Tuesday, February 26, 2013

That cat-like emotions and dog-like emotions clash could save humanity someday.

Something I first mentioned (rather awkwardly looking back) a few years ago in this blog is that if a girl from a nefarious addiction wrongly feels that she is in love with someone, she will likely find it difficult to hate. Whatever sodomy-introduced chemical is causing her to feel like she is in love with the object under consideration will presumably tend to make her feel love more easily than hate, as if under the influence of a love potion or possessed of "beer goggles" (through which according to the college jokes around in the eighties all guys look great). Accordingly, girls may well often relax themselves when in throes of love by having sadistic feelings toward other males. For various reasons I believe I first explained carefully here, there are considerations that would tend rather strongly to prevent girls from actually acting on these sadistic tendencies, unless by-and-large the people in the society desired human sacrifice (not really the case at all in societies like ours with much recent coming together of genetically diverse people). The key point is that girls are naturally hesitant to commit violence in the context of a relationship that they are frightened about. So they wouldn't want to be actually violent if they were sadistic from fear. And though it be the case that a girl might enjoy sadism just because she wants to have the kind of sex that a screwed-up girl couldn't have (a girl having emotions one way might select for a different kind of sperm than her having emotions another way), if this were the case, she wouldn't want to be at all scared while being sadistic, because often guys are scary because they really are nefarious people worth being scared about. And killing people for sadism or any other reason is (except in a society where your job is human-sacrifice priestess or whatever) dangerous because it is illegal not to mention something that the victims would tend to resist. In particular, in our society this female-sadism I mention is essentially just fantasy, as evinced by how rarely females murder compare with males. Very rarely, (the most prominent example I can think of being Mary Bell), some very abused confused girl might actually commit a murder where it's pretty obvious these sadistic tendencies are prominent motivators, but rather clearly it is very rare even among female murderers. Cats probably have these sadistic tendencies to a greater degree than humans.

Last year it occurred to me that there is nevertheless a significant danger associated with girls' sadistic tendencies: girls might more tend to be sadistic when they feel like they are being controlled. The more a girl is controlled, the more a test to see whether the control is sordid be relevant; and so, in particular, at least at first glance, the more a girl be controlled, the more she might consider her sadism as something she would want to feel as a test or just because that would make a big difference emotionally in her from a skank girl controlled by sordidness. There would be a very real danger that a girl might be especially willing to be forced by a male controlling her into performing violence. If a girl gets even slightly confused between enjoying committing violence because she'd get punished else and enjoying committing violence because just because (she can), well, a kind of abominable male using depravity might force her into committing abominations or into helping with the abominations he plans. And even with respect to a clean male, the power he might have over a female could be something he could employ selfishly. It's dangerous to assume that just because a male is virtuous ordinarily that he would be virtuous if he had extreme power. In particular, clean virtuous males, just by varying their loving feelings by way of reward and punishment can be very good at forcing girls to be themselves. But on the face of it, girls being themselves can be very sadistic indeed. Not that the danger is particularly great now, what with human sacrifice being extremely unpopular nowadays, but perhaps in the distant future if people don't realize the danger of males forcing girls to do violent things, that could cause some sort of evil apocalypse. If a male loving beauty be a sufficiently emotional thing, maybe girls would love male love of beauty sufficiently that they often couldn't be forced into doing non-beautiful atrocities, but it would be prudent to not assume such. I sensed last year that there was some sort of additional consideration, reminding me of spectator sports somehow, that, at least if understood properly, would be just the thing to save humanity, but I wasn't quite able then to figure it out so it made much sense. I believe I finally have a much better grasp of the phenomenon.

