Sunday, March 17, 2013

More about girls being like cats or dogs

Let me first summarize my last post, before making a few additional comments and clarifications. First, girls can be attracted to a male who cleanly controls them merely by not having loving feelings for them unless they do what he demands; in particular, they are very much attracted to males who tend to force girls to be themselves, a very useful trait in males who are naturally desired by girls. Second, girls are very much afraid of being hurt by being controlled in wrong way, i.e., by becoming addicted to depravity. Third, girls, to make sure they are not addicted to a male on account of sexual depravity (which is essentially a love potion), when in love often having the cat-like tendency to feel cruel hateful things toward other males just to make sure the sordid love potion of sexual depravity (semen in the digestive system) hasn't rendered them incapable of hating. Fourth, when girls are controlled, the importance of differentiating whether the control is clean and beautiful or sordid and ugly is so important, girls in that situation are especially likely to test their love with cat-like cruel imaginings. Fifth, it follows that males controlling girls might quite easily force them to do violent things, since just a sense of being controlled in any way might encourage the girls to do the violent things. Sixth, it is a dangerous not very good thing that males should be able to force girls to do violent hateful things to people; this is probably largely why cats tend to be solitary and not much willing to be controlled. Seventh, girls often have the dog-like tendency to enjoy their lover controlling other girls, since skanky females on the contrary want all the addiction to themselves, and so fight over depravity like winos over a bottle of wine. Eighth, girls experiencing this dog-like tendency to enjoy a male cleanly controlling others very much enjoy their lover being merciful to the other girls he controls., especially in his feelings toward them, such feelings affecting everyone (including themselves) in the relationship. Ninth, it follows that girls in dog-mode feel male mercifulness goes along well with male control. But, tenth, a male forcing girls to be mean are being controlling but the opposite of merciful. So, eleventh, girls in dog mode are repulsed by males trying to force girls to be mean. So, twelfth, it is important if girls in cat mode, i.e., girls imagining cruel things to test love, are sufficiently dog-like as to allow themselves to be controlled, that society appreciates girls also being dog in the sense that they enjoy other girls being controlled mercifully; else warlike males could have so much power to dominate girls as to force them to excess violence.

The key point, perhaps, in understanding these observations is that it is possible for a girl to feel hate and love at the same time (for different people), but that it is difficult or impossible to simultaneously feel mercy and its opposite, a feeling of cruel mercilessness. Indeed, this makes sense inasmuch as frequently hated people attack loved people, and in such situations both the hate and the love can together encourage appropriate response, e.g., destruction or disempowering of the hated person to bring cessation of hostilities. But mercy and cruelty tend to be emotions people have when they themselves already have the power (to acquit or hate). It is less the case that there be some third person who will immediately be affected by the decision of which emotion to let hold sway. Anyway, one may look into one's own self to determine whether mercy and cruelty be compatible emotions; looking inside myself they don't much seem compatible in the sense that I can't have both simultaneously. Thus, if a girl enjoying a male's control over others empathetically enjoys his mercy towards those he controls, she couldn't simultaneously empathize with any cruel emotions he might have in forcing girls to be cruel. True, if the cat-like girl really took pleasure in being mean, then, yeah, it would in some sense be merciful of him to allow her to be pleased by her being mean, and so that might be something a dog-like girl could appreciate, but if the cat-like girl didn't naturally enjoy the violence, well, it wouldn't be merciful of him in any way to force her to be violent, which is the big danger. A male can't cleanly force a girl to be violent without risking repulsing observing girls in dog-mode, a very good and important thing insofar as preventing some sort of evil apocalypse. However (in some age where human sacrifice is common), a male could impress dog-like observing girls by restricting the cat-like girls' tendency toward violence sufficiently as to give a powerful impression of his control, while still occasionally allowing the cat-like girl to be violent when she most wants (where his mercy towards her would trump his mercy toward the victim). In societies where human sacrifice is something that happens regularly girls probably naturally have a somewhat greater taste for clean sadism than would be right in itself or what male's tend to have, which actually is not a bad thing since it ensures that girls in dog-mode have the right, moral attitude toward males who control cleanly sadistic girls.

Notice that if a girl is in cat mode, then if there be a female in dog mode enjoying her, well, the girl in cat mode has to be controlled to be much of an enjoyment. So on balance, being in dog mode might be something more expected of a wife or someone not controlled. That may well be counter-intuitive, though, because the male sympathizing with the female in cat mode is so significant.

Another interesting point is that it might be tricky or take a good while for a girl to switch from cat mode to dog mode. If a girl feels cruelty and love simultaneously, then if she later switches and feels mercy and control simultaneously, well, an obvious explanation for that switch is that she has been sodomized. Accordingly, since clean girls don't want emotions sodomized people have, that is not a switch a girl would likely want to do, at least not for a good while since having sex or perhaps even for a good while after seriously fantasizing about sex. I can't see offhand similar problems in switching from dog-mode to cat-mode (beyond the sense it might be awkward to return).

I suppose some readers might think my observations rather creepy or crazy. After all, there is no human sacrifice allowed nowadays, so why would anyone be that concerned about it? Maybe they'll think I want to start a human sacrifice cult or some such. As I have pointed out, human sacrifice is something that is unusually inappropriate nowadays since there is much interaction between genetically diverse people of fairly recent origin. It is important that selection, whether natural, sexual, or whatever (e.g., caused by human sacrifice) be slow, to allow for much mixing of genetic material. There's much beautiful, good genetic material next to ugly, evil genetic material. Selecting strongly against the bad genetic material will destroy much that is good. Human sacrifice is particularly bad nowadays. Even capital punishment of the worst convicted criminals is something one can reasonably argue against as just not worth it. And of course, hardly anybody nowadays is arguing for human sacrifice, etc. Even if a girl were to think human sacrifice the right thing nowadays, she would not be turned on by actually doing that since (as mentioned in last post and earlier), girls if the least bit afraid don't enjoy being sadistic. (And girls killing is dangerous for them in a society that disapproves of it.) Even if they knew they could get away with some violence, they still couldn't enjoy it, because they'd know that being the sort to want violence would make them so creepy-looking, few would feel safe being their friends or co-workers.

But to assume that future ages will be like our own is indeed an assumption. Clearly when there is much recent genetic mixing between genetically diverse ethnicities (as is happening nowadays) this leads to a great deal of genetic heterozygosity between homologous chromosomes in individuals. Clearly in such a situation genetic mixing is appropriate; i.e., crossover rates need to be high for humanity as a whole to prosper or just to do the beautiful thing. Since (another one of my theories) genetic crossover tends to be encouraged by lust, it makes sense that we are entering a lustful age. Eventually, after there has been much mixing, that is when selection should ideally increase. So it makes sense that eventually, after many centuries of high levels of lust, some epigenetic markers or some such left behind by all this lust will encourage in people a desire for rapid selection. This rapid selection could encourage society to become less strictly monogamous and, just maybe, such as to want human sacrifice or something similar. Eventually, the diversity will decrease to the point that people become not lustful, after a long enough time of which people will revert to a more pro-marriage age that almost definitely eschews human sacrifice. Anyway, my guess is that typical human societies nowadays tend to be between the pro-marriage, low selection age and the lustful age. Anyway, we are still probably about an eighth of a cycle before we get above average desires for selection, and about three-eighths of a cycle before we would be at the time where rapid selection and human sacrifice might be most common. (Actually, since what allows the genetic mixing is the non-cyclic sudden advance in human travel technologies, it is somewhat misleading to think of the phenomenon as purely cyclic—clearly a better model would be preferable—but still the cyclic model is useful for getting an idea of what might happen.) I'm not saying that human sacrifice or something similar will necessarily happen. In particular, maybe the mere fact that there are so many more people moving about so easily will have some sort of complex effect. But I really think it is presumptuous to believe that human sacrifice, ritual murders, etc., being common in the distant future is not at least a significant possibility. And ideally, the time is now for humanity to think about the morality of such human sacrifice in these distant ages. For of one thing one may rest assured. If people actually get so they want human sacrifice to an appreciable degree, they certainly are not going to be as devoid of selfish motives that might encourage false morality and bad etiquette than is the case now, when human sacrifice, being essentially something irrelevant to this age, no one has hardly any selfish motives to consider one way as opposed to another.

Another reason to think about girls having cat-like cruelty is that even in societies like ours essentially devoid of human sacrifice, etc., girls may still like to fantasize about being cruel just to make sure they can (because they haven't been rendered incapable of hating on account of being screwed up by sodomy, i.e. (in my definition) addictive semen in the digestive system, or by some other love potion); especially will they tend to do this when feeling controlled. It is quite important that society have some understanding of this. Oh sure, it seems reasonable that if only sodomy could be done away with altogether, then eventually, there would be no advantage to girls having sex while having feelings that sodomized people don't tend to have, and so I suppose eventually cruelty would be sexually dull to them. But good luck with so effectively convincing people that sodomy is evil that sodomy disappears. And I don't know, I'm doubtful that an age of lust sounds like the sort of age where sodomy would most be expected to disappear, so again, good luck.

What I interpret as the wispy older lower-level spiritual influences and the very-real younger higher-level transcendental influences on my person compel me somewhat beyond my own curiosity and the moral considerations discussed to wrap myself into this topic, as I suppose makes sense. I admit, the feelings that might come to me as if from some immanent God very much related to this universe we live in don't seem to be much concerned one way or other. And I'm afraid there's an obvious explanation for this, which I hope is wrong. The universes at a higher level, like those at a lower, are not in time with ours. Whatever wispy or totally real connections exist between our universes and others may be directly to ages that could need my advice. But here, in this place, nothing I say will do any great good unless later in distant age, when what I have considered herein becomes very mportant, my then ancient writings or what they have influenced are lifted off the dusty top shelf of wise persons there and consulted like some mythic magic tale. Whether that will happen has less to do with me than others, and if there is a God of this universe, perhaps he is not optimistic, but he is content to keep his peace, for there is more than what is here. Of course, all of this paragraph is just highly speculative interpretation based on my personal best guess at theology, which guess is likely ridiculously full of errors and holes. Anyway, what I do know is I have religious-like dreamy feelings that what I have considered here be important, and similarly I have occasionally had religious-like feelings of extreme reality (like getting banged up side the head by a feeling) of similar import, but the feelings that remind me of prayer somehow are ghostly silent when I debate whether to consider such things. Interpret it as one will.

No comments: