alphabet. In retrospect, my thoughts were not unclean toward anyone (though greater grace is always possible), but there were little doubts, then. Girl-lower-in-the-alphabet feared those doubts making me fear her, feared too, the idea of her corrupting something as pure and innocent as what was between me and the girl I loved most then. It's no harm for girl lust to defeat male holiness 179-5. The more lopsided the score the better as long as the male internally in his brain holiness is ever trying to be as holy as possible—as long as he tries everybody's a winner.

Any way, life is in many ways a joke. A girl can want you so much she totally wants to share you with other girls to the point of wanting to be all over your backside to reassure you. And other females can want to share in the fun so much that they want to be all over her hindside when you make love to her, egging her on to greater lust. But none of that matters if... a girl lower-in-the-alphabet feels too guilty to do anything that her lust is telling her to do. True there might be hope yet if the girl you love most could jolt the girls lower-in-the-alphabet into complacency by temporarily evincing a reduced reluctance to being controlled. Look, well-loved girl might say, "I actually already don't mind at all being controlled." Actually, this sort of thing presumably has happened so often in our ancestral history that whenever a girl senses that some other desired girl who wants sharing is not sharing because she is too afraid that a desire to share might be a desire to corrupt a sacred relationship with sodomy, her natural tendency is probably to adopt behaviors seductive of the other girl. If a girl senses she needs to get some other girl to feel okay with being lustfully against her backside, probably her natural tendency is just to temporarily not mind her male lover controlling her in the clean way virtuous males control mistresses, so that way the other girl will less feel that what the male feels towards her, and more importantly the subservience and beyond she is willing to give in response, is somehow contrary and opposed to what he feels for the better-loved girl. Lot of good her seduction will do anybody, though, if she takes her innocently seductive temporary alacrity to be controlled as just further evidence that when around girls lower-in-the-alphabet she wants to be controlled and therefore sodomized by the male like some everyday sophisticate skank jealous of other girls because she wants all the sodomy to herself. She was so beautiful when she thought about her love for girl-lower-in-the-alphabet. Maybe just in some dreamland, but to my thinking she'd have let me love her if that other girl would have felt less guilty about wanting to "sodomize" her—AS IF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

The world is a joke. It is possible for one girl to want another girl's backside so much that, confused, the former just can't deal with the guilt, and possible too for the latter to just not feel right about what, in an effort to seduce the former into feeling okay with her backside, she will let her lover to do her unless the former is taking turns with her on him. Presumptuous of me to think? Nah, I have seen hints of this sort of thing in girls other places, in situations not involving me at all. The particular way it evinces itself in altering behavior differs from situation to situation (relevant variables: which female is older, how much self-confidence is there and which girl has it, and whether each girl has before been in relation with another male similarly or like the other girl), but the root cause is always the same. Next to sodomy itself, females fearing some always non-existent tendency in themselves to sodomize or malevolently control or defile with their own lust (lust from females is basically always unselfish if it is real) may well be greatest cause of particular female error in relationships.

Anyways, it's a strange reflection. Maybe the girl I loved best did love me best, only she so much wanted to reduce the other girl's fear of sodomizing her that she couldn't imagine herself feeling free around me unless imagining herself sharing me with the other girl--the better-loved girl just didn't feel right about having intimacy with me unless the other girl was involved. And maybe the other girl really wanted by nature precisely what the better-loved girl by nature wanted, but because she mistook it for a desire to sodomize, she felt too guilty to do it. And maybe all three of us by nature are among the most antisodomy people on Earth. Life is in so many ways a joke, but that is actually reassuring. Tragedy largely is just people getting confused about things that actually are just synonymous (but different), no malevolence or selfishness being involved except in the distant people originating the conflations. Particular examples may be girls not differentiating between wicked males' sodomizing and benevolent females'-lustful-sharing, and not differentiating between subservience to a male that shows inappropriate lack of self-respect and subservience to a male that is appropriate because it is moral or temporarily serves as seductive jolt to excessively guilty females wanting to share a male with her. It is worth pointing out that, at least in the situation I wonder whether might have happened, if the girls had been open with one another, it probably would have cleared up the problem. There's something preposterous about one girl viewing the other's feelings towards her backside as those of some sort of sacred maternal diaper-changerer rear end protector, while the other views her own feelings for the former's backside as perhaps being equivalent to a desperate desire to corrupt a relationship into unholy lust via sodomizing; it's hard for me to imagine they each could have known what the other felt about the matter without each recognizing that each must be looking at things in quite the wrong way. I mean, if one of the girls were right, the other would have had to be a total idiot to view things the way she did, and they each presumably knew that they were both quite intelligent—they certainly seemed intelligent to me.

I know I haven't posted much in my blog lately. Unexpectedly this afternoon, I felt like posting something. I had wanted to post something more carefully along these lines for a good while by now, and though I couldn't manage it to my satisfaction, for some reason, though I mostly think it best to view all days the same, I just up and did it.

Lately, compared to what I have been doing, I have been working much on my logic paper, and am also working on mathematically defined definitions of beauty, goodness and morality more thoroughly thought-out than what I have hitherto made. I have been thinking that maybe I will someday post a series of self-produced lectures on youtube starting with my definitions of the important moral concepts and proceeding from there. If my history is a guide, I can be very slow about things, though.

That's all I have to say for present. There is family stuff I need to attend to for next few days, so in the case someone comments, I may be delayed in responding. Hoping no one be offended, I am, Stephen.