An entirely different sort of way a girl can feel relaxed about her love for a male involves her feelings toward other girls. A girl who is addicted to a male is likely to very much dislike his controlling other girls. Skanky girls, if at all sophisticated, tend to want all the control to themselves. It would be like a drunk seeing another girl totally savoring a particularly nasty addictive brew. Yes, seeing the other girl so totally intoxicated might make her want the brew somewhat, but she'd do her best to get the whole bottle, and would not be at all pleased by the other girl drinking it. But a clean, intelligently sophisticated girl tends to be turned on by a male controlling other girls in non-depraved ways. Sex with girls tends to select for spermatozoa effective at fertilizing young females. Accordingly, any behavior in a male that suggests he tends to behave toward girls in a way that is very rewarding if he should have sex with a girl, well, that is a sort of thing a girl very much tends to find sexy. It's rewarding, if a male has a non-deceptive virtuous nature, for a female to have sex with him in a way that selects for sperm effective at fertilizing young females, and it's even more rewarding to have sex with him that selects for sperm effective at fertilizing and controlling young females. In truth, controlling young females can be quite rewarding, yet beautiful, because if a guy can force girls having sex with himself to be themselves—to use their own analytical faculties and emotions in judging him rather than just accepting what dogma has to say about him—then other girls will find their affection much more impressive and worthy of being copied than would be the case (say) with conformist groupy girls. I ask you, reader, to look inside yourselves to inquire whether you haven't seen gaggles of girls all copying each other, resulting in a harsh kind of positive feedback phenomenon as if really there is no one or hardly anyone in the gaggle actually using any brains or internal direct feelings to evaluate guys. I daresay, those are not beautiful or even useful role models. A real male wants girls to love him because she naturally wants to, because those are the girls whose love for him is most impressive, and even to a typical conformist girl such girls as don't blindly copy would be what she would prefer copying (until he forces them to be themselves in turn, but not before a while has past for her to be thoroughly acquainted with him). Actually, it is beautiful for girls to take encouragement to be themselves, because in the long-run it encourages the evolution of effective mate-evaluation skills in females. Unfortunately, long-run considerations are the very sorts of things that the ordinary forces encouraging morals fail to encourage sufficiently, because those are benefits mainly to distant descendants, and such distant descendants are but slightly related. It may be good for males to force girls to be themselves, but males can't do so for the sake of beauty or goodness; accordingly and fortunately, what amounts to almost the same thing, desirable males force girls to be themselves from pleasure (the pleasure of the males), which works out about as well.

There's much confusion about how proper it be to enjoy sex. Obviously there is nothing improper about being pleased by sex, else the world is rather doomed because people who have fit children through sex more tend to have been pleased by sex. Also, sex is probably the most important way females love males; love is largely pleasing loved people and in particular (at least in females) pleasing loved people through sex, and if such pleasure is bad, well, love is at least half bad as well, which be absurd. But there are different ways of behaving emotionally towards sex pleasure. One can truly focus on the pleasure of sex, i.e., enjoy (let us define the word that way since the alternative "lust for" I define in a more technical sense) sex, as though pleasant sex be something one desires greatly, or one can accept the pleasure of sex without dwelling on it, as though it be an appreciated gift that is not something one has tried hard to obtain. It is most fitting as regards sex that people strive for the emotions that unselfish people tend to have, the reason being that different emotions probably affect sperm competition and development differently. Particularly is it important that the emotions be right when intraejaculate sperm selection is encouraged, as tends to be the case, I posit, when much female lust has been involved, as tends to be the case, I posit, when there are young females or several females involved. But even when sperm competition is not encouraged, emotions such as holiness could globally encourage or discourage such things as genetic crossover during sperm development. Emotions matter in sex. At best, they should be unselfish.

Females tend to automatically care for their children, while it is not nearly as much the case with males. It is more unselfish for a female to want sex because she finds it pleasant than to want it because she thinks the sex partner will care well for her children. Of course, a female (or male) could decide to not be motivated by pleasure at all, but sacrifices outside the mating context are dangerous, because only when rewards are given through mutual children will there be much reason to suppose an association between sensitivity toward character and a tendency to not deceive mates about one's character. And this association is key if morality is to evolve, since an other's sensitivity toward one's own character is a much easier thing to judge directly than whether one be deceived as to what the other's character be. The most important love is not some sort of totally unselfish charity, an imprudent approach if taken to extremes, it's just a tendency to (enjoyably) create and raise mutual children with a person who is worthy of it as opposed to someone who is not. Anyway, females tend to love by having sex with someone they love well—accordingly, good females should tend to enjoy sex. Males tend to love by caring for children from a well-loved female (when they could be chasing down mistresses, etc.)—accordingly a good male tends to enjoy seeing the children he has with his spouse do well and is rightly hesitant to enjoy sex much. Good males should not fear being pleased by sex but should not enjoy it so much in the sense that it is something they should really focus on emotionally or try much to get. There's a dangerous sort of analogy with food. Food is a pleasure one needs, but how one's brain feels when eating something fulfilling it is not particularly something one should wallow in because eating can be addictive (probably because the gut and teeth bacteria are forever trying to encourage one to eat an enormous amount for them). The reason for males to not immerse themselves emotionally in the pleasure of sex has nothing to do with sex being addictive, but all too often confused males, influenced by lies from females trying to obtain unselfish love they don't deserve and from males trying to equate the depraved pleasures they are pushing with unselfish sex pleasure, and having an impression of the truth that sodomy (addiction to semen in the digestive system) is addictive, will believe that sex can be addictive. Males have to think and fantasize about just how pleasant sex be, because else they may not appreciate that beautiful and virtuous females tend to please through sex and are thus such pleasing females should be loved best, but too often they think there desire for such fantasy be some sort of sign sex pleasure be addictive temptation. Mostly I have always loved best unselfish females who put sexual pleasure ahead of money, but occasionally, especially as an undergraduate with its prevailing culture of drunken dissolute sexuality, I would sort of look grouchily or grumbly at some of what in retrospect were some of the most deserving females, a stupid rudeness I very much regret looking back. It is sooo important for young people, nay, all people, to be clear-headed about what constitutes depravity (sodomy and to a lesser extent other addictions) and to distinguish that from sex pleasure.

But in truth there are subtle complications. Sex pleasure tends to be something unselfish for females to want, but girls and the better sort of females when having sex essentially always deserve to have sex in a way that is selfishly pleasing to them. People are very foggy about this. Great males tend to have holy, pious emotions, which emotions sexually please females the most. But these males are not being sacrificial in this respect. Rather, the particular part of the male genome which mediates cross-over frequency (which frequency is reduced in males by holiness, imao) has evolved to encourage crossover when the male be less great or when the female considered be less great, this being good for the human genome as a whole and no sacrifice to the particular part of the male genome which mediates it. Anyway, even those sex pleasures in girls that actually are selfish for girls to want nevertheless rightly tend to be something they should enjoy and immerse themselves in—they really aren't pleasures that hurt the male partner, but rather distant descendants less likely to be good than their children with the appropriately pious guy. (But of course sodomy pleasure is not sex pleasure, and should be avoided by girls like plague, the young being most susceptible to having their sensibilities warped by it.) As mentioned in a previous blog post, that sex pleasure in females is partly breast-related probably largely has to do with girls not being confused by the appropriateness of being sexually selfish in this sense.

Another complication is that the pleasure which males take in controlling females in clean ways is something suggestive of his goodness. Few humans get it, but in truth, when males force girls to do what they want just by not having loving emotions else, the males should enjoy this control—they should immerse themselves in it. Ordinary sex pleasure is not something good males should emotionally immerse themselves in particularly, especially in its seeking aspects. But if a male can make girls do what he wants in clean ways suggestive of his goodness, that really suggests as mentioned earlier that he is a stud. He's the sort who likely forces girls to be themselves. Girls will want him much more if he be the sort of person who can cleanly make girls do what he wants. What's more, if he's emotional about it, i.e., if he enjoys his control by immersing himself in those emotions, then, well, his emotions may will select for that part of his DNA that turns girls on the most. That's how he should be. Of course, it is also very important that his controlling emotions be clean and graceful, because girls want that (and will rightly try to encourage him to be that way), since it is equally important that his emotions not be like that of a (also controlling) sodomizer. This is partly why it be best for a male to not control his wife emotionally, as I have explained in previous blog posts. The contrast between there being a free bird-like female and controlled girls is more suggestive of a right sort of male, it seems to me; also, a wife being especially chosen as virtuous would presumably very much tend to be unselfish anyway if the male be good, so controlling her amounts to a pointless requirement that would only serve to make less fortunate wives (likely having less virtuous husbands) less what they should be or something like that.

Everything I have said so far is basically just preliminary to my main point. It is important that girls be willing to enjoy other girls being controlled in clean ways. A problem is that all too typically, girls think they are somehow being cat-like cruel by so doing. Girls, if being themselves, will enjoy the helpless look in another girl's eyes as they sense the latter's helplessness in being controlled by the love from a guy. If intelligently sophisticated, this enjoyment will be relaxing to them, because they will know skanks, wanting all the control to themselves, would not be that way. It is not a coincidence that dogs, unlike most cats, are pack animals. If even typically confused or naïve in their sophistication, girls are likely to seek to engage in some cruel cat-like behavior toward other girls as a result of their tendency to enjoy males controlling them. I believe I have seen several instances of really pretty girls, girls much less likely to make such mistakes than typical girls, some of the best girls one ever is likely to meet, who I feel have done cruel cat-like things to other girls just because they assumed they had some inner cat demanding it. It's pretty harmless (except to relationships that otherwise might be) if the guy they like is not a bad male, because a male with decency would be shocked, but lots of males are not good, and lots of females are not nearly so good. (Vaguely, I feel a sign that a female has been a victim of such a phenomenon is that she will likely often tend to hide her beauty, which somehow by way of causing underestimation makes getting back easier should another pseudo cat-strike attempt occur or be somewhat in danger of repeating.) But even none of this is the main danger. The main danger is that somehow general confusion in this area will lead eventually to some apocalyptic catastrophe. But I must be more sacred and rested before discussing the matter further.

In other news, one of my teeth, the only tooth that has caused me much problem or had a root canal, has failed a root canal for the third time and will have to be removed (and later replaced by an implant is the plan). Mostly, I don't think the (ugly) abscess is significantly nefariously influencing me or my emotions or thoughts, but I don't know for sure. I look forward (sort of) to the tooth being removed in a few weeks. And my B12 level I had checked and is slightly low, so I am suddenly taking B12, which may be making me weird. I don't know about that either. Anyway, there are a couple things making me wondering whether I might be less pure and sacred now, even though just prior to all this I felt I was beginning to come to terms with the center of something of sacred importance that needed to be discussed promptly. So I may prudently back off this issue slightly for a while more than I normally would. (It is normally prudent to discuss ideas vaguely or not vaguely about apocalypse or catastrophe rather quickly lest people think one is hiding things for sinister purposes.)

Okay, it is the next day, about 24 hours after I finished writing the last few paragraphs; now it's here on the 25th day of February of 2013, and I have finally left the brambles of the rambling and recalled what it was that I was originally writing about. One more point that I need to stress before coming to my intended point is that cat-like cruelty and female-dog-like appreciation of male power over his bitches, well, clash. If someone were to actually perform some act of violence to make sure she still can hate and thus be not under the influence of the love-potion of sodomy, well, the consequence to the victim would likely be akin to the result that a mouse experiences when tortured to death by a calico thinking about her Tom and their kittens. On the other hand, if a girl enjoys the clean power of a male over some female he is also having sex with, well, that will make her want to be closer and she will enjoy the helpless look in her eyes and very much want his victory, but what exactly will his victory imply for the girl with the helpless eyes? If she be obedient, then he will love her emotionally in the way she wants most to be loved—that's the way his control works—a pretty good recompense for being forced to be herself or whatever it is that the controlling male wants to force her to do. Huuuuge difference, really, between defeat meaning ending up tortured to death and defeat meaning being loved emotionally in the way the victim most wants to be loved. What's more, the onlooker females sharing sex with the male directly very much need him to be emotionally loving to the other females, and in particular those he controls. Male emotions matter because they influence sperm development—not just the development of the particular sperm destined to the female under consideration, but all his sperm, no matter what female the sperm be destined for (especially does this remark apply to holiness emotions; I'm not as sure of the extent to which it applies to eternal-togetherness emotions). Similarly, all the females will very much want the male to control his mistresses in a very clean elegant way most different from the way a sodomizer controls. Sodomy and clean control both represent control and the males who engage in these things both tend to enjoy them. It's very important that stupid sophistication or worldliness (or anything else that might cause improper emotional conflation) not cause the controlling male to have much of the sordid emotions that a sodomizer would have—that would ruin sperm selection inasmuch as sodomy is the last thing a girl needs. (In fact, it is known, or at least I recall reading it, that prostaglandin fractions in male semen vary from time to time and individual to individual, so yeah.) Sure, the other females would lust at the girl's defeat, but they'd also lust for the defeat being a very clean non-sordid thing. The victim would likely very much appreciate all the ballet-like influences of all the other females trying to make sure the controller controls in the right, clean way—not only clean in the sense that no sodomy is involved, but also clean in the more particular sense that no sodomizing male emotions are involved. Mice, on the other hand, do not much appreciate the paws that torture them to death. —Again, huuuuge difference, the difference between being surrounded by girls being ballerina-like in encouraging your controlling lover to control you gracefully as you would most want (or least resent) and being sadistically clawed to death by kitties. Emotionally, you can't enjoyably be cat and dog at the same time because there's such a clash. I crave leave in the next paragraph to give an illustrative example. I shall use cats rather than dogs because growing up we had cats as pets (I've never lived with a dog except for short periods when visiting relatives).

Suppose Tom cat ruling over his calicoes were to tell one of his subjects: "I desire food. Torture me some mice to death and … purrrrr ... bring them to me, or I won't have loving feelings for you anymore." This would be a very strange thing since cats are not amenable to being ruled, but suppose somehow it were to happen. (That cats don't talk is a less problematic supposition, since in the wild what would presumably happen is that the male would exert his control merely by having more loving feelings when the calicoes bring him mice. ...They'd get the picture.) An onlooker calico, if she sees a captivated calico slinking off to get mice as demanded, well, she might, after moving her ears about to sense whether other cats are about, skulkily sneakily kind of enjoy his having such power (such enjoyment being dog-like it is not what a cat would tend to be proud of), but when coming to the part where the mouse is getting killed, she'd really be in a quandary. She'd really have to choose between enjoying the helpless I'm-in agony-and-going-to-die look of the mouse or the helplessly captivated look of the mouse-slayer. The emotions would clash horrrrribly. And that is a very good thing, because it is dangerous for males to be able to force females into committing violence. Remember, the more a female feels she is controlled, the more she is likely to feel the need to test whether she can be cruel, because being controlled can be a sign of being under the influence of sodomy. As long as females are in tune with their dog side, the control exerted by males toward sadism could actually be a good thing. Females can be excessively cruel when motivated by cat-like anti-sodomy sadistic feelings. But males aren't as much that way—if they are violent they are so for totally different reasons, probably. It is hard for a male to force a part-dog female into committing violence because of the way dog and cat clash. But a male could I'm thinking force a part-dog female into not-committing violence—into being more merciful and less homicidal, without females being unable to enjoy his exertion of power or unable to enjoy what cruelty he allows. Nothing wrong with that given how sadistic females can be. Would so doing make the female more enjoy what violence he allows? Maybe, yeah, I'm guessing so, but even that is not clear or quite as much the case as one might think because enjoying a male's clean control and power over other females is such a relaxing thing to females—so much contrary to what a skank who wants to all the control to herself would want—it could at least theoretically get to the point where his control of females on balance and on average makes females less scared of him or otherwise desirous of testing her ability to hate, notwithstanding control is also something sodomizers do.

Anyway, it is very important that in a society where an appreciable number of females are controlled cleanly by males that females appreciate that "dog" part of them that enjoys other females being cleanly controlled. If the typical response by girls to a controlling male is all cat—a test to see whether there still exists a capacity to hate and feel cruelty, well, males would have too much ability to force girls into being cruel. The more a girl is being forced to be cruel, the more she would try to test to see whether she enjoys being cruel, and so such force might could be exerted too readily. And of course, a female determining whether she enjoys other females being controlled by a male is a test in itself, a powerful one that in itself discourages dangerous nasty people from exerting power to the extent females interpret their emotions about the test reasonably with intelligent sophistication. It accordingly is important that in a sense girls be into enjoying male victory over other girls—rather like girls cheering at spectator sports. But then in spectator sports guys are usually competing against fellow guys, so maybe my post giving my original intimations about the solution was more confused than I had expected. Important, too, I offhand suppose, that guys have practice at good sportsmanship and not being violent to impress cheerleaders pretending they like violent males more than they do, but that would be something entirely else to think about.

I had wanted to give a stronger impression that the issue I am talking about may well be the most important one in saving the world from evil apocalypse, especially in some distant future age where human sacrifice might be commonplace as it has been in the past. Perhaps it would be more appropriately modest to say it is the most important one that the powers that be (for if there are powers that be, there's a kind of logic to this being just the sort of thing they especially care about, rather as a parent's influence is especially appropriate when it comes to protecting a child from great harm) have given me leave to consider or insight about. But I feel no urgency here to make my case more clearly, since such greater clarity is not in my head yet. An interested intelligent reader having perused this and having a passing acquaintance of the other main writings I've put on internet should now have a grasp of the issues here with an exactness and organization tolerably as well as what is in my head, which is the only urgency I feel as regards apocalyptic matters, dwelling on which would cast a suspicious aura about me if I weren't thus promptly open about my main conclusions.

I would acknowledge someone who a long-time ago gave me such feelings about this matter that they have ever been a reservoir of insight long before I even had a clue what the matter was that the insights were about. I can't help thinking that even at a young age she was some extremely moral virtuous genius when it comes to what I am talking about in this post. Whatever mistakes I'm inclined to think she might have made elsewhere, she must have been amazingly perfect there, and like I said, I think this is a matter of utmost importance. It took me about this long to have more than a clue, whereas I suppose it's reasonable to assume she must have already been there or somewhere close, albeit perhaps on some mystery magic level or something that I admittedly don't get.

No comments: