Discriminating morals

The nuclear crisis in Japan--How bad?

2011-03-16T07:37:00.000-07:00

Update (5/7/2011): Well, it doesn't seem nearly as bad as I hard feared here in the States, what since no major explosions of the reactor vessel or criticality events seem to have happened. The best website I have found for keeping track of the radiation somewhere in U.S. is run by this group of UC-Berkeley nuclear engineers . I probably will delete this post in a few weeks or months, since it is time sensitive and doesn't fit in with the other posts in my blog.

The nuclear crisis in Japan has the potential to be quite disastrous. With three reactors and apparently large quantities of spent fuel rods from six reactors vulnerable, there is more material that can evaporate, burn up, etc., and get into atmosphere than at Chernobyl. The good news is that there hasn't been any fission there for a week or so, and so the short-lived radioisotopes (those with a short half-life) shouldn't be very problematic as they were at Chernobyl. But for the greater public at large, Cesium-137, with its 30-year half-life, will be just as bad as ever, and that's typically a large part of the problem in these situations, anyway. And actually, if the fuel rods melt down, falling to the bottom of the reactor or pool, becoming a lava-like blob, there is no guarantee there will be no criticality created. It wouldn't be an especially explosive fission bomb type criticality, presumably, from what I have read it can't be (but I am not a nuclear expert), but does have the potential as in Chernobyl to create a sudden release of heat leading to somewhat explosive evaporation of nuclear material and steam. This is why they are adding boric acid, to absorb neutrons and discourage criticality. On the whole, I think the expected damage at this point is slightly worse than at Chernobyl. (I am not saying that there is greater than 50-50 chance it will be worse than Chernobyl, but it could be a lot worse than Chernobyl (while it can't be better than the problem it has already been), and so the expected damage is probably worse than Chernobyl. What will be the damage to those not exposed to acute radiation, and How can we estimate this from detected levels of radiation? As a mathematician who minored in physics, who has been gleaning the internet for relevant studies, etc., over past few days, I will throw in my observations, since such observations seem to be inconveniently lacking and hard to find.

Readings at Tokyo of external radiation levels are apparently (as of yesterday) at 0.8 microsieverts per hour, about 24 times normal. According to an article in the IAEA bulletin summarizing WHO findings, in areas of Europe fairly removed from Chernobyl about one-third of the damage to people from Chernobyl was caused by external radiation, about one-third from inhaled radio-isotopes and one-third from ingested radio-isotopes ("in areas of low deposition, all three pathways may
be of similar importance"). So the total effective dose equivalent can be guesstimated by multiplying the result on the radiation meters by three (and multiplying by the number of hours the radiation is received). What are the effects of 2.4 microsieverts per hour? A Rule of thumb I've seen in a couple articles (apparently from the International Commission on Radiological Protection) apparently is that one millisievert increases one's chances of dying from cancer by about 1 in 20,000. In other words, one microsievert increases one's chances by 1 in 20 million. So 2.4 microsieverts increases one's chances of dying from cancer by 1 in 20/2.4 million, i.e., about 1 in 8.3 million. Tokyo has a population of about 13 million. Thus, as a result of these radiation levels, assuming cancer treatment doesn't improve drastically in the next few decades, about every 40 minutes someone in Tokyo is going to be doomed to eventually die of a cancer which wouldn't have happened else. This hopefully can give an idea of the current seriousness of the present increased radiation levels, and how to estimate the seriousness from measured radiation levels should the situation change, and in particular if it gets worse, as I'm guessing it probably will. The workers at the reactor are a totally different situation, of course; if they are exposing themselves to external radiation of 400 millisieverts per hour, as some places near the reactor were emitting, after about 10 hours or so they can expect to die within a few weeks from having received that exposure. Indeed, LD-50 is between 2.5-5 Gy (or Sv, presumably, a technically better way of saying things, imho). They are indeed heroically risking their lives.

Let's look at America, now. The winds in the northern hemisphere at the latitudes of the U.S. and Japan are mostly from the west, and the jet stream is from the west as well. So America could get a good deal of fallout. If the situation ends up somewhat worse than Chernobyl, we may get, say, about half what Northern Italy got from Chernobyl. Estimates from the IAEA article linked to above are that people in Northern Italy received about one millisievert total effective dose equivalent (a little less for adults, a little more for children). So, a guess is that if the accident is somewhat worse than Chernobyl, we'll get about half a millisievert on average. That means an extra 1 in 40,00o risk of dying from cancer. Multiply by a population of about 300 million, and you get 7,5oo Americans dying from cancers they otherwise would not get. It won't be nearly as bad as in Japan, presumably, but it is certainly of significance even here.

Of course, there are other effects as well. Hereditable effects caused by genes mutating tend to be (according to this course lecture) an order of magnitude less than carcinogenic effects, but they last longer, from generation to generation, so that is something to consider (but being mostly ignorant about the matter there's nothing precise I can say about it), and also fetuses are very susceptible to abnormalities from radiation, the teratogenic effects supposedly being (according to same lecture) an order of magnitude worse, but pregnant females aren't as numerous as people at large. So perhaps the carcinogenic risk is the most of the risk. Also, there could be very long-lived isotopes of stuff like plutonium dispersed, having effects for millenia, but again I don't have a good idea of how to estimate that particular risk.

It's surprisingly lame that there are so few publicly available radiation detectors on the internet. The best network I can find for the U.S. is at Radiation Network , which one could use to compare radiation reading with normal readings. Another one is available at Online Ionizing Radiation Detectors . I haven't noticed any changes in those reading yet here in the States.

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

2010-11-12T06:12:00.000-08:00

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 Yüan 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.

Public Display of Affection

2010-05-13T11:58:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers and male gamete selection

2010-04-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

Regular readers of this blog will know that one of the ideas discussed most herein is that because of the effects of their bodies upon intraejaculate sperm selection, girls are sexually pleased by virtue in a male in a way that older females aren't (a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia). I have been thinking lately (this morning) that something analogous involving competition between male gametes happens in flowers (which somehow remind me of girls). As a whole, what a species of flowering plants needs is for bees (say) to not stick around too much on one particular plant. Moving from one plant to another is necessary for pollination. But obviously there is a sense in which any particular plant can gain somewhat by selfishly attracting bees for a longer period of time. After all, the longer the period one is attractive to bees, the longer the period in which they can pollinate you or take your pollen. So what can account for flowering plants being able to evolve flowers such as to especially encourage getting pollinated right away?

If a flower gets pollinated right after it opens, that is a sign that the sort of bee that wants it wants nectar immediately the flowers opens. In consequence, it is a sign that it has been pollinated with pollen from a plant whose nectar bees want so soon as the flowers open. But it isn't just that flowers that get pollinated immediately tend to be pollinated by pollen from flowers attractive to bees that tend to pollinate immediately. The immature delicacy of the flower to be pollinated presumably is such that it is most easily fertilized by pollen especially skilled at competitively penetrating (during fertilization) the more fragile youthful flowers; and (at least to the extent such pollen really is from plants whose flowers give up all their nectar at once) this pollen tends to (diploidly) code for studly plants, because being able to attract bees in a short time span is unselfishly difficult and thus not some mere unimpressive result of selfishness. If a flower that gives up its nectar all at once has its pollen carried to a flower on some other plant so soon as the latter flower opens, it is a sign that indeed the former flower is attractive of bees that want flowers so soon as they open, an awesome studly trait that flowering plants need to reproduce and survive. The subtle point necessary for understanding is that it's not that unselfish behavior (like giving up nectar mostly all at once upon the flower opening) in itself that is significantly studly in the sense that it allows a plant to survive better. After all, if a plant gives up all its nectar at once, who is to say it won't be visited only by some bad bee or fly or whatever that after lounging about on the old flowers two bushes over has decided it worth its lazy wings to fly a few yards way over there yonder and slurp up that newly opened mega nectar slurpee flower it chanced to notice ere some other bug does. But the thing is, after the bad bee or whatever is done with his mega nectar slurpee (maybe getting some pollen on him), it's not like he is going to fly all over the neighborhood looking for another (usually hard to find) yummee newly opened mega nectar slurpee flower of the same species, which of course is what the plant needs. No, he will presumably be too lazy to fly that far. Unselfishness, of course, can be disadvantageous to survival (that's why selfish people tend to do selfish things). But if a bee carrying pollen then lands on a very youthful flower, gimminy Christmas, the youth and fragility of the flower not only selects for pollen coding for plants trying to attract bugs with unselfishness (by giving its nectar right away), it also selects for pollen coding for plants unselfishly trying to attract bugs that want flowers right after they opened who actually succeed in attracting the right sort of bee, namely the bee that actually greatly prefers getting nectar from flowers immediately after they open, a very impressive studly trait the female flower needs in the pollen that fertilizes her!

What I was going to do

2010-02-24T11:49:00.000-08:00

What I was going to do is elaborate about the widely misunderstood appropriateness of a male controlling the young females he has sex with, and the curious nature of the motivations that lead males to want such control. As I have mentioned earlier, if a male is the sort to be by nature especially sexually pleasant (in the real sense), girls will want him just because it is their nature to want him (on account of needing him). And because people are pretty good at sizing up whether girls (or anybody else, for that matter) are being true to themselves and because it is much more impressive to attract girls because it is their nature to want you than to attract them because (say) manipulation or randomness has caused one or a few socially prominent “scene queen” girls or girls bought by MTV to want you, whose taste other girls have copied without the least reflection upon their natural desires and tendencies as to what they (naturally) want sexually, well, I say because of all these things if a male can force the girls he is having sex with into being true to themselves and yet only increase the extent they love and want sex with him, I think it goes without saying that is going to be very sexually pleasant for him. It's not that girls want to conform to just any of their peers, obviously they prefer to conform to the crowd of girls who think for themselves, and if the part of the latter group that is having sex with a guy actually is a crowd, obviously girls everywhere are going to want to have sex with him, too, just because girls are (usually) conformists. And that extra sex is extremely pleasant for the male, yeah.

Actually, the preceding paragraph has understated things considerably. To understand why, one first needs to understand what I have mentioned earlier, namely that in my opinion the significance of having sex with a female at a young age is that her body, being young, selects for different sperm via intraejaculate sperm selection than an older female would. It's kind of like a Christmas list. If a girl begs Santa for something in March, notwithstanding she has all the rest of the year to think more carefully about what she wants, in all likelihood that is going to be something special she wants—obviously she doesn't doubt the desirability of the gift much as one would expect if the gift weren't special. Because of intraejaculate sperm selection, a girl wanting sex while her body is still quite young is like a girl wanting from Santa a gift made up of all the pieces of gifts girls have through the years begged his ancestral Santas for in March. Yeah, people are going to say it is not at all like that because Santa does not have sex with the girls he gives presents to. But really, it wouldn't make any difference because of course Santa is a very virtuous person, and people (even young people) are rather skilled at evaluating virtue—if they weren't, there would be no way virtue could have evolved to exist (in varying degrees) in people. People get confused about this. They figure that because girls are more ignorant, when girls make a sexual decision it is more likely to be stupid. True, if a girl asks a bad, fake Santa for a gift in March, maybe she does so just because he has been effective at manipulating her into thinking she wants something that she is too ignorant to realize she doesn't want. But this in itself is no particular disaster, because all she has to do is avoid men dressed up in Santa suits who appear bad. This indeed is something very important to her pleasure even if the bad fake Santa is not skilled at deception, because the ancestral parts of him that especially often encouraged girls to beg him for gifts in March may indeed be supposed to have been the parts of him that were most deceptive, the parts that convinced girls they wanted a pile of dirt, etc., before they had a chance to think much about what they wanted, and so she is going to get a gift that is made mostly of dirt or whatever cheap stuff deceptive fake Santas convince girls to ask for already in March.

Anyway, if a male is by nature the sort of person that enslaves girls who have sex with him into being true to themselves, then if a girl has sex with him when she is still young, then if he is a very virtuous person almost completely devoid of deceptive genetic material, then to the extent she is lustful (it is another theory of mine that female lust and stillness determines the extent to which intraejaculate sperm selection occurs) then the genetic material coitus selects for will not only be desirable on account of it being something girls want notwithstanding they could want it later, it is also something desirable on account of the girls who wanted sex so young from his ancestors likely were true to themselves in wanting it on account of having likely been forced to be so. Accordingly, girls are majorly turned on sexually by good males who by nature want not only to have sex with them, but also to enslave them, provided (and this is a huge proviso) the type of enslavement is of a graceful sort that does not in itself suggest greater badness (because, recall, girls are extremely displeased by badness in the sense of immorality). And the fact that girls are turned on by a male who by nature would gracefully enslave them of course makes such graceful enslavement useful to a male not only because it can be used to force girls to be true to themselves (and perhaps just occasionally to make them do things he needs her to do more than she wants to) but also because the mere fact that he is that way turns girls on, which makes girls even more turned on by it, which makes it more useful to males, etc., in an endless loop like positive feedback (not that the loop doesn't converge—I'm not suggesting something ridiculous like infinite sexual desire, but still the conclusion should be impressive).

Now, the graceful way for a male to enslave a girl is with sexual emotion. When she is obedient about what he demands, emotionally he loves her well, with holiness, worshipfulness and a feeling of eternal togetherness. When she is disobedient, he punishes her badness by just not loving her with feelings of holiness), eternal togetherness or worshipfulness, instead substituting the own lust that comes from himself. Please do not think I am saying that all emotional afflictions are appropriate. In particular, it is very obviously very important not to ever, ever punish a girl with unclean emotions (that by their very nature are contrary to the demands of gracefulness) typical of sodomizes, such emotions strongly suggesting badness in a way that could render intraejaculate sperm selection into something extremely foul. The more interesting philosophical questions, in my opinion, concern the emotional motivations men should bathe in while motivating themselves into enslaving girls. Obviously a person has to have some sort of emotion making him want something before he can undertake trying to get it.

The most obvious motivation that could motivate a man into wanting to sexually enslave a girl is pleasure. But pleasure (by definition, essentially) tends to be a selfish emotion. It seems to me there are (at least) two separate cases. A male can become sexually stimulated by thinking how pleasant sex would be for himself. Or, alternatively, he can become sexually stimulated if he is in a very loving, holy mood and senses that the the needs or desires of the female he is considering so worship fully are such that there is a decent probability she might desire him such. The latter phenomenon is not something that the male wills. When he senses the girl might need or want him sexually, it's rather automatic, it seems, that he gets aroused; the will could only be relevant there in avoiding or canceling arousal. And presumably, the sexual arousal that comes from the male sensing the desires or needs of the girl is more something a man who sexually cares for a girl would feel than that which arises as he wills the stimulation by imagining his own pleasures, i.e., how pleasant sex would be for him. Accordingly, good males might be expected to be more into their mates' sexual pleasures than their own. It seems more than plausible that by immersing himself in how sexually pleasant something would be for himself, the emotions of this immersion might (presuming they affect sperm environment and development) select for sperm used to such immersion, which would more tend to be sperm coding (diploidly) for selfish traits (and in particular the trait to care about one's own pleasure more than a loved one), a disaster. Some might be tempted to think that, well, females can have sex for their own sexual pleasure, and are just fine for doing so, so Why not males? But the analogy is a false one. Sexual pleasure in females (and more particularly, in young females) tends to be an especially unselfish one. It's not sexual pleasures that are the ones that a selfish female wants most, but rather the comfy material pleasures that can accrue to herself and her children from mating a wealthy male. So far as pleasure is concerned females tend to be bad to the extent they prostitutes themselves by basing their reproductive decisions on the material pleasure of the money, caring, etc., that might arise from the connection, as opposed to the sexual pleasure of the sex itself. (Of course, mating for love is by definition more loving than mating for any sort of pleasure, but good females do value their own goodness and thus do desire pleasure, and seeking the pleasure of money makes it much harder for females to mate lovingly than seeking sexual pleasure does.) But males are the opposite. It's much less automatic for a male to care for his children. In males as opposed to females, it is more selfish to seek the sexual pleasure of creating children than the pleasure of seeing they are well-cared for once they are created. So a male emotionally having sex for his own sexual pleasure would at least slightly suggest badness.

The thing is, though, that his own sexual pleasure would appear to be the only obvious emotion that might motivate a male into trying to sexually enslave a girl to himself. To the extent a male wants to sexually enslave girls in the way that would seem appropriate, he does so either (1) because he knows the girls being themselves while having sex with him increases the sexual pleasure he'd get as a result of other girls becoming more likely to have sex with him or (2) because he knows girls are more turned on by him if they view him as controlling. The first consideration is obviously basically a sexually selfish one. As for the second consideration, it is a little more philosophically interesting. To say that controlling girls is caring about what the girls want because they are turned on by good males who by nature are thus controlling does not really seem honest with me.

A distinction should definitely be made between a girl being attracted to a male who by nature is a certain way and between her wanting him to be that way. It is akin to the distinction between the two Spanish verbs that denote “to be”: ser and estar. Girls want a male to be by nature (ser) enslaving of them, but they don't want him to be by condition (estar) enslaving of them. But it is not like some run-of-the mill case, say, some male wanting a girl to be (estar) excessively sexually easy with him while wanting her to be (ser) not excessively sexually easy by nature. For to not be excessively sexually easy is moral (on account of it not being stupid more than anything), whereas to enslave girls for one's own sexual pleasure is not at all moral. The appropriateness of enslaving girls involves not what is moral, i.e., what is good, but what it is moral to be, i.e., what is right (in the definitions of my moral system). Enslaving girls is not good--in the strict shallow sense of goodness, one could even say it is bad; however, it is good to be the sort of male who mostly wants (gracefully) to enslave the girls he has sex with. Similarly, it is probably not exactly good for girls from their own pleasure to want sex more with males who by nature want to enslave them, but it is better to be a girl that way than the opposite way, and so girls who care about doing what is right (as opposed to what is good) do in fact want (from their own pleasure) sex more with males who by nature (gracefully) want to enslave them. And people tend to do right rather than what is good, a good thing.

One might think that, what since girls are naturally sexually attracted to males who (gracefully) want to control them, a male could be controlling of girls partly in order to impress them. It could be considered a game of sorts. True, so far as her own pleasure is concerned, a girl prefers a male to not be (estar) controlling of her, but if the male has to behave controlling to make her know that, yeah, he is (es) controlling, well, he's got to do what he has to do. One might think it analogous to the situation in football. In modern football, passes tend to be more effective than runs at increasing the chances of victory. But pass plays tend to work much better if the defense thinks that there is an appreciable chance of a running play. So, coaches rush the ball more than otherwise reasonable in order to make it look like they are coaches who naturally like to run a great deal. The analogy with girls is mostly a false one, however. After a girl has had just a little acquaintance with a male, I daresay because girls are mostly quite sensitive about such things, she is going to have a very good feel for how naturally controlling a male is, and so the male acting tough is not going to have more than a negligible influence in affecting her impression of how naturally controlling he is. If a girl has just met a male, then indeed the male might need to somewhat be controlling just to give the impression that's the sort of male he is, but even this situation is rarer than one might think. It is pretty rare for a girl to have met a male about whom she has gotten into her sexual desires enough to know that the thought of him being by nature (cleanly and gracefully) controlling is pleasant for her sexually. Until a girl has fantasized sufficiently about a male she really wonders she might want, well, she probably will just assume (what is typical politically correct dogma) that she doesn't want a male to be naturally controlling, and so the male acting tough at the beginning will just scare her away, more as like. With very young girls it really pays to be mostly very polite and indifferent about controlling her until one figures she has fantasized deeply enough to know she wants you to be another sort of person than what such polite behavior might suggest, and by that time, well, she probably has a good idea of what you really are anyway, and so game theory, etc., is pointless by then, in every way less preferable than not worrying about impressions and just showing yourself the way you really are. Though not being open about everything is rather too akin to dishonesty to be ideal, I should think this politeness to very young girls is not about dishonesty, but about not spreading all your feathers out until the girl has had leisure to reflect on what sort of feathers she wants to be there. After the girl gets into her desires enough to realize she wants a male who by nature is (pleasantly) controlling, it will merely be a pleasant surprise to her when she finds out, yeah, that is what he is. Vaguely I feel there may be yet another better way of looking at it even less suggestive of dishonesty, but I'm not clear about it.

So what is it exactly that motivates males to want to cleanly enslave girls in the right way, and more particularly to want to enslave them (rightly) into being true to themselves? One might be tempted to posit a sort of higher kind of beauty. Just as one can imagine that there are emotions in the psyche corresponding to goodness, one can also imagine that there are emotions corresponding to what it is good to be, i.e., what is right, and that there be, with a corresponding emotion, a virtuousness akin to beauty that arises from being effective at being right (and so controlling effectively would be virtuous). But I have two objections to this complexity. One the one hand, I object to the complexity itself. Where would such an ontology lead? If there is a different kind of emotion for doing what people do who are what it is good to be (i.e., for doing what is right) than for doing what is good, why stop there? Why not also have an emotion for doing what people do who are what it is right to be? And so on and so on. It's hard to be clear about the exact philosophical complications and objections, but at least my intuition is that things are getting too complicated. On the other hand, I look at why I tend to want to (cleanly, and in the right way) control girls, and basically the emotion that most motivates me is the same emotion as my desire for my own sexual pleasure. I seem to be bad in this one area. I don't care whether the pleasure might lead to unselfish behavior, I just want it too irresistibly. And it's only in a very weak, not particularly legitimate sense that a good male behaves badly as regards controlling girls on account of his seeing the bad behavior is right and virtuous. That is, the wise male sees that females are sexually turned on by males who (by nature) like gracefully to control girls and are good at it, and it makes sense to him why girls would have evolved to be thus, and since goodness evolves mainly because the opposite sex (usually) loves it, well, a male would be hard pressed to understand himself if he were not right here rather than good. Why would males have evolved to be morally good when it comes to moderation in controlling girls when girls mostly want only to get fucked by immoderately controlling males? A wise male indeed will understand the reason that he is bad about wanting to control girls very much is just that such a bad nature, being loved by beautiful girls, is right. But the emotional reason for wanting to enslave girls is not that it is right, but just that it's a sexual pleasure that pleases him impelling as though his nature doesn't care whether he is good in wanting it. The consideration that it is right to want such enslaving of girls is relevant mainly just because it discourages him from scratching his head wondering how finding a pleasure so peremptory could be so contrary to the rest of himself, a scratching that otherwise could I suppose conceivably get in the way of his taking pleasure in making girls (gracefully) his slaves. Indeed, I agree with Locke that people do have innate tendencies. But life is so complicated they can't have an innate tendency for everything, and so one of these tendencies, I posit, is to tend to behave according to abstracted tendencies that they predict they might have given their understanding of their other tendencies. Not to belittle right behavior by suggesting there is no difference between doing something for one's own sexual pleasure and between doing something just because being by nature the sort of person who does it is sexually pleasant, but I don't think there is any difference emotionally between a male doing something because his doing it is sexually pleasant in a way that precludes considerations of morality and because his being by nature the sort of person who does it is likely to be sexually rewarding to himself. Why would such a distinction, motivationally speaking, be necessary? Mostly one cannot escape one's destiny—one has no choice but to behave as it is one's nature to behave. Even though a male cleanly enslaving girls won't particularly increase the extent to which a girl will think him the naturally controlling person she wants him to be, the controlling behavior will be pleasant to him as though that were the case.

Anyway, that was what I was going to write about. Instead, after Christmas, I started writing the following, which devolved into a lengthy footnote.

Are girls naturally sexually turned-on by males who gracefully want to enslave them?

Nowadays, people tend to think that the emotions possessed about sex don't have any significant effects upon conception. This must be very surprising to anyone who has reflected upon his or her own sexual or romantic desires, where such emotions would I daresay come too seem very important. Moreover, common sense derived from impressions of others' sexual desires must consider this belief that emotions don't effect conception strange. Stepping back from the influence of dogma, a reasonable person must consider it very unlikely that emotions don't effect conception, this dogma that in so far as the babies turn out, they might as well all be produced randomly with artificial insemination in the test tube. Just because there is an absence of “scientific” evidence for something is not scientific evidence of absence. In the situation where there is little or no scientific evidence one way or the other, it behooves one to take the best solution, which is not the solution that is easiest to describe, but which is the solution that best fits the evidence, which to a reasonable person is all the evidence, including evidence gained from reflection and not just the evidence which from its ability to be reproduced and substantiated in public is more easily adapted to convincing others, as observations of one's own nature are not.

People have a notion that the more something is based on scientific, easily reproducible in a convincing way, evidence, the more likely it is to be true and important. In fact, the opposite is the case. In math indeed, the more strictly rational and logical something is the more likely it is to be true, but all (reasonable) math books are essentially totally true, and to the extent they are not, it is because of errors which like spelling errors, etc., are usually easy to spot, and which have very little to do with the quality of the math book. But it is important to realize that though checking to see that a proof is right is (by definition, essentially) a rational and scientific undertaking, coming up with the proofs is not at all so. Good mathematicians read math books and prove to themselves already known results mainly for the proofs (it follows that superficially, mathematicians behave as though they are very careful about checking whether theorems are right, but that is just an accidental consequence of that one can't correctly understand the proof of something without being confident that what is proved is correct; mathematicians don't read proofs because they are terrified of feelings allowing error like some screwed-up psychologist makes himself out to be, or even because they are terrified there might be some grand conspiracy introducing error in math-book-proofs, which would be truly surprising since the math profession is so far from being screwed-up that most advanced mathematicians tend to prove to themselves most everything mathematical as they read it). Learn a great many proofs and turn them over in your mind a great deal, then in the future when considering something possibly quite unrelated there might be something about the situation that reminds one of proofs one has previously encountered, which could enable one to combine the past proofs into something new. The feelings that the logic of this situation resembles the feelings of the logic of that proof and that proof and that the feelings that the proofs can be connected, etc., are just that, feelings—feelings as totally unprovable (until they become useless† after one in fact does correctly what the feelings suggested could be done) and artistic as feelings not having anything to do with logic. And math from feelings is the higher math, the math that ultimately leads to good definitions (which in the long run is perhaps the most important thing for whether a subject of math is beautiful or not) as opposed to aim-and-shoot math of a more mechanical and frenzied sort that really doesn't come from feelings so much.

What about other fields? Can one say that rational, “objective” reasoning is more legitimate than other reasoning. here my inspiration left or exhausted me and I stopped writing

^† The feeling may remain useful in the limited sense that when one has a similar feeling in the future, one will tend to more view the new feeling as correct, at least if the old one turned out to be correct. But that one has proven the original feeling correct is no proof that the similar feeling is correct. Moreover, if one has had a false feeling about something this may be because one had a dim correct similar feeling that something else which is correct in fact is correct, and a seemingly new feeling that resembles the original feeling may be the once dim correct similar feeling one's mind confused it for before it was viewed more distinctly. Or it may be because one has a crazy (insane or fucked-up) tendency to have such feelings. Anyway, having had a feeling about something should make all similar feelings more believable, irrespective of the truth (proven or otherwise) of the original feeling, provided the original feeling wasn't had for insane or screwed-up reasons, so provided craziness has nothing to do with it logic has little to say about a feeling's usefulness as regards similar feelings, such usefulness not depending on the truth of the original feeling. And actually, (and here I disagree with the prevailing false dogma) though an original feeling having been had for insane (as opposed to fucked-up) reasons on average suggests similar feelings are insane, there is usually one particular correct feeling (usually connected with the extremely important truth that sodomy is vile) which in fact it would be extremely important to view as correct (because it would be correct!) if the circumstances reminiscent of sodomy that elicited the crazy feeling were actually sodomy in facto.

Looney people may be crazy about most things, but because they tend to be more right that sodomy is evil, they may be more wise than typical sane people if you weight correctness about important matters more than correctness about unimportant matters. For it is extremely important to believe sodomy is vile, arguably the most important simple truth. I daresay that if one studies insane tendencies, they could all be viewed as anti-sodomy defenses, save for the ones that are diseased states (and most of these are obvious as disease states).. That they do all resemble anti-sodomy defenses orthodox psychology is either too dense to observe or too indifferent (largely from vileness, presumably) to explain. If non-diseased insane states can all be explained by there being something akin to sodomy which under certain fairly common circumstances people need to fear much more than if they were sane, the simplest explanation for paranoia, etc., is that there is something akin to sodomy which when under its influence one honestly and truly needs to be paranoid about. Whether in fact it is truly sodomy or alien abductors doing nefarious deeds with anal probes or something else that one needs to be afraid of I think would tend to become clear if one has thought about sodomy enough to realize that there is nothing the least counter-intuitive or illogical about semen containing addictive chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system. But the idea has to occur to you first. And more importantly, you can't be so prejudiced against insane people or full of elitism to disregard out-of-hand the idea that sodomy is evil merely because if resembles crazy, insane ideas. On the contrary, I DEFY anyone to explain to me why sodomy being the very thing that all the paranoid objects of terror most resemble should make one more believe that fearing it is just paranoid. Is it more logical to believe that all the objects of terror of looney people cluster about sodomy because people have a looney tendency to fear things to the extent they resemble sodomy (and of course sodomy resembles sodomy more than anything because, yeah, it's sodomy) or Is it more logical to believe that paranoid people tend to be paranoid about things to the extent they resemble sodomy because SODOMY TENDS TO BE SOMETHING PEOPLE MOST NEED TO BE PARANOID ABOUT--they have evolved to be paranoid about it. The ass-screwing pro-sodomy PC idiot pseudo-scientists babbling about how they are better than Christians because they are scientific enough to believe in evolution I have no respect for. Hell, at least Christians aren't such illogical twits as to believe in evolution notwithstanding they believe that magically people have very specific crazy feelings like fear of Extraterrestrials with anal probes and any number of a thousand other things resembling sodomy for no reason whatsoever but just because it was a chance maladaption to fear things resembling sodomy; such a sign of genius in Christians, modest though it may be is even more impressive than not magically believing that people have very specific crazy feelings like fear of Extraterrestrials with anal probes and any number of a thousand other things resembling sodomy for no reason whatsoever but just because it was a chance maladaption, the more obvious sense Christians are more logical than ass-screwing pro-sodomy PC idiot pseudo-scientists. Maladaption indeed! One doesn't need to share Locke's opinion about no ideas being innate (though it might help) to see what an extraordinary incredible unbelievable phenomenon that would be! All you have to be is possessed of the common sense of a NON IDIOT and bother just a little actually using one's brain to judge whether in fact it makes sense to view sodomy as something sodomized people might need to fear (on account of it being chemically addictive) more than sodomized people with no insane tendencies would. Now, of course, I know what else the pompous twits will say about my little diatribe. “Oh, you are one of those crazy people that use ALL CAPS and ramble on and on and on and on and on and on and on like looney man, so you can't be right and might actually be...DANGEROUS—stand back people, I know prejudice and a homophobe when I see one, and here's a clear case.” To quote Church Lady (yeah, she's by orders of magnitude wiser than these people), “Well isn't that special?” Of course I am using ALL CAPS and rambling on and on and on and on and on and on. Why? BECAUSE I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WORTH BEING PARANOID ABOUT, and I don't just assume that what constitutes proper effective usage when discussing something not worth being paranoid about is actually totally the same as proper effective usage when discussing something worth being paranoid about, and I'm not so prejudiced against insane people to believe that their typical usages don't have a useful purpose, and what's more to the point (and bitter experience has taught me this to be the case) I know that most of the audience will be too IDIOTIC and GULLED to even evaluate (much less recognize) the particular simple truth, no matter how obviously presented, etc., etc., etc., etc., that SODOMY IS EVIL. I, prejudiced? Can anything equal the prejudice of pro-sodomy people against the insane? As I have suggested, many if not most insane people are (provided one weights errors in the most reasonable way, according to their importance) wiser and more reasonable than sane people, because the latter tend to be too fucked up, fucking up, or deluded to realize that sodomy could be evil. So are they treated accordingly? Hell no. They are locked away in asylums. Not so long ago practices were to sterilize them and remove parts of their brains. They are given mind altering chemicals in the guise of medicine until they can't think straight or their brains are fried. Their brains are fried more directly with electroshock treatments. In the name of pity they are given the gift of being protected from the tickets they might receive when in the confusion and wandering that sometimes accompanies pushing oneself to the edge to figure something out (the something sane people are too morally lax and indifferent to bother trying to figure out) they trespass or jaywalk or do the very occasional significant crime, the effect of which is that every murderer, rapist, forcible sodomizer, etc., will try to get out of his crime by convincing clueless psychologists that yeah he did it because he was insane. Since psychologists tend to be only a little wiser on average than rapists and murderers (the idiocy of forcible sodomizers can not be underestimated), the gift is mainly a gift of stigma, much worse than no gift at all. So I, by believing what most insane people would see as obvious or at least very plausible am being prejudiced just because I actually use my brain to inquire whether it likely that sodomy is evil instead of just assuming that what reflection, observation, thought, etc., suggests I believe should not be believed because that's the sort of thing insane people believe because they are fucking idiots deserving of the misuse inflicted upon them because they are so dumb as to believe crazy things like sodomy is extreme evil? I DON'T THINK SO! Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that gay people (nor sodomizers, the precise group that deserves hatred) are being abused to any unusual extent except by people with sodomizer traits, or that the formerly established tradition of outlawing their sodomizing (the archetypal insidious abuse) is an abuse that should be unconstitutional (not that this outlawing is so important by a mile as people not being punished for believing and expressing that sodomy is evil, a right sodomizers are ever trying to destroy). But the people most against sodomy and everything resembling sodomy are locked up, ridiculed, forcibly drugged and electroshocked, and made poor by being forced or all but forced to PAY (at exorbitant rates) for their own attempted brainwashing by psychologists or psychiatrists. Whoa, people might say, paranoid not just about sodomy but paranoid about psychiatrists and psychologists too, sounds like paranoia to me. But no. One needs not be a genius to see the illogic of THAT argument. Indeed, since psychology is largely about denigrating insane tendencies (it is hard to make money by arguing the truth and curing something when the truth is that what you want to cure is a better than a normal “sane” state), who after all would tend to go into psychology? Largely, one would expect people who have other reasons to assert that insanity is especially bad would go into that field. And since insanity is a DEFENSE AGAINST SODOMY, one group of people who might go into psychology would be people who like sodomy—sodomizers and the people they have deluded (by sodomy) into feeling sodomy be good. There's a very simple reason psychologists are by and large nasty sadists—they include among their numbers a disproportionately large number of sodomizers, and sodomy largely if not mostly is about nasty torture. You can't expect a field with an unusually large number of sodomizers in it to be otherwise than vile, unjust, selfish, and sadistic. I'm not saying that there might not be some people, even in the psychiatry profession, who might have some benevolent interests in correcting the wrongs inflicted upon the insane or the excesses, fatigues, etc., that the insane can experience until they find the truth they are seeking. For once you feel (rightly or wrongly) that you ass depends on figuring out something, damn the torpedoes, one will try to figure it out with a vengeance. A right necessary vengeance if it is actually the case one's ass literally does depend upon it, but not so necessary otherwise, which can lead to unfortunate exhaustion. A good psychologist with common sense would stress mainly the importance of lots of sleep, not thinking too hard about things, eating right—things all too easy to forget in misguided obsessions. But mostly what a good psychologist would do is just point out that, hey, what is actually REALLY important is to not suck and to not get your ass screwed (instead of avoiding alien anal probes or whatever), and I doubt you'd find that anywhere in the whole barren idiocy of the field.

Now that I've gone after the pseudo-intellectuals and the psychologists and psychiatrists I know I have to also go after the elitists, because really, if you are going to be a total conformist idiot about sodomy, which is like probably almost everybody, I'm not going to very much be able to save your throat until I have put a nice long stake in whatever gives you respect for that particular nasty creature. Rich people in particular come across as more clean and less screwed-up than most people, at least if one has been around an appreciable number. (Poor and middle class people who haven't been at all around rich people, doubtless influenced by the wrong sort of TV, on the other hand occasionally would seem to have this notion that the rich typically use their money to lead lavish fucking lifestyles, that I really suspect are rather quite contrary to usual.) I do not deny this. But they also don't seem to show much concern about sodomy. This might seem something I would have to explain before I could be taken seriously, more especially since it is common practice among those willing to admit that being screwed-up is a real phenomenon to determine whether something is screwed-up by evaluating how common it is among those good at making money, a tendency to make money being widely acclaimed as the sure sign of not being screwed-up. To be sure, though the association is much weaker than associations that exists in much better tests, becoming addicted to sodomy tends to be bad for one's monetary welfare; but it does not follow, actually, that rich people really are better at understanding screwed-up-ness or what to be paranoid about, even if one admits they are less screwed up.

What is definitely the case is that the wealthy are more effective at attracting desirable members of the opposite sex with money than poor people are (because poor people have little if any money to do the attracting, of course). But it is not so clear at all that rich people are better at attracting desirable people of the opposite sex with love or real sexual pleasure. Neither is it clear that they are better at attracting these with depravity (sodomy). Accordingly, it tends to be advantageous for selfish rich people to argue the appropriateness of people mating especially for money (or as is less blatantly morally dubious, the importance of children being especially well provided for, as only rich spouses can ensure). Though they don't probably realize it, in their outlook toward money, the wealthy nowadays tend to support the worldview of Robert Owen, the wealthy inventor of socialism, who believed the reason poor people were morally unrefined was that they lacked money and the conveniences and necessities it could buy (as opposed to the pietists, the other early 19th-century group concerned about the welfare of the poor, who believed that the poor were morally unrefined also because they didn't take church seriously enough). It used to be that the selfishness of the rich was largely due to their identifying with their class and behaving rather as a snobby cartel, but probably more from the universal influences of television, movies, etc., I think the phenomenon nowadays is more individual, ironically more stemming from the aforementioned socialist idea. The rich really do tend to be cleaner than the poor, obviously because the more women mate for screwed-up reasons, the less they mate for money, what the selfish of the rich people tend most to selfishly encourage. But it isn't screwed-up mating per se that the selfish of the rich are against, it's having sex otherwise than for money. In particular, the rich are against fucking as I define it, i.e., sex that does not entail the male having monetary responsibility for offspring produced, that being a sort of sex only a female who doesn't greatly value money might want. As a consequence, to the extent the rich marry for money and are against fucking (in my clean sense), they are largely insulated from having to experience or understand the great sexual pleasures and fears that ordinary people are likely to deal with when having relationships. Since they tend to think questions about mating are mainly about resources, what really is the need to worry about things like whether sexual feeling is true pleasure or true love, or whether it is a screwed-up feeling? What they are more likely to view as important is whether the relationship is financially prudent or not. All the important emotions about love, sexual pleasure, cleanliness, etc., that can sweep people into sex, rich people are apt to think just somewhat plebeian, of no more consequence than screwed-up emotions and not really amounting to anything compared with comfy? “I-am-provided-for” feelings. The attitude is that as long as children go to the right private school starting with kindergarten, experience the society of the right country-, yacht-, polo-, or hunting- club, listen to the right operettas, concertos, symphonies, etc., can play 3 instruments, know French and have done the Grand Tour, What really is the worry? How could any kid who has experienced these select advantages be enticed by vulgar phenomena like what the poor classes call “What is the term?” “Fucking, I believe that's the word they use.” [I mock here what I am imitating rather than what I am imitating mock.] It's a convenient line for the rich to tow, or at any rate, they consider it such. Yeah, the rich are cleaner from being against sodomy emotions, but then since they tend to conservatively be against the clean fucking emotions those emotions might be confused for, there really isn't anything discriminating about the rich in how they distinguish depravity from clean sexual emotion. No great wisdom there more than in other classes. ANYWAY, paranoia, properly being about sodomy, something the rich tend to feel is a plebeian consideration, the wealthy tend to classify as just another lower class vulgarity arising from not having experienced the proper sort of society. This has had an interesting consequence among the rich. Human nature is such that whenever one's fears are just flat out stupid, the way rich people think sodomy is no more important to be correct about than how the poor should fix grits, well, one is likely to have a sense one's fears are misplaced. It makes one anxious, especially if the people around you tend to be the same anxious. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the central tenet of the religion of the rich is that there is nothing to fear but the improper upbringing and society typical of poverty. Of course, this belief system makes them pompous (because they have had the “great” upbringing) and unable to see the great mistakes and mischief that they themselves (e.g,. through their financial institutions) inflict upon humanity, because their illustrious upbringings have trained them to think that with such upbringings fear can have no or little purpose, and so contrary to every other group and human nature, even about things not relating to sodomy (like whether the whole financial establishment is largely a parasitic now-zombie abomination) they are deficient in fear. But anxiety, fear of not having the right fears, no amount of obnoxiousness and brainwashing can make them avoid though they get “medicine” for it and willingly pay to get brainwashed by the psychologists, etc. (Of course, a few can avoid it by being reasonable, which doubtless is why I have noticed that coolness, i.e., lack of anxiety, tends especially to be in the rich people I like well or can imagine liking well.) The better rich people, the rich people who sense that there is a place for wildness (and great sexual pleasure and love in particular), one feels sorry for them, because they are so poorly educated about distinguishing true love and pleasure from depravity, you know they aren't empowered to be able to be true to their better desires with anything like prudence, notwithstanding they are better able to afford it. Vicious circle. Tiger Woods is an interesting recent case. I knew as soon as the Tiger Woods scandal came out the the rich would scoff at him like trash. To rich people, the whole game of golf has been dragged in the dirt and I predict will lose much lustre among them. It's not like basketball, where Wilt Chamberlain could do anything and no one cares hardly. Golf is largely a rich person's sport. .His behavior is soooo contrary to what rich people suggest is a consequence of being rich and privileged with the company of the wealthy. Still, what does one expect of a person who's been too influenced by rich people when he tries to be wild? Extreme ignorance and no plan that could enable him, famous that he was, to do better than pick up barmaids and hookers. His being wild may not have been money, but how he carried it off sure was. Not that wealth is all bad for wisdom. Wisdom takes contemplation, which for sure takes free time, which requires (not very much, but some) money; good nutrition, e.g., fresh produce, is very important for clear thinking and costs money or the land and time to grow it; similarly, private schools being diverse, there are probably private schools out there better than public schools, because of course a well-run private school can spend more money on wise instruction (I have not studied the matter to know what these schools are, though), but really, it's hard for me to imagine even a good private school not attracting by its very more expensive nature a larger percentage of children whose parents are more interested in their kids being around rich children (who make wealthier mates and better future business partners) than a good education, which can't be good for education. A good private school, for this reason, probably would more encourage teacher-student interaction than student-student interaction.

The ideas in the footnote about rich people turned out as interesting as what I was intending to write about. I rewrote part of it as a comment here at Matt Taibi's blog. It might take a while to load since it concerned a popular blog that has many comments, and so I'll take the liberty of copying it:

Strange that Brooks would accuse Edwards of encouraging class division. It seemed perfectly clear to me that the reason Edwards gained the national stage in 2004 was that he said over and over again that he believed in “one America”–it’s probably what made him popular then, until he overdid it so much one was left thinking he had just one idea.

Brooks is being the elitist, and I think I have some insight into the sexual psychology of elitism, which I think is what you most need to improve your understanding about. You make out in your Rolling Stone articles like rich elitists are a bunch of nasty fuckers, but I’m inclined to think that’s off, and that in fact mostly the rich are too anti-fuck, which of course aligns with their selfish interests since rich males are better (than their competitors) at attracting females by giving them money (and marriage commitment), but not necessarily so as regards attracting them by sexually pleasing them. The non-rich and those who have not suffered themselves to be brainwashed by believing psychology (the modern word for the official-institution-sanctioned dogma as regards what human nature is like, which at any time is doomed to be very wrong compared with what a halfway reasonable person using common sense and just a little time can come up with) tend to have a clue that paranoia, when it is appropriate, is a defense against nastiness corrupting sexual pleasure and love. Since the rich tend to think that the strong emotions of love, sexual pleasure, and depravity are mostly just for plebeians too uneducated and unrefined to mate for money, and that (since in their minds all fucking is plebeian) how to keep fucking emotions clean is an issue of no more interest than how poor people prepare grits, they can have an alternative view of what makes a screwed-up person. To the rich, not being exposed to the right schools, classical music, country clubs, etc., is what makes a screwed-up person, a person who mates from vulgar emotion. Since the rich have mostly experienced this cultivation, nay even partly from their own “wisdom” having sought it out notwithstanding its frequent dullness, How could they view themselves otherwise than as inspired benevolent geniuses (the “best and brightest”, to use Obama’s phrase), and what would be the point in self-doubt (beyond admitting that they can occasionally make mistakes)? Certainly they would be loath to view the occupation of the most of the richest of them (banking) as mostly very harmfully parasitical, useful mainly just for storing money and for making a minimal amount of loans to keep loan sharks at bay, and quite harmful beyond that.

Unlike what the tone of your Rolling Stone articles somewhat suggest, the rich (except perhaps for a few mostly hidden non-influential ones who have become so exclusive as to almost never have opportunity to mate outside their group, who probably tend to become so nasty and against the prevailing spirit among the wealthy that they end up becoming exclusive more from necessity than choice) are actually much less nasty than the poor. Why wouldn’t they be? Sodomy is cheap. Even a poor person can afford to sodomize a girl. Nastiness is not something a rich person can do more potently than a poor person. The typical sexual sin of the rich is not nastiness but mating excessively for money rather than from either love or (in females) sexual pleasure.

The irony is that the problem is that in philosophical outlook, the rich have become like the original socialists, full of the belief that lack of money and the advantages it can afford is almost exclusively what causes people to become brutish, the very opinion that set the pietists to start the movement against the first socialist, Robert Owen (unlike Owen, the pietists thought that church is also important in avoiding brutishness). (For a readable history of the matter, I suggest googling the excellent book, Some Thing Went Wrong A Summation of Modern History, by Lewis Browne.)

Not that there might not be more than a little nastiness in finance, as one would expect merely from the natural association between corruption and nastiness (maybe more in the city? maybe more among the young?). But I have been some places where investment bankers live, and mostly my impression is that people there are too worried about crazy things like keeping their children from getting screwed when they don’t get into the right kindergarten to have time or energy for actual screwing. Even if they wanted to be sexually wild, they’d be too stupid to be able to do so without unusually great danger. Hang around rich people enough, and you’ll get so stupid fuckwise the best you’ll be able to do may be just to buy sleazy escorts; look at Tiger Woods—a famous athlete like that and apparently he couldn’t find anyone better to fuck with—doubtless if the gossip is accurate in describing his behavior, he’s been around rich people too much. The response of rich people to Tiger Woods’ alleged fucking behavior is already revealing. The simplest explanation is that he has lost his advertising contracts (in a way that a basketball fucker probably wouldn’t) because rich people have contempt for fuckers, and golf is a sport mainly for rich people.

Perhaps I should correct the impression that I actually use cuss words ordinarily; I don't, but probably that's mainly just because no one around me uses them. But I don't consider it improper using the word "fuck" when fucking is what I actually am talking about and when I am not talking with people that would give me a hard time about it; indeed, it strikes me as elitist to feel otherwise.

I was going to elaborate more about why controlling via sexual emotions is something one would expect to be more common in good people than in bad people (unlike the case with vile means of controlling), but it feels too much for me to do presently. Maybe later, since it is important, if controlling by sexual emotion be appropriate, that it be something one would especially tend to find in good people. Also, I still have to deal with the matter of whether controlling feelings might chemically cancel out the harmful effects (so far as intraejaculate sperm selection is concerned) of desiring something importunately just because it is pleasant feeling. And there is the matter of what to do with girls whose soaring nature might seem incompatible with being controlled in any way. There might be a few girls who, I guess on account of their unusually strong ability to love in the right way always just don't care about their own pleasure in such a way as to be able to be controlled. Ordinarily, it is safer for themselves for girls to have sex from pleasure than love, but if a girl is some kind of freakishly ultrasensitive bird girl or something, it's only insignificantly safer, and thus a matter of indifference to her, and one just has to put up with not being much in control, and even if one didn't, one might not be sure enough to bring it off as to risk inflicting ineffective (and therefore pointless) punishments. I am too unsure about my true feelings there, though (those girls must be very rare and hard to come at), to be able to write much about it soon. But I thought I should qualify my arguments by admitting there might be a girl somewhere I don't want to control, probably just because I can't or it is too risky trying.

I know I haven't been posting much lately. I am still having fairly many ideas to write about, but somehow I am have lately had difficulty writing about them, especially finishing writing about them. I start writing, and then I get so I don't feel like it is right to finish presently. I can't well explain this.

Kaupthinking, music and girls

2009-08-27T07:10:00.000-07:00

I essentially wrote this post a couple months ago or so, thinking I would add a few more paragraphs about why not infrequently girls like the particular often twisted sounding music they do, but bother, I don't seem to be coming back to it, so I'll post it now as it is.

This commercial, which was linked to from the finance blog I read, nakedcapitalism (whch got it from brontecapital), is one of the funniest things I have ever encountered. For those who don't know, Icelandic banks were arguably the most reckless banks in the world. The UK, for instance, last fall became so concerned about British depositors getting their money back after the financial crisis hit that they used anti-terrorism laws to seize the assets of the British subsidiary of Kaupthing, likening Iceland (or at least their banking operations) to a terrorist state just to protect their citizens from the consequences of the Icelandic banks' shenanigans.

Our world could use a good deal more normal thinking. Moral philosophy, in particular, is mostly just taking the time and bother to patiently consider the consequences of various behaviors via "normal" thinking.

The poohbahs in business and (more particularly, it seems) the financial world are forever praising enthusiasm. One should see why they do this. Enthusiasm is a short-term emotion. After someone has worn herself out with it, the company who employs her can just say, "we're sorry, we no longer believe you are a good fit with us, goodbye". They've got her to work years for them at the mad dog pace depicted of Kaupthing employees, and now she's a worn out shell or about to go into the looney bin, bother, time for a new employee.

I am, I'd say, mostly a patient person who doesn't like to get too worked up about things. And yet, I am still not patient enough, mostly, probably, in a lot of ways. I'm attracted to youth, though, which some might wonder whether it yields a conflict. I don't think it is quite as much my problem as it is the girls' problem, though. Enthusiasm, determination, resolve, are those the right emotions that encourage relationships to take place when females are still young in the right way? I'm skeptical. Take music. I think the main reason girls like music is that it enables them to play with adult feelings about sex and romance. It is not like females magically become enlightened about such matters. If girls don't explore feelings about sex until they become adults, sure, they will be older when they have sex, but age won't have brought increased wisdom when it comes making right choices in their sexual relationships because they won't have felt or played about the emotions surrounding it. But if one takes a long-term approach, music and similar more-or-less purely emotional influences should just be a part of what has developed one's sense of self. A more long-term approach demands more rational thought. Music is OK, I guess, but ideally it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

One might think that music could encourage females to have sex early in the right way, but mostly, as regards music as it is, this would be a mistaken belief--certainly it would appear at best half-right. Music, and more particularly music with rhythm and dance-inducing aspects that encourages movement is by its very nature rather contrary to the quite peaceful stillness associated with the more tantric sexual attitudes that are appropriate for young-female sex if the sex is worth much. As I have mentioned before, imo the significance of females being young during sex is that intraejaculate sperm selection selects for a different sort of sperm if the female is young. Movement is like shaking up a die before tossing it--it makes things more (undesirably) random. Of course, there is the legitimate objection that total stillness makes expression more difficult, and maybe there could be a more, idk, still sort of music based more on melody or poetry that could in fact be something suited to girls believing in having sex early like girls need to have sex when they have sex early for the right reasons, but I doubt whether such music exists. Most music girls listen to is more about playing with the sort of sexual and romantic emotions that they might have as adults than with the sort of emotions they might feel when young if they really wanted sex presently.

What is the deal, then, with music that (some) girls seem to take very seriously? One reason, of course, a girl might take music very seriously is that music is what she is interested in because her talents more lie in the musical sphere. She might be considering going into music as a profession. But mostly to lopsidedly explore art and more particularly the musical arts at the expense of more logic-oriented endeavors doesn't really make sense except in the short term. One's innate feelings and tendencies only go so far. They are not sufficient to guide one very well in life because life is too complicated to have innate feelings about everything. One must abstract (using logic) from these feelings and an understanding of reality an understanding of these feelings. Doing this, one develops new, abstracted feelings, and grows as a person. Moreover, when one has a better understanding of oneself, one knows better what to observe and remember in order most easily to improve one's understanding. And because understanding yourself well encourages the sort of behavior that is natural for you, and since behavior that is natural for you is more likely to be something you are likely to have interesting unexplored feelings about, understanding can lead to more profound experiences. Having lots of feelings about what you are interested in, observing them well and going by what they more-or-less immediately make you feel like doing might be a reasonable approach in the short run, because it is quick, but more long term it is more reasonable to balance feeling and observation with rational thought. I really am inclined to think that mostly the girls who seem obsessed with music are that way because they want to have sex soon rather than later and so feel they need to mature fassssst; this would appear to be the simplest explanation.

But what is the point really? Why should a girl rush to have a sort of sex at 18 that she could have just as well at 35? Why don't they listen to music that is about the more immature feelings more appropriate to immature females having sex? I think it is frustration more than anything. Mostly girls would like males to dance, play, etc., with them more often so them they can explore their adult feelings more, which can make them better prepared when they become adult. Getting angry about it, they can sometimes fall into a fanaticism that leads them to view the music they listen to as more than just something to play with. They sometimes instead make the mistake that their obsession with music is on account of art being higher than thought, and that the feelings in the music apply to them now in a not-just-for-exploration way, at least if for some male they have some natural (or unnatural) feelings for wanting sex sooner than latter

Life

2009-08-20T22:08:00.000-07:00

It occurs to me, I haven't talked much about my progress with the logic paper I have mostly written. Today I had an interesting dream that I think was about it, so I'll say something about it. I finished a first draft of it last year. But there are errors. The few very significant errors I have corrected very easily. (Since I am not much of an example-oriented person, I have a tendency not to notice much when I prove something ridiculous if error causes me to do that.) That's not the problem, though—these were easily corrected. What I most hope to do in the current draft (which I hope to make public) is give the paper polish. In particular, the part of logic that most bothers me is model theory. Mostly, I think the subject should be done away with. But there are necessary bits and pieces there that I need. How to present these bits and pieces in the right way has proved more difficult than I had anticipated.

Everything came to an impasse in early May, I think it was. I was sputtering along steadily typesetting the paper and polishing it up, but then a little less than half way through, I realized that there must be some general result that allows one in certain circumstances to replace entailment with implication (in the context of the silly logic). One of my professors at North Carolina had taught me that entailment ought to be distinct from implication, and indeed I believe it. The formula A implies B should be thought of as the most general formula whose conjunction with A entails B, and the entailment relation should be thought of as the same thing as the "less general than" relation (where "less" is not interpreted strictly, in fact any formula should be considered less general than itself). Annnywayyy, though it may be true that entailments and implications tend to hold in similar circumstances, they really are different. For instance, in my silly logic, A entails B precisely if not B entails not A; but it turns out that if A implies B is silly, then not B implies not A is just plain false. Still, though, it was intuitively clear to me that there must be a metatheorem allowing one in a certain natural subset of inference rules to replace entailment with implication (replacing metalogical connectives with ordinary logical connectives) to yield theorems. In other words, I could sense the existence of a (for me) advanced applied logic theorem that would enable me in one giant swoop to prove about, idk, maybe 20% of the basic logic theorems that I otherwise would have to prove separately. In the course of about a week or two in March or April I guess it was, I really went at it, (metaphorically) engaging in much banging my forehead against the wall, and came up with two cute similar little results that gave what I was looking for. The problem is that the whole structure of the results was very demanding of the little bits and pieces of what is called model theory. And when thinking about it, I couldn't at all easily separate all the nonsense I had learned about model theory from the essence of the matter. Somehow where my brain had previously been fairly clear-headed, I now became confused; even though I felt the problem was just making a few very simple definitions, my mind became so much like a tornado full of irrelevant flying debris, logic became hard. I guess I felt I had to just get away from logic for a while to let things settle or I would be unable to sense what these definitions were. And clearly it was very important for elegance (and even usefulness) that the right definitions be made. At any rate, the clarity was just not there. I haven't thought about logic since May.

Mostly, I have been blaming myself for having been too applied. But the dream I had this morning makes me think I'm taking the wrong outlook about it. I dreamed I had just showed up at Michigan (the University in Ann Arbor) again, and I was just about to move into a dorm room or efficiency or something when there outside on a sidewalk someone was selling a sturdy utilitarian and attractive antique dresser. Wow! I thought. I bought it right away, good deal. Then it occurred to me: I will need to put this in my room. It might be a tight fit and I have no truck (or even car) to get it there. Somehow this dresser represented my advanced applied logic theorem. It first appeared very useful to me, but then on second thought, it wasn't as useful as it seemed, making life difficult for me. The wood was interesting. It seemed some kind of very high quality wood, but wasn't quite as dark I think as black walnut, which made me afeared 'twas the dreaded white walnut, but mostly I didn't think it was that either. It looked kind of like Oak but without the open grain. And then a kindly-looking black (he wouldn't have been black if it was made of white walnut) man saw me in my quandary standing in front of the dresser I had bought, and offered to help me put it beneath an awning while I had to go away to prepare to put it in its proper place. And as he was doing that it turned out (it became revealed) that there were two little diorama cabinets that you had to get (free) with the dresser. The sorts of things which if presentable you might expect to find ensconcing a very small nativity scene or surrounding a show-and-tell presentation if kids could afford that sort of thing and the teacher wanted to keep it on display. But the thing is, they were covered in peeley green paint. Perhaps some would have claimed the effect antiquesy looking, but it was hideous. These hideous things, I figure, do represent the necessary parts akin to model theory that I need to find or keep. But first I have to remove the awful paint, which represents all the rubbish in that subject. The best I can figure, the moral of the dream is that I should appreciate the theorem for what it is made of, which is a fine wood easy to underappreciate from its ad hoc quality. The insights the theorem may cast on what is called model theory may be more important than the applications. In fact, probably, I have been thinking, I should prove its applications separately anyway, only introducing the theorem after I have proven the results in the normal way. It is too big and particular and advanced a result to present early. But instead of looking at it as something that introduces ugliness I should more see it as something that, if enough light is cast upon it, can be stripped of its ugliness, revealing fine wood perfect for displaying beauty and truth.

I dream quite a bit about going back to university, and mostly it is always wrong. When I have dreams about going back to Michigan, I typically end up having to study a bunch of stuff too fast I am not interested in, which I probably can't or won't do anymore, and I always do things in more insane ways not good for efficiency, ruining everything (like buying the dresser). And I'm similar when I dream of going to UNC, except it's worse inasmuch as also I frequently am just wandering about hiding from my math professors because I don't want to have to tell them I didn't get my Ph.D. from Michigan like I had hoped. So, typically (in my dreams), I end up going there with enthusiasm but never go to a class, and each day I'll think to myself, I should really show up to class, but I don't, and then the tuition bill comes and of course I've missed the drop deadline because I was obsessed with understanding why I'm not going to class, and everything (my scholastic record and savings) gets ruined. And with my roommates, in my dreams I never fit in with them.

I used to dream a lot about going back to high school. Similarly, that would always turn out wrong. I'd dream that I'd catch the bus and show up, but then think, now wait a second, I forgot, I'm 30 or 40 or whatever, and people that old are not allowed to go to school--I wouldn't be on the homeroom roster. And then I'd realize I have to go, and so I'd sneak out (without trying to be too obvious that I am an older person a sneaking out), and then after leaving the building I'd have to walk home because I'd remember I was too old to take the bus, but Needwood Road somehow in my dream becomes like some sort of transcontinental highway full of drawbridges, fords, lakes that have to be rowed across (after finding the hidden rowboat), etc., with distracting museums along it. But now I more often instead dream of college, and that goes wrong too, but not so much because of my age (except when it comes to relating to roommates).

I need to be intellectual and practical, but not probably in a university setting. That's what I mostly feel, and my dreams seem to support that. I guess the internet offfers opportunities, and if I can become wise enough, I figure I won't have to make much enlightened effort at selling myself. I can't really imagine how it will work, but eventually, if I keep becoming wiser (what I'm most convinced I am skilled at doing), I'll become so preposterously wise eventually it will become obvious to people (if I maintain openness and don't get considered an enemy by the search engines) that I am extraordinarilly wise, whereupon, something good might happen. That's about the extent of my plan as to how to be practical in life.

Tattoos and my not silly protection racket

2009-07-27T16:33:00.000-07:00

(I don't want to say (it is a secret) one way or the other whether I feel I have the power over my young-female admirers to bring this off, or whether I feel I likely will have such power in the future, but in any case, this on some level rings true to me, and so here it is.)

I hate tattoos. It is very admirable for people to be true to themselves--to their own innate natural tendencies and what they abstract from them by means of their understandings. Especially is this so as regards romantic and sexual feelings. But my innate natural tendencies regarding sex involve naked female form. I do not have natural feelings so much about skin that looks more like a painting than skin. In short, tattoos on a female exacerbate the determination of one's natural sexual feelings about her. Tattoos are like clothes one can't take off.

Some people say that tattoos are about expressing oneself. However, I do not believe it. Much better at expressing oneself visually would be drawings, fashions, jewelries, etc., that one can change. True, tattoos don't wear out, but it's not really like tattoos are much cheaper than other ornamentation. There really isn't much saving of money there. If you can't afford fashion or jewelry, hey, it would still be cheaper than getting a tattoo on your arm and just as expressive to (say) buy a piece of PVC pipe and some paint and make a bracelet. But I am straying from the main argument. Tattoos are contrary to being true to oneself, they are tools of conformists.

Probably tattoos are worse on females than males, because males (it strikes me) more tend to judge matters visually. But it seems to me that the girls who like getting tattoos are so different from the girls that I would want or who would want me (or other decent clean males), that, basically, it is not so much of problem girls getting tattoos. I have noticed many more girls seem to threaten to get tattoos than to actually have the bad sense to obtain one. The problem is that girls who have encountered me or males like me realize that good males (quite appropriately) have a way of trying to force girls to be true to themselves (i.e., the important parts of themselves, which of course does not include the tendency to be afraid of being true to themselves). When girls get scared of males roaring and beating their chests to get them to be true to themselves, it is perhaps understandable that they might find a certain misplaced solace in males who make it so they can't (without much difficulty) force girls to be true to themselves. How can a female be very true to her own natural tendencies as regards sex with a tattooed male when her own natural tendencies about sex regard having sex with males who look like (naked) males as opposed to etchings of whatever? It's just not possible. Tattoos can't just be erased like an etch-a-sketch; apparently, it is a big deal getting rid of them.

With a girl who has sex with a male for pleasure, if she enjoys it enough, it is not hard to force her to be true to herself and to preclude her from finding tattoos attractive or acceptable. Just don't love her well to the extent she likes tattoos and the other conformist claptrap. This will train her to be more virtuously herself. But with a female who has sex mainly from love, it might prove more difficult. It's hard to force a girl like that to be more true to herself, but still, one looks for opportunities, and maybe the girl isn't sure that she won't have pleasures great enough that the male won't have certain (clean) powers over her, yeah. True, a female might be true to herself because that makes her love more dazzling and more attracting of other females to the male she loves (people like to please those they love), but maybe if the male has attracted other females she will instead sort of cede her position in the light, so her having contempt for her lover trying to force her to be true to herself won't appreciably affect what the male gets, and thus so her lover won't be much hurt. But this is not really acceptable. Is there anything the male can do about it?

Suppose you are some girl I love and you go into the background because you start admiring tattoos and commit other violations against the concept of being true to yourself. Because of your withdrawal and because you won't look as much like you are really being yourself (being so disrespectful of the concept) you will lose influence in the scene. The girls who allow themselves to be forced to be true to themselves will gain it. Suppose by somebody rumors were made to start--oh I'm just saying--I say, rumors might be made to come from these girls to the effect that maybe males with tattoos are not very desirable people really. Ooohhh! What a shame! These might be some of the very males who most listen to you. Mostly these might be nice males, just trying to do what you want. Ohhhh, how terrible... We wouldn't want them to, say, start losing all their girl admirers, now would we? What if no one shows up anymore at their concerts or their fashion shows? They'd lose their jobs and livelihood and girls might stop being nice to them. What a pity [i'm shaking my head back and forth]. Oh no--I'm not mean, I'm like yoo--...: I don't want them to get hurt. I have a proposition for you, girl, yeah,..., mayyyyybe I can help them. Because we really want to help them, don't we? We're nice people. Me, you, my girls, we're all nice people. I'm a nice person, and nice people don't like to see basically good people get hurt. There's nothing wrong with these males maybe except that they trust you and girls like you too much. Tell you what, Just stop making out like you like males to have tattoos and pro'ly I can keep my girls from doing over all the poor tattooed males.

The feelings mothers employ when considering whether their daughters should have sex presently with some particular male

2009-06-14T13:45:00.000-07:00

It's an interesting question the extent to which mothers ideally should influence daughters' mating activity. In some cultures, e.g., those with arranged marriages being the norm, the daughter has very little control over whom she will mate, while in others, the mother has very little control. But of course, no matter what the laws, the person with legal control can for all practical purposes cede it to the other merely by deferring the decision to the other. Who should have control, though an interesting question, is not quite the question that mosts interests me or what I shall discuss here. The most interesting question, it seems to me, and what I wish to elaborate upon, is that of the extent to which a young female's sexual decisions should be influenced by her mother. Moral daughters tend to be in moral families that usually behave morally, and the most important thing is that moral daughters mate reasonably (in such a way as to encourage evolution of their useful and moral traits), which in these families who defer reasonably won't much depend on whether the laws that dictate control are reasonable. As discussed in a previous post, I believe that the main influence a mother should and does have over her daughter's sexual activity is to inform the daughter of the chances that such activity would be a large mistake. In reasonable families, the main control a mother can and does have over her daughter relationship-wise is that she can make the daughter afraid of a male or more comfortable with him, depending upon whether the mother is herself afraid or comfortable with him being intimate with her daughter. When a mother protects a daughter from what she sees as a big mistake, the chances that the daughter actually by nature (as opposed to from deception or nefarious controlling influence) really wants to do what she is contemplating are fairly slim, more especially because the daughter is half from the mother after all. Thus, there is not the least reason why a mother should think that protecting her daughter from a big sexual mistake with a male or encouraging her to feel more sexually comfortable with a male is otherwise than encouraging her daughter to be true to herself (and it is important that people are true to their innate natures when they mate, lest ideal virtuous mating tendencies not be selected for by evolution) and no reason why a daughter would view respecting her mother there as disrespecting herself or being untrue to herself. Accordingly, mothers have a tendency to specialize in evaluating danger, i.e., possibilities of daughters' large mistakes—it's what is and should be most influential. More especially do they specialize thus because such specialization and influence has caused mothers to evolve to be unusually effective (compared with daughters) at such activity. What I have new to say is that there are a couple mistakes mothers tend to make.

When a mother vicariously considers whether a particular man is the right sort to be intimate with her daughter, the part of herself that she puts into the consideration is largely that part of her that deals with safety and danger. When she fantasizes about her daughter having sex with a male, the pleasure tends to go up and down depending upon her present particular intimations and impressions of how safe her daughter would be with him. Insofar as her imagination is concerned, the mother's impression of the pleasure that a male would give her daughter should the male be not very much worse than he seems is something that she should and largely will judge mostly from what she feels her daughter thinks. My impression is that mothers on occasion make the mistake of believing that their own particular mental and emotional inputs that they use when judging a male are better and more important than those that their daughters would more tend to use. Just because a mother is more mature is no reason for her to think that the thoughts and internal feelings that are in her when she judges a mate for her daughter are better than the thoughts and feelings that are in her daughter when the daughter fantasizes more directly about a male. Mature approaches are not always better; it is often highly appropriate, in fact, that immature people behave immaturely. I'm not saying it is wrong for parents to be concerned for their daughters' sexual safety to a large degree (compared with their daughters' concern), I am saying it is wrong to slight the young daughters' tendencies to possess feelings of love and pleasure that just sort of assume that the male is safe (largely to the degree her mother thinks). The mature need to be mature, and the immature need to be immature. Girls need more than to avoid big mistakes—they also need to avoid little mistakes and to obtain rewards small or great, and the possibilities of the latter is what their immature selves are good at evaluating themselves, and what they should straightforwardly be themselves in fantasizing about and evaluating. Also, love needs not only that it not be thrown away on an utter villain, but also that it be given to him who is worthy or, better yet, very worthy. Because their childrens' safety is what mothers should tend to be most concerned about, and because mothers mistakenly think the children too should share the same concern, mothers tend to overestimate the importance of safety. A mother can play an important role in making her daughter feel safe when she is sufficiently safe and scared when she is in danger, but these matters are not particularly what daughters should be much concerned about, at least if the daughters can trust their parents.

The other mistake mothers tend to make is that they misinterpret their feelings of safety. When a mother vicariously fantasizes about a male having sex with her daughter, it is hard to say exactly, but my impression is that the physical pleasure which varies depending on how comfortable she feels about the male being safe is a sort of all-over-the-skin tingly comfy feeling. That it is an all-over feeling presumably protects the mother (and it's usually mothers who think so much of safety) from thinking the fantasy is probably about wanting sex herself. I think a mother might confuse this feeling with the comfortable feelings she might have about the male's ability or desire to provide materially for his daughter, which would after all tend to make the daughter more safe (from other things, like starvation). I leave it to females to determine what exactly this latter feeling is like, but presumably it is different from a feeling that a male is safe in the sense it's not at all likely he's much worse than he appears.

This confusion, when together with the confusion of the preceding paragraph, only tends to aggravate in mothers the tendency to overestimate the importance of money, a conceit, of course, mostly held by older people. (Older people hanging around mainly older people, and older people tending to have the most money and thus the most to gain selfishly by making money seem extra-important, the tendency for old people to overestimate the importance of money would exist even without the confusions mentioned.) Also, it might make mothers overestimate the ability of a virtuous (and thus totally safe) male to be a provider, creating unrealistic expectations.

Another consideration, it occurs to me, is that a female lusting is a dangerous (though potentially quite rewarding) phenomenon to her. As females age, they have less-and-less capacity to lust, mostly because lust is not rewarding to older females as it can be to younger females (not that lust is not more dangerous for younger females, but that is besides the point) (my theory is that female lust is significant mainly because it encourages intraejaculate sperm selection after being absorbed by a male). Anyway, too often as women age they mistake their decreased desire to lust as an effect of wisdom; it has nothing to do with wisdom, just maturity. Women's bodies are such they can't select for sperm especially suited to fertilizing young females, and so largely they have no use for lusting (an important exception being if other females, and more especially other young females are also involved). There is a tendency for women to believe the widespread lies of vile males, who mostly tend like the Taliban to view female lust as evil or stupid, and to consider their decreased lust as proof that females lusting is not only immature but stupid, to be quickly dismissed away as just a kind of immature “raging hormones” or whatever. This sort of tendency goes hand in hand with their tendency to think danger too important. I strongly do not think, however, that in practice this general disrespect for lust that women have discourages mothers from wanting their daughters to lust. A woman may and often does think female lust foolish, but once she encounters a male she thinks sufficiently safe whom she knows her daughter from her own (the daughter's) nature is very much sexually in love with, all those abstract considerations get thrown out the window. A mother in a situation like that very quickly realizes her not wanting to feel lust for sex is not an effect of mature wisdom, because though she isn't much keen on lusting for own sexual activity, she definitely will emotionally appreciate the pleasure of her daughter having lust, which will make mockery of her theories about how female lust is foolish on account of it being something only immature females with their immature brains could want. Why would she want to hurt her daughter? Indeed, the extent to which a girl should lust when having sex depends heavily on how safe the sex is; if a male is virtuous, a girl should be lustful, else there is no benefit to having sex young; but if the male is a deceptive villain, her feeling lust is a disaster, and will select for the most pathetic sperm imaginable—it's way worse than randomness. What really makes a (young) girl want to feel lust for a male during sex is her impression of her sexual evaluations being safe. A mother who wants her daughter to have sex wants her daughter to feel safe and comfy (in the sense of the sex not being dangerous as opposed to the sense of feeling the male will likely be a good provider for her), because she wouldn't want her daughter to have sex if she didn't think the sex is safe. Since mothers tend to specialize in evaluating danger and this comfyness effectively, a mother soothing her daughter when the mother actually wants to the daughter to have sex goes a very major way to making the daughter feel more safe. And a particular reason a mother wants her daughter to feel sexually safe, beyond that it can make the daughter want sex, is that it can make the daughter feel the sex is safe for lust. So it's only among mothers who haven't much experienced situations in which they wonder whether their young daughters should have sex who view their incapacity to lust as just another proof that girls need safety especially much. When mothers actually encounter males they want their daughters to have sex with, the reality of their desire for their daughters to feel lust is so strong (even compared with what the daughter herself is feeling), that disillusion is likely to be more-or-less immediate and in all likelihood more than sufficient. But it is pretty unusual for a girl to meet someone she should feel so sure about that she should have sex with him presently rather than later or not-at-all, and thus for a mother to want her young daughter to have lustful sex; so unfortunately, though women's underestimation of the specialness of female lust doesn't in practice much discourage women from encouraging their daughters to take risks for the sake of lustful pleasure, yet it makes the general social climate toward girls taking risks for their sexual pleasure and more particularly the risk of girls lusting for their own sexual pleasure a much more inimical one than it should be.

One might have noticed one could argue in reverse that girls, denying their parents' modes of thinking, tend to underestimate the importance of safety. It may be true that girls tend to underestimate the importance of safety and the danger of danger, but I don't think the reasons are entirely analogous. Parents can't always be there to protect girls; girls have no choice but often to put themselves into judging whether a male is safe, which to a certain extent they should do regardless (but probably not quite to the extent they should respect their parents' views there if they respect their parents and their parents' abilities as much as they do themselves and their own abilities). Accordingly, all the aforementioned arguments apply significantly more weakly in the reverse direction. But there is another consideration. Namely, the part of a girl that she does not share with her mother wants just like the rest of the girl to be safe, but it isn't attracted to her mother's considerations on account of her mother being like her (though it might to a certain extent especially value her mother's considerations on account of her mother having less reason to want to behave selfishly toward her). On the other hand, the part of a mother distinct from a daughter shares no pleasure or pain in the daughter making a particular choice, it being unrelated to the daughter; it is at worst indifferent. And so, as I mentioned in a previous post (with perhaps too much allusion toward statistics in it, it seems to me now), girls will undesirably tend to rely on general impressions of how safe a possible relationship would be and whether such safety be important, whereas they would do better (on average) to more respect their parents' opinions and to less encourage their parents to be more normal and less weird.

Caricature of myself

2009-03-27T05:39:00.000-07:00

The other day I was re-reading the poems I have written in the past few years, and noticed an interesting one I had completely forgotten about. According to the word processor, I wrote it July 11, 2006. I don't believe I have heard of anybody named Leilna and have no particular interest in hang gliders. And I am far from being able to identify all plants. Still, the main character sort of reminds me of me.

He swam across the sea

He swam across the sea
to meet her
on the field
in Nimjabaroombom
for it was written,

"At half-past-six and ten-till-two
she’ll come flying by,
riding upon a giant shrew."

He opened his arms
at six-twenty-five,
AM,
hoping to meet her.
Into the wind he turned
for that’s how birds like to fly
when landing.
“Right”,
he thought,
and turned around.

There she was,
above the horizon,
her shrew was flying,
using the latest in bird-suit technology,
replicating free fall in computer-assisted ways
deemed safe.

Her mind was obvious
full of sparkling imaginings,
of things deemed too safe
for those who can’t take boredom,

He lowered his head upon the
dirt
and made obeisance
with his heart
“Oh, great Leilna, I have come to give
homage
to thy glorious presence
and don’t know if you would have the time
to consider me properly,
but I here right now
do give thee the chance
especially considering
that tomorrow
is the fourth of July,
and I wasn’t sure you would
fly that day.”

He quite hidden was
in the tall grass
his arms outstretched
she never really noticed him
and as he bowed down before her
she wandered off
with her bird suit
and unusual pet
and walked back to the pickup point.

Right then
he noticed a movement in the grass
Temporarily forgetting his purpose
for the greater good
he observed a grasshopper
It jumped.

Then, from the other side,
his left,
(when facing Leilna putting the hang glider in the pickup truck)
he spotted it.
What seemed like one thing
actually was another!
No fern that,
here in the dry place,
but a new kind of plant,
one he had not seen before!
Quick,
“zavazravroom”,
“click”,
the for-all-eternity-fixing machine
fixed it
for his later study.
Perhaps this plant is what I need to understand,
he thought,
to understand Leilna.

He wandered to his home,
his mother asked him what he was doing.

Oh, looking at the hang-gliders and
taking pictures of plants.
I found one plant I hadn’t seen before.

OK. But stay away from the cliffs.
And watch out you don’t get landed on!
And could you fix lunch,
your dad is getting hungry.

A right good lunch he fixed,
pea soup
and broccoli,
just what nutritionally
everyone needed.

Off again, he thought,
to the meadow where the pretty girl
will land
today
at 1:50 pm.

Over the creek
he jumped
up the hillside
to the landing zone
he stood tall

Girls, dizziness, and trust

2009-02-13T14:02:00.000-08:00

Except for a dozen or so words of editing, I wrote the poem ending this post a couple days ago. It is not very poetical, but perhaps it makes up for it sufficiently to be worth posting from it being informative. Lately I have been thinking that pretty much there is no chance of being understood by people who are very much afraid of being wrongfully shamed by me. Unfortunately, pretty much all girls who would be interested enough to think about me tend to look like they are that way. I can't say that I deserve this; it's just something that follows from my being wise enough to know how to make a girl ashamed of herself. There is no way one can be wise enough to understand properly how to discriminate between depraved behavior and innocuous behavior without being looked upon as some sort of dangerous individual. If I were to tell a girl she be a skank, my having thought carefully about the exact characteristics of skankiness would make my opinion sting greatly. Why I would do such a thing unless I really believed it, I don't know, but it is just a part of being who I am that I must deal much more than usual with that fear.

It's mainly females who behave dishonestly with each other as regards what is shameful or not. They can be quite manipulative about it (e.g., in making male desires for sex seem shameful, especially if such sex is not accompanied by marriage) with both sexes. Making a female feel like her behavior is shameful has a way of making her want to be more asexual and nun-like--the last thing a male would want. Males aren't often as manipulative that way as females. Of course, there might be a selfish tendency for males to make girls feel their relationships with other males are shameful, so they'll get more sex themselves. But really, females more judge males from the opinion of other females; and really it isn't necessary for a male to tell a girl whether a male is corrupting her or not; it suffices merely to point out what corruption is. And there are hellfire preachers who manipulate with shame to make their congregations bigger, but I am not especially trying to recruit a church.

As regards me, what girls seem to fear more, I feel, is my not really appreciating them very much. They will not especially take seriously what I have to say as long as they think I might be trying to manipulate, mock or trifle with them. Yes, I don't tend to bulldoze through obstacles or overcome external difficulties in relationships as though I be in a Sherman tank. I settle for what is possible. I already am mostly free, and to the extent I am not, well, it's not because depravity has me by the hindquarters, so I doubt whether I should get too perturbed about it. Unlike almost everyone else in this world, I have my own notion of what is depraved and what isn't. In particular, I actually think there is a distinction between humiliating someone by doing something depraved and humiliating someone by pointing out that one is addicted to depravity. If that makes me too dangerous to take me seriously, well, love is not an adequate recompense for sin, so it's not like I'm going to lie about what I believe just for the sake of making me more pleasant to deal with. I guess the main reason I'm slow and not particularly fast as regards females is that usually I mostly have no choice--they have to trust me enough to think about my opinions before my opinions will have any effect other than making me seem pushy and manipulative. And then if they do trust me sufficiently, if I don't get all excited and quick or like I'm fighting Pickett's charge when difficulty arises, maybe that is just because I believe getting all excited won't accomplish anything except to freak out everyone's family and close friends so much that the freedom we both probably mostly have will disintegrate. Yes, that makes sense. At least, I do not interpret my lack of enthusiasm as lack of love. (But she reminds me of electron physics, and I still don't have a clue why (or any well-thought out coherent theory of electron physics or intellectual reason to think I might obtain one), so it's not as though I understand what I am feeling, which has some dim subtlety about it.)

The morning of the day I wrote the poem below, a strange phenomenon occurred to me. I awakened with an extreme dizziness that lasted several hours. It was an extremely miserable feeling, as though I was dying. But the dizziness went away almost as suddenly as it came, and I survived after all. This got me to thinking, Why is dizziness such an extremely wretched sensation? I don't seem to be any worse for the experience. And then it occurred to me that perhaps semen contains chemicals that via sodomy can cause dizziness. That would also explain why dizziness tends to cause vomiting (fortunately I hadn't eaten in twelve hours, so all I vomited was a little water I had drunk)--vomiting is an obvious defense against oral sodomy. Clearly if a sodomy victim is dizzy, that might be expected to tend to make the victim easier to deal with, rape, control, etc. Even when dizziness is not caused by sodomy, the brain probably has evolved to behave as though the dizziness is likely caused by sodomy, which would explain the extreme miserableness and emetic nature of it. (I'm not sure what caused my dizziness. The day before I thoughtless ate I think an excessive number of dates, perhaps on account of being agitated at the Treasury Secretary's preposterous proposal to lend money to people to buy toxic assets, enriching bank investors at the expense of people losing their jobs and going hungry, but I don't know for sure if the dates had anything to do with it.) A girl especially probably would be prudent to play so as to have a good understanding of her natural propensity toward dizziness. And if she is unusually sexually pleased she naturally might tend to shake her head violently by way of comparing her then propensity toward dizziness with that which she had examined during play dance. I think that this might explain why girls (especially apparently) often thrash their heads about in dancing--they're experimenting with their dizziness levels, by way of seeing what these levels are ordinarily or when unusually sexually excited, checking in the latter case to make sure the dizziness levels aren't excessive--and why (I have noticed) that girls who tend to do this thrashing can be unusually clean and attractive looking. I must admit, though, I wonder whether it is often overdone--people can be very black-and-white about anti-sodomy things--leading in this case to excessively sore necks or rattled brains, I imagine.

What I want
I want to be with her.
I want to be able to talk about anything I want.
And be listened to.
And disagreed with when she disagrees.

I want freedom
And so does she
Rescuing each other from the same thing a little illogical.
I am already free,
mostly,
And so is she,
mostly, I guess.

I want to be more sacred in my eating habits.
I chow down way too much without even realizing it
Until it is too late.
I don't really know what else I need to be more disciplined about.

I need to be more lazy
in opposition perhaps
more than anything.
I get too focused on fighting the bad,
my health gives way and I eat a dozen dates without realizing it
and get more sick.

Everything I eat I must eat with sacred due consideration
of its probable effects. I'd prefer always to eat a little less than what I am hungry for.

I wish I could be with her.
But what can I do?
But take more care in my eating habits.

I see death in haste.
Maybe we'll have a child and all three starve.
More probably, what she is brave enough to play with
won't matter as much as what people would think.
I'm odd.
Nothingness all I'd get if I tried.
I don't know why
families would make a commotion,
and win somehow,
they would
unless I don't see this as obtaining freedom.
We're already free.
Emotionally, I don't want to approach this with a running start.
Passion?
Yawn.
I could cover your hand, though,
and look at you,
and say things that I happen to be thinking.
And if you are dispassionate enough, maybe I won't really care
what I say
except that it is true
and interesting
and something you might not have thought of before
in exactly that way.

Females can be sort of strange about pride.
She can make the mistake of thinking what I say matters
not only whether it is true,
but whether it makes her feel good about herself.
To tell a girl her faults to make her feel pain,
a very strange desire
it would be hard to imagine any male possessing
except from a kind of immature anger.
And yet,
I would make a girl feel ashamed of herself if she deserved it.
Reform matters.
And I don't really think girls should respect me if I didn't think so.
What a girl really wants is a male not to emotionally dwell on her faults.

I don't expect a girl not to want to take pride in herself.
I have my own opinions about what is depraved and what is not.
I don't care much what others think beyond their proofs and to the extent I do,
criticize me.
It's perhaps too much for me to hope to find a girl who has her own opinions there.
I don't expect or even want to be trusted,
there.
I want a girl who will mostly trust me,
before very long,
in that I won't try to manipulate her into feeling bad
about things she ought not to feel bad about.
I'm not trying to turn you into church lady.
Not going to make you feel guilt so you'll go to my church.
I don't have a church.
Not going to make you feel guilty about a him just so
you'll sleep with me instead.
Or if I don't believe you should.
I mostly have freedom,
but not enough trust
that I can say things
to someone who will listen and think.
If I had that from you,
I wouldn't need much of any other trust,
since you'd want me yourself,
or move on.
More than what anyone else can give me,
I can imagine from you,
though not for any particular reason
I can understand.

Various Ideas about Girls

2009-01-22T15:17:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd post various ideas I've had lately abut young females, but haven't much yet fit into the whole. Actually, I haven't had much insight about females lately, mostly because I haven't been around them much of late or otherwise had much new data about them, and partly because I have instead been thinking about mathematical logic (and the Silly Logic paper that I've been retouching as I am typesetting it in LaTeX). But even in uninhabited icy plains things can on occasion occur to me. Also, I've been thinking somewhat carefully lately about intellectual and economic snobbery, but what I want to say there is intricate and not yet polished, so it may take a while before I post about it.

1. As I have mentioned earlier, there is something pretty about a girl trying to jolt a male away from guilt by making the latter experience an internal lust in a sort of light way. Males can get in a vicious circle where guilt leads to lack of piety and lack of piety leads to guilt. A girl can jolt one out of that, and good for girls who do so. True, when a girl looks like she is trying to tease the priggishness out of a male there is something seductive about that, probably because men often need to be seduced into something so contrary to the prevailing lies from mercenary females. Anyway, I've mentioned this before. What I haven't mentioned is that when an older female tries to seduce a male by causing him to play with a lust she doesn't plan to be willing to accept, it not only doesn't work, somehow I have an inexplicable feeling it ages the female. It might be relevant that unlike girls, women should be smart enough to be able to use intellectual persuasion as a foil to misplaced sexual guilt in the males they admire.

2. The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to my hypothesis that young girls can be made more fertile by being intimate with older females. The feelings which girls have for older girls are not really symmetrical. To the extent older girls have physical feelings for younger girls, it's mostly about increasing the former's sexual lust. The lust older girls can enjoy from younger girls often makes the former view their feelings for the latter as selfish, dark, and controlling. But it is not at all that way in the reverse direction. Young girls, if my theory about intraejaculate sperm selection is right, don't really have much to gain lustwise from older girls. To the extent younger girls have physical feelings for older girls, it's usually about becoming more fertile and thus having babies. I suppose it is as innocent-seeming as holding a baby doll to one's chest: it is the loving non-lustful sort of way girls are supposed to view physical attraction. The love young girls feel toward older girls is how girls are supposed to love, and so young girls all mostly feel very comfortable about it. I guess this would at least partly explain why preadolescent females tend to be so at ease with worshiping teen starlets like Hannah Montana, etc.

3. Another idea I have had concerns it being very appropriate that females love mainly through sex. Well, sort of. Obviously the caring of motherhood is an important female love. And just the general things females do to make the world a better place at their jobs or in public debates, in the political sphere, etc., are important as they are with males. Still, though, the love that females give through sex is so important and so often maligned that one kind of almost wishes females would think of themselves loving basically just through sex. Women who say love and sex are different and that therefore they aren't bad for being sexually selfish (say, by valuing money over love in their mating decisions) are so common and pernicious, that really it gets to the point one can just be a little fanatical and wish females would just love through sex. I think that is why there is just something attractive and appealing about females who are somewhat physical about their non-sexual affection. It is nice for girls to view affection short of sex as involving physical hugs, etc. And as for the love mothers feel for their babies, somehow that women have breasts makes it seem a more physical thing and as an outgrowth of the sexual love they had in producing the children. When affectionate women care from love, I suppose it is centered in their chest, which somehow seems appropriate, an encouragement however moderate to view their most important loving natures as physical.

It is interesting to consider how female maternal feelings develop. Very young girls, judging from their love of baby dolls, etc., typically seem to have much more maternal feelings than sexual ones. Very young girls not having much capacity for sexual feelings presumably protects them from deceptive feelings that might occur from abuse (sodomy). But near adolescence it is probably rather reversed. Adolescent girls aren't any more maternal than young females, for example, but they can be sexual (they are frequently maligned for “raging hormones”). It's more dangerous for females to have sex from love than pleasure, and somehow it strikes me that girls in particular are more likely to view love for a male as a maternal thing, as an incipient love for the babies that might be conceived than as a purely sexual thing, ie., as a loving desire to please a male sexually. This notwithstanding they have plenty of capacity to view their own pleasure as a sexual thing. So accordingly it might just be from prudence that girls are less maternal, it being unusually imprudent for them to be sexually loving. Also, it might be what I was getting at in my last poem might be relevant. I.e., maternal loving for a child, unlike sexual loving for a male, has a pleasing component to the female, on account of a mother's children being related to her and thus in some sense a part of her (whereas her mate is not related to her). So girls around the age of adolescence not being much by way of emotionally maternal probably protects them from dangerously thinking loving as pleasant (as opposed to thinking what is loveable as pleasant); it seems appropriate, therefore, that by nature, maternal feelings come less easily to them and are more awkwardly viewed by themselves.

Outline of poem

2009-01-16T14:41:00.000-08:00

... that petered out one-tenth of way through, leaving remains which were vaguely poem-like:

Girl pleased by loving
Or pleased to have sex with someone she loves.
A distinction with a difference.
Love is no demand a worthy male need make.

So loving isn't pleasant
But a male being the sort that is loveable
makes him please
sexually
young girls.

Girls get older;
less afraid;
want love to be pleasant again.
Sometimes they throw themselves
at men who please
to the extent they are loved,
who make loving pleasant.

But it is not the same thing
as sex being pleasant
for a girl
because the male is loved
and thus,
in all likelihood,
truthful and good,
and thus,
what she needs.

Why the field of Psychology is destined always to be mostly rubbish

2008-11-03T06:19:00.000-08:00

It is a mistake to study the field of psychology--not because psychology treats of a not interesting subject matter, but for the pedestrian reason that the field of psychology so long as it exists is and always will be replete with falsehood. It will never be a subject that on the whole is done well, and consequently is not a field that should be taught at Universities, etc., as a unified subject. Psychology should be replaced by Pscychologies. There should be a separate degree available about each person who possess towards the subject a view that students are interested in studying. E.g., instead one should be able to get a degree in the various thoughts corresponding to the various psychological outlooks people view as important. Better that Christian psychology, Shakespearean psychology, Lockean psychology, etc., should exist as entirely separate departments. Indeed, the danger of it being seen that there should be a field of psychology being so great, an even safer approach is to have separate degrees in Christian theology, the thought of Shakespeare, the thought of Locke, etc. Deceivers tend to be better at deceiving about general human nature than anything else, which tends to make it inevitable that Psychology, so long as it is viewed as a field that necessarily should be unified, will be dominated by the deceptions of deceivers and liars.

My own particular human nature is something that I am the most well-positioned to understand. I am the only one who can perceive my thoughts, emotions, etc., directly. Others can at best only make well-informed opinions of what my interior perceptions--my reflections, as Locke would say--really are. This is not just true of me, it is true of everyone. It is easier to judge one's own (interior) human nature than it is to judge the human nature of someone else, not only because one has more data that could be publicly accessible, but more importantly, because one has data that can't be publicly accessible, namely that furnished by reflection.

The character of a particular person's human nature, being so much more accessible to the person herself than to anyone else, furnishes an ideal touchstone against which she may assay the sensitivity of another toward her own character. I am not saying that it is at all easy to make someone think her particular nature is something otherwise than it is. However, it can be very rewarding for selfish people to succeed in such an endeavor. To see why, I shall first reiterate something I have discussed numerous times before, namely that, as is entirely reasonable, one tends to judge moral goodness in another indirectly by judging sensitivity towards one's own character.

There is a great deal of confusion about why altruism evolves. The so-called evolutionary psychologists pretty much all assume some sort of game-theoretic approach that assumes an altruistic nature can't be predicted except from inferences made by past behavior. This assumption is neither reasonable nor common-sensical. I daresay that just a look at a beautiful girl is often enough to give sufficient evidence that the girl I am looking at very likely has especially beautiful, good traits. Nor would it be anything but unreasonable to suppose that many people would have evolved a similar remarkable sensitivity, to various degrees. Indeed, this sort of sensitivity is mainly something people have in connection with mating. The most important unselfishness so far as the evolution of goodness is concerned is unselfishness towards a mate. And it's a good thing, too, because it is only there that sensitivity would be expected to go hand in hand with an unselfish nature. When a person tricks a mate into a love that is not just, the result will be extra offspring by deceived individuals. For example, a selfish fiend could succeed in tricking a female into thinking he is especially good and thus loveable, and thereby cause him to have more children than he otherwise would have, an evolutionary advantage to him; but what he can't at all easily do is trick females into having sensitive children with him, because he can only trick insensitive gullible females, the children of which will likely inherit her insensitivity. It follows that there will be a high correlation between insensitivity and the tendency to deceive about one's own character. And this correlation is extremely useful to virtuous individuals, because it allows them to judge unselfishness (not easy on the face of it to judge directly) indirectly by judging something easy to judge, namely sensitivity towards one's own character. Sensitivity is something moral girls cherish in prospective mates. Selfish females mostly want money and caring; unselfish girls, being just, want their beloveds to possess good, unselfish moral character, and thus, being unselfish, these unselfish females often consider it just to greatly reward virtue and those males possessing the most reliable evidence for it, namely sensitivity. Girls love most importantly by sex, and the girls who are willing to love by sex being virtuous and therefore just, they especially want to love sexually a sensitive male, and so sensitivity evolves. Sensitive males get more rewarding sex.

Sensitivity gets males into bed with extra-loving females. Selfishness also can be rewarding to males, because it makes unnecessary many sacrifices that otherwise a desire to be (unselfishly) just would demand. The problem for selfish people is that, as explained in the last paragraph, they tend to be very insensitive. So a common strategy of the selfish is to fake sensitivity. True, the difficulty of faking sensitivity is great, but then so are the potential rewards. Girls may let you fuck them (perhaps even in a reproductively meaningful way) just because your fake sensitivity might make them think you are nice. But here is the main point: Indeed it is intrinsically difficult to fake an understanding of the particular interior personal aspects of another, but it is not nearly so difficult to fake an understanding of the aspects of another that are held generally by people. I could not make up what a girl's personal tendencies, ideas, and reflections are and expect her to believe me if I'm clueless. But were I deceptive, I could with much greater chance of success make a girl interpret her interior thoughts otherwise than in the way that should make the most sense. General notions applicable to girls in general are just what the seducer needs to convince girls into thinking themselves as what they are not. And why after all should a bad male be any worse at coming up with deceptions as regards how a girl should interpret her own internal feelings than he should be at coming up with other sorts of deceptions? Indeed, one wouldn't expect him at all to be worse at coming up with deceptions so close to what he needs to convince girls that he be sensitive, the very deceptions he perhaps most needs to increase his sexual success.

People are not born with many innate tendencies; most tendencies are what I call abstract tendencies, tendencies that arise because an understanding of one's other tendencies suggests that there is a pattern of tendencies into which the abstract tendency fits. I.e., one innate tendency is to adopt as tendencies those tendencies, the abstract tendencies that are abstractions from one's other tendencies in the sense that they seem to fit the pattern of the others as best understood from one's understandings of things in general. It is not at all likely that a seductive male or a manipulative woman would much be able to be sensitive towards an other's innate tendencies, but it is not particularly unlikely that a deceptive person particularly skilled at his deceptive craft can not infrequently make people (and members of the opposite sex, in particular) come to understand themselves in a way that more or less guarantees as a consequent a set of tendencies abstracted from error which may not only be understood by a seducer or manipulator, but predicted beforehand by him. Since it is not trivial to differentiate one's natural understanding of one's self from an unnatural imposed one based on error, and since most tendencies are abstracted to varying large degrees, this method of faking sensitivity by imparting erroneous understandings of general human nature is sufficiently possible that given its potential rewards one would expect evolution to cause in selfish people the tendency and faculty to deceive about general human nature to be refined to a degree far exceeding their other deceptive tendencies and faculties. With a cunning and faculty greater than about anything else, selfish people lie about what people are.

One must grudgingly have some respect for what bad people are skilled at and realize that any general field that deals in what bad people are best at lying about is doomed to be replete with lies and deceptions, and will mostly be dominated by the immoral. Since this general field is psychology, the study of general human nature, it's nothing but counterproductive for there to be such a field considered a curriculum. Even if somewhere psychology could be studied wisely, it can't really be expected for that situation to last very long. Of course, it is very important that good people be allowed to express the truths that are counter to the lies of psychology employed by the deceptive people, and in flavor, these truths also could (if one was imprudent enough to think the concept of psychology ontologically deserving) be called psychology. But they shouldn't be called psychology. For instance, I have much to say about human nature, and in particular how it relates to morality and sex. But I would not want what I have to say about it to be considered "psychology". No, if it ever comes about that my ideas get studied in the universities, it would in every way be preferable that my ideas be studied separately from the ideas of others, say as Meigsology. Psychologists so long as they are considered psychologists rather than students of some particular type of thought will always mostly be vile and not the sort of people I want teaching my ideas. Even evolutionary psychology bothers me, because it is psychology after all, and indeed one only need look at most of what goes by evolutionary psychology to see how ridiculous most of it is and replete with the same sort of errors that render psychology vile. There should be no general field of evolutionary psychology, just fields corresponding one-one with the individuals making inferences about human behavior (whether partly from evolution or otherwise), each individual being considered separately perhaps along with the people he respects who influenced him.

I am voting for Obama; and something completely different

2008-10-24T08:50:00.001-07:00

I am disappointed that both Obama and McCain supported the bailout bill. But at least Obama is wholeheartedly supporting a stimulus package, which might make up somewhat for the stupid unfair bailouts. I figure the reason the economy didn't fall apart this summer largely had to do with the tax rebate checks, small though they were. And I have the impression that Obama has more of an upside than McCain. Obama, being young, is probably less set in his errors and more in a good way to learn.

I noticed as the campaign unfolded that Obama demonstrated the capacity to adapt. He didn't seem conceited in his speech before the Democratic Convention, as he earlier had seemed to me. It's as though he has the ability to understand and recognize his own irrational traits and work on correcting them, not an easy thing to do.

I am not entirely gloomy about the economic situation. True, few of our leaders have a clue about economics, but with time reality will knock some sense into them and perhaps encourage them to read economics textbooks, etc., and to think rationally about how to make things better. And with time, we voters can learn better which leaders are corrupted by financial interests. I plan to vote Republican for Senate and House, since my representative and my senator up for re-election this year each voted against the bailout bill, which is more than one can say for most Democratic senators and representatives.

There is a hint of an interesting idea in McCain's whole deification of Joe the Plumber. One could argue that there is something admirable in one who believes in choosing a path that will give him great gains should he succeed (at the expense of abysmal failure should he not succeed). Again, behaving so that one's success or failure more depends on one's innate abilities is something that encourages evolution, which people don't really care unselfishly about enough, since having highly evolved descendants mainly is of benefit to the mates of descendants, inasmuch as most of the genetic material in the descendants of some person is not from that person. People are especially selfishly indifferent when it comes to caring about (long-term) benefits to distant descendants. But just because it is admirable for Joe the Plumber to be this way, doesn't mean it is admirable for society thus to try to rev up natural selection by allowing excess income and wealth differences. E.g., maybe too much natural selection could interfere with sexual selection (which alone is mostly responsible for evolution of moral traits), maybe wealth doesn't correspond well to worth, and maybe evolution can go too fast (and thus too narrowly). I don't feel like it's something I have fresh clear insights into, though, especially the last part, so it is something I don't want to discuss until I do. Which is too bad, in a way, because vaguely I feel one of the main reasons some people are hesitant to take me seriously is they are scared by my attempts to connect evolution with morality. It's asinine that some people think "Hitler!" any time someone discusses morality and evolution together. They're kind of like people who think anyone who enjoys pondering nude females is a woot!-hole! person (probably the main reason females are afraid of nudity (as opposed to modelling in bikinis, say) is that they quite reasonably don't want to emphasize the hole-like quality of their sexuality, lest they be seen as trying to encourage woot!-hole! males, who typically are forever insidiously conflating holes). I refuse to let Hitler make me hesitant to consider evolution and morality together just as much as I refuse to let woot!-hole! males make me hesitant to consider female sexuality and the nude female form together. I am not afraid of becoming Hitler or a woot!-hole! male. What is the point of scaring people? Hitlers and woot!-hole! males will be what they are regardless, and so by encouraging people to take care lest they become one, one will only end up making scared and guilty the people who on account of their virtues should not be thus. I should point out that when I say someone is "woot!-hole!" I don't mean to imply enthusiasm, just behavior that mimics enthusiasm. Not that there's any depravity that should be suggested by real enthusiasm, notwithstanding enthusiasm can lead to nerdishness and is typically somewhat crazy.

It seems I underestimated the "stubborn cluelessness" of our leaders

2008-09-22T07:57:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I wrote:

Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

Now this from the New York Times:

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

The underlying problem as I see it is that rich society mostly deals with crap by pretending crap is of no significance. They look down on people who are concerned about getting their hindquarters screwed as merely vulgar, as not much different basically from those who think getting their hindquarters screwed is good fun. The evils of the banking system are so similar to the evils of getting sodomized that it very easily tends to make people emotionally paranoid about it. Elitists view the looming financial disaster with the same idiocy they view sodomy, just as some phantom phenomenon people go paranoid about. They know that the people who get scared are not the people who give the best pianoforte and violin recitals, and practically speaking, the nervous people, they don't give the best presentations at board meetings, and aren't the best public speakers, etc. Do you want someone leading our country who at dinner parties over tea, wine and caviar is so unrelaxed that he can't think easily with nice elegant transitions in his speech? Well that's the way people tend to be when they worry about things like sodomy or the financial system collapsing. The rich tend to agree with Captain Smith (of the Titanic) that icebergs are so rare it's vulgar to worry about them.

It is important for those arguing about the evil of the banking system to not emotionally identify our being impoverished by the idiocy and greed of our financial leaders with our getting sodomized. The powerful people will sense your uncouth emotion and any exaggeration that such uncouth emotion might engender, and consider that as evidence of your folly. They won't want to listen to you over tea and crackers if they sense any paranoid feelings. True, better to be emotionally a little paranoid than to just ignore the issue from the disturbing emotions it can produce, but best of all to very sanely hate the evils of the financial system. The current cast of characters leading our financial system are probably not the fascist sodomizing rapists, they are the people who later could cause the fascist sodomizing rapists seem a viable alternative as people emotionally sense that the latter at least feel depravity has some emotional significance.

Of course, there are some rich people who don't ignore strong emotions. They're the sort who listen to opera, who tend I'm suspecting to be the better sort of rich people. But they're not particularly very wise about their emotions, because after all, opera is for and by rich people, and so because rich people tend to be idiotic about these things, it just is not as informative about emotions toward screwed-up things as bluegrass music, for example (though bluegrass music has much dishonest and messed-up about it, because there is no particular reason to think people who like it are better than those who don't, whereas rich people who like opera are probably mostly better than rich people who like some other sort of rich peoples' music).

Ha, to go a little off topic, I am partial to the emotional insights of the model in this music slideshow video, purportedly shot in Hamburg, which video I discovered a few days ago. (The music is I guess also very good, but being a visual person, I prefer looking at it with the music off. The photos would be better without the occasional cigarettes, though.)

My impressions on the financial mess

2008-09-19T08:39:00.000-07:00

Since January, when I realized that something ahistoric was happening with nonborrowed bank reserves, I have been examining our country's financial situation with much more than my usual attention. I realized something very dire was happening, and after then studying the matter for a week or so I came to the conclusion I still hold today, namely that there is only one reasonable way out of the mess. And the solution is not at all complicated or otherwise than straightforward. The banks loaned out too much money, as they have done numerous times in bubbles before, and so they should pay the consequences; more specifically they should be left alone, most of them (among them the worst of them) going bankrupt. This will destroy a great deal of fictitious wealth, making people less willing to spend, and thereby causing the threat of a deflationary spiral leading to horrendous depression. But President Wilson created the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt took us off the gold standard precisely so such depression would not be inevitable. All we have to do to cancel the deflation is replace some of the fictitious money created by debt with real money by turning on the printing presses (as we started out trying to do with the tax rebate stimulus checks, a wonderful idea that didn't go far enough). And of course, this money created will in a short while end up being deposited at banks, thereby lessening the banks' problems somewhat, though not sufficiently that many won't fail, probably. So some of the money the government will print would end up being printed to reimburse those with money in failed banks who have insured accounts. That's fine, this money will also go toward avoiding the deflationary spiral.

Houses and mortgage-backed securities (the latter being the fundamental investments created as a result of bundling mortgages together to create investments so banks can more easily unload loans in order to make or process new loans) were overpriced. It is rather like the tulip bubble in Holland; the owners of tulips at the height of the tulip-frenzy never really collectively had the wealth corresponding to the prices of the tulips; the tulip bulbs were not worth nearly as much as they were priced at; it was just a bubble. The same thing is true of today. Those who thought they were wealthy because they owned houses, mortgage-backed securities, stock in Wall Street banks, etc., were not actually as wealthy as they thought, for the prices of these items were all inflated as a result of the bubble, and more particularly, incorrect expectations that they would rise in price. The government should bail out those who deposited their money in federally insured bank accounts, and should let the others suffer for their folly. There is a reason some people put their money in bank accounts and treasury securities, etc., even though in boom times their return on investment is low. They know that when booms end, as they are ending now, they don't want to risk losing their money. It is not fair to those who put their money in safe investments to change the rules when the more risky investments are in a good way to fail.

What is really sinister about propping up mortgage-backed securities and the financial institutions, as our government disturbingly seems to be attempting, is that the average not particularly wealthy person does not invest in mortgage-backed securities, money market funds, hedge funds, investment banks, etc. Propping up financial institutions amounts to taking money from the average taxpayer and giving it to those (usually wealthy people) who have investments in the financial sector. It would be like the government of Holland after the tulip bubble burst buying all tulips at their peak prices, something they couldn't do in those days because money was tied to gold in those days, which kept them from printing it. It should be very revealing to naive people who have grown accustomed to hearing over-and-over like a broken record from the pillars of finance of the evil of government interfering with the financial system just how quickly these so-called pillars are willing to change their tune. What happened to laissez-faire? All of a sudden government interference in the economy is not communist anymore. Government redistribution of wealth apparently turns out to be just fine when the redistribution is to the wealthy people with stakes in the excessively influential real-estate and financial sector. There is talk of the government buying up mortgage-backed securities. This would possibly be a piece of legislation never exceeded in both its regressiveness and unjustness. Those who aren't heavily invested in real estate, investment banks, etc., including all poor people, will endure great hardship as a result of this. Fortunately, I'm inclined to think the government can't pull it off. Mortgage backed securities are largely owned by those overseas. Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

What our government should do:

1. Let investment prices, real estate prices, etc., reach their natural values. In particular, be fair and stop bailing out what the government hasn't promised to bail out. As banks and credit unions fail, reimburse those depositors with FDIC or NCUSIF insurance.

2. Print money to avoid deflation and the concomitant deflationary spiral. Technically, the way the government does this is that the Treasury Department issues bonds, and the FED keeps or buys them (crediting the treasury with money) rather than selling these bonds on the open market. Distribute the money created to ordinary people (and to those with Federally insured accounts which have failed), e.g., in tax rebates or temporary tax reductions.

3. For the rest of eternity, require banks to keep much larger reserves so this sort of vile thing doesn't happen again, and so that the underlying cause of the bubble is eliminated (and eliminate loopholes that allow banks to skirt reserves, e.g., as with banks selling loans for securitization). Actually, for many years it has been my belief that low bank reserves have been a huge drag on our economy. Low bank reserves amount to the same thing as easy credit. As long as banks lend like crazy, the amount of money people have in banks will be a little less than the amount they are in debt, and the average person (who is more likely to have his money in banks than in the stock market) is therefore destined to be poor. True, there should be some low level of bank lending. Loan sharks probably would arise when there are no banks lending. And I will admit that there is an advantage to encouraging people to buy houses rather than rent. But the financial industry has so manipulated the public and our government by extolling home ownership, that home ownership has become an idol. As those who haven't studied Economics 101 in college unfortunately don't tend to realize (along with politicians who were more concerned with drunken revelry in college than with learning), banks create money when they lend it. Most money that is created is created by banks lending it, and this money impoverishes the poor people even in economically stable times--every such dollar is a dollar someone in debt has to pay interest on. At least with ordinary busts there can be a kind of catharsis after the bust as lending gets contracted. Now it seems that our government is using its cleverness mainly just to avoid this catharsis. I am not inclined to think they will be able to put Humpty Dumpty (the fictitious financial capital) back together again or increase personal debt to former levels or beyond, but I do believe their efforts will cause great misery (more a prolonged torture-like misery than an all-at-once one), at least to those who are not wealthy and are without a stake in real estate or financials.

The best blog I have found discussing the current financial mess is naked capitalism; even the comments are usually insightful(and eclectic as one would expect from people necessarily on the fly trying to figure out what is going on as new rules get enacted most every day).

The Moral of the Story

2008-07-30T09:52:00.000-07:00

Follow the link for a lengthy discussion in the comment section that I am having about metamorals.

Enjoyment of Female Lust

2008-06-30T07:59:00.000-07:00

Mostly, there is nothing wrong with pleasure. Real pleasure tends to correspond to what one needs from an evolutionary standpoint. Virtue demands not an indifference to one's own pleasure, but balancing one's own need for (real) pleasure with others' need for (real) pleasure. Love is not sacrifice. Mostly, one should seek to please others more than one's self precisely when it is just to do so. E.g., on the face of it, if I love someone an amount equal to what I love myself, then when I have a choice as to whether I should please her or me, I should determine who would be pleased more, and act accordingly. But when having sex with lustful girls, it is different. The significance of the lust, in my opinion, as I have described elsewhere, is that it occasions intraejaculate sperm selection. Sexual pleasure from females is mostly automatic when having sex with females, and of course there is nothing to be ashamed of in receiving it—the more, the better. But one can go beyond mere enjoyment to a kind of reveling in the pleasure. One can allow the enjoyment to have a large influence in determining behavior: one can emotionally allow it to influence very directly one's behavior. Now, reveling in pleasure is a kind of emotion, and the thing about having sex that involves intraejaculate sperm selection is that emotions tend to matter. If a male revels in his own sexual pleasure, well, probably his reveling will tend to select for sperm whose ancestral genetic material was from males who reveled in their own sexual pleasure. Since selfishness is seeking pleasure for oneself instead of for others who justly deserve it, bad males may be expected to spend a larger time reveling in their own sexual pleasure, compared with good males. At the very least, good males couldn't spend nearly as much time reveling in their own sexual pleasure because they'd be spending some of their time emotionally swept up in sexually pleasing the loved girls they are having sex with, and just in general making the sex beautiful. So in fact, notwithstanding that one's own sexual pleasure may well be as important as that of the female one is having sex with, emotionally it is better for a male not to revel in his own sexual pleasure as much as he cherishes his loving and sexually pleasing her. In fact, as regards standard sexual pleasures, it is best for the male to avoid reveling in them.

It is interesting and revealing that there is a kind of misconception that I fairly frequently see in girls about what a male reveling in his own sexual pleasure says about him. I am sure most decent males will have some experience with girls giving them that hussy look of “I like boys who are sexually selfish because they're such studs they can fuck girls even when they don't try to please the girls they are fucking.” In particular, I remember when riding the subway one hussy gave me just that look while her boyfriend was fidgeting all over her; a boyfriend I may add who was so dangerous looking I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised if his profession was drug-dealer or highway robber. On an intellectual (a word perhaps unjust to use in her case) level, I'm sure she thought me a naïve fool. Anyway, it is a totally preposterous logic. Sexual selfishness is what advances one's own sexual needs. A male behaving sexually selfishly by definition gets more from sex than he would if he behaved otherwise. If a female selects for genetic material from me that was sexually selfish in males, she will select for genetic material that might well have sexually succeeded because it behaved sexually selfish. Is it really easier to fuck a dozen girls at once if I choose not to be sexually selfish? I mean come on, what should girls think sexually selfish males use their selfishness to try to do? Maybe fucking a dozen girls? It sounds pretty pleasant to me. True, male holiness is unselfish, but then males who think they deserve more than what they have got have every reason to be holy; thus, you'd more expect to find unholiness (that comes from the male) from males who deep down know what success they have experienced is undeserved. In fact, it is considerably more impressive when a male who fucks fucks unselfishly. But this is not really the point. A male who fucks unselfishly is much more likely to be unselfish—that is the point. Girls hate having sex with deceptive males; and a male's virtue is her only guarantee of his not being that way. Sex with girls only selects for genetic material that is sexually pleasant to a female to the extent the genetic material in the male has not succeeded (in past generations) in getting sex from girls by deception. When a girl has sex with a deceptive male, the kind of genetic material her lust will select for in sperm will just be that genetic material so lame as to only succeed by deception (girls are more susceptible to deception than women are). For their own sexual pleasure, girls need sperm selection to select for sperm coding for virtuous, morally good traits. Lustful girls (and to a lesser extent, lustful women) need their male partners to be emotionally good and especially unselfish when they are having sex, because else sex will select for sperm coding for selfish traits like deception, and that is disaster so far as the girls' sexual pleasure is concerned.

As mentioned, female lust makes everything different. One might ask, then, whether enjoyment of female lust be different? Indeed, it is different. A virtuous male enjoys female lust because he too needs sex to select for his best genetic material. A male who is not virtuous, on the other hand, prefers girls not to be lustful, notwithstanding more than a few bad males might find it convenient to not much criticize female lust from the consideration that it might trick girls into thinking him the type of male girls would naturally lust for. One would expect there to be a strong correlation, then, between males possessing virtue and their appreciating female lust. Good males, then, would be expected more to revel in the pleasure given by the lust of the girls they are having sex with than bad males would. Bad males can't, after all, revel in something that isn't even pleasant for them. Accordingly, among the pleasures given by sex, the pleasure given by female lust or indeed anything that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, is something that is uniquely appropriate for a male to revel in. And indeed, reveling in female lust (which lust according to my theory possesses chemicals that get absorbed into the bloodstream through the penis, thereupon degrading cytoplasm bridges (syncytia) that exist between developing sperm cells in spermatogenesis, making sperm behavior more under haploid regulation than diploid regulation, effectively enabling intraejaculate sperm selection) is so indicative of virtue in males, that girls are very pleased by such reveling, as long as it is not carried too much to extremes. Indeed, one should be careful not to take these revelings to extremes. As Aristotle says, there is virtue in moderation. People have a tendency to be too black-and-white about things (except sodomy). And the enjoyment of female lust seems more than most things to be capable of tending to lead to that black-and-white insane tendency. Female lust is greatest, according to my theories, when many young females are involved. When lustful girls get their waists next to one another, there is a kind of allergic reaction that makes way more lust mucous, according to my theories. The youth inside girls selects for the sort of sperm females need from virtuous males, provided there is enough female lust absorbed by the male to make intraejaculate sperm selection relevant.. And sperm going from one lustful female to another (as can happen only when having sex with several females at once) selects in intraejaculate sperm selection for sperm able to survive such changes in environment, which necessarily would tend to possess stud qualities desirous to females. So, love of female lust is in a way close to loving extremes. It's not wanting just a moderate amount of females, it's (very close to) wanting a very large number of females (all at once). And it's not wanting females of a moderate age (for females having sex), it's wanting them very young. So a male should be careful to not let the insane tendency to not sufficiently appreciate moderation lead him to insanely want girls to infinity or beyond or to be so demanding of youth as to get him into trouble or to fail to appreciate sufficiently somewhat older females. Fortunately, life is not just sex, so any tendency toward immoderation that reveling in female lust might make a male feel more comfortable with will have a way of being corrected when dealing with ordinary matters. Actually, sex itself is one of those things one is apt to be insanely immoderate about. Get in a good way toward fucking girls, and that will make depraved men want to control you, probably (the tragedy of Robert Crane comes to mind). Emotionally, on some primitive level, males appreciate this, even if reason and understanding is a better defense against the dark arts. Emotionally, once you've resolved to try to fuck lots of girls, well, you'll probably wonder emotionally when (as there always will be) there are girls you want to fuck whom you haven't fucked yet whether your delay is on account of some monster having screwed your ass into thinking the delay necessary. And when dumb laws get in your way, you might feel you feel they are in your way because the authorities have screwed you, whereas they really might be in the way. (On the other hand, one might feel so powerless, gloomy and humiliated as to just totally give up even on what is allowed, but I don't think that is me.)

Yeah, but someone might say, I imagine, in response to my entreaty that males should not be reluctant to seek out the enjoyment of females lusting for them, that it would also be sufficient for a male to appreciate female lust from love. All he would have to do is ruminate on the consideration that when females have lust for him and behave with him in such a manner that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, the females get more sexual pleasure, as his love wants, of course. Simple love of making the sex better for the females could by itself make males appreciate female lust and sexual selection, inasmuch as good males tend to love the females they have sex with. Love all by itself could make males appreciate great sex. It is true that love of the girl one is having sex with is important in inducing males to want increased female lust and better sex. However, when it comes to female lust and intraejaculate sperm selection, I really think not only that the more inducement in the male the better, but also that his own needs are a better, higher inducement to correct behavior than her needs are. When female lust makes for a better intraejaculate sperm selection, that gives the girl having the sex with a virtuous male more sexual pleasure. But the pleasure is mostly short-term. After a few generations, only her DNA that is closely linked with his DNA will be able to profit from his DNA being more desirable. This linkage will decrease over time. In the short term, the male's pleasure from female lust is not quite as significant. When female lust selects for his best DNA, it does so at the expense of his less desirable DNA. The real pleasure for a male is long-term. Generation after generation the DNA that was originally passed down on account of the particulars of sex will be more successful merely from it being more fit. But in the long-term it won't mainly be his DNA that prospers. After many generations, only a slight amount of any descendant will be genetically from him. It will be the genetic material that is together with this material that mainly will benefit—material that comes from the myriads of spouses of descendants. And since virtue tends to mate with virtue, this is a very good thing. Those who have read somewhat carefully my writings concerning morality will realize that a major theme is that the idealism selection that selects for ordinary goodness just doesn't work very well when selecting for the tendency to want to evolve well. Caring about mating early, being true to oneself (so one succeeds or fails more according to one's own nature than according to the nature of whatever persons one has in conformity copied), appreciating others when they are true to themselves—none of these things are people good about to the extent it is in the interests of good people to be. Fortunately (as I have explained elsewhere), there are secondary considerations causing good people to take pleasure in these phenomena encouraging good evolution. Girls tend to want to have sex with good males while they are still young, because intraejaculate sperm selection makes it pleasant for them to do so. Similarly, they are pleased by authentic character probably as a result of female lust having certain epigenetic consequences that makes genes effected by these consequences especially expressed by those striving to be themselves. And males appreciate similar authenticity in girls having sex with them because such girls are the ones other girls are pleased to imitate. Mostly, males are not good enough to be very unselfish in desiring female lust from the beneficial effect that lust will have for distant descendants. These distant descendants just aren't related enough for it to have much force to evolve. If there is some pleasure in males in desiring intraejaculate sperm selection for the beneficial effect it will have on descendants, this should not be looked on as a bad thing. On the contrary, what a wonderful, higher, very beautiful thing. The only thing, perhaps, that can make up for the immoral tendency of people not to care sufficiently about the difficulties distant descendants will have. To care about distant descendants is a higher, more unselfish thing than to care about near descendants. Whether this caring is a result of pleasure or something else, it is beautiful and should be venerated and seen as something deep with possibilities to merge into some sort of higher obscure phenomenon. Males should be especially appreciated if they tend to revel in the pleasures female lust could give them. There is something akin to goodness, a higher goodness in which people are sorely lacking, in a male thoroughly enjoying and reveling in the pleasures female lust can give him in sex by way of its making intraejaculate sperm selection better. Accordingly, girls would be expected to find it quite pleasant sexually when a virtuous male they are having sex with does revel in their lust for him and when he wants that lust not just for their needs but more importantly for his own. They lust for his dick to long for the pleasure their lust can give it. Such girls are not hussies (or, alternatively, if you define hussy so inclusively that they are, then they are not bad hussies, but good, clean virtuous hussies). Indeed, emotions in males that suggest virtue in him, and more particularly, a higher virtue, do select for that sort of sperm girls want, yeah. Sometimes pleasures are so strongly associated with higher virtues, the pleasures are more strongly suggestive of virtue than the virtues people possess directly as a result of a willingness to be directly unselfishness.

Alas, almost all females seem to be very confused about their sexual feelings toward other females, and this confusion is associated with confusion about the respectability of a male wanting to revel in female lust. Sophisticated girls know that when a disgusting male gets jealous of other males, that is when he is likely to especially want to do disgusting things to her. Skanky sophisticated females even sometimes stupidly exploit this to encourage males to sodomize them more. The more jealousy in the males screwing them, the more controlling, disgusting, and sodomizing the males screwing them will be, they figure. Indeed, bad males become even more controlling when they are especially given to feel as though if they are not controlling they will be displaced by someone else. A clean girl with her big heart doesn't want to be that way, even if she is quite comfortable with changing her mind about her evaluations and not particularly worried about her general friendliness giving some fussy males a (false) argument that she leads males on for foul reasons. She understands the evil of the situation, and so when a thought of her lover having sex with someone else ignites her sexual pleasure and lust to new levels, as one would expect from sex that is shared being so much more sexually pleasant and lustful than ordinary one-female/one-male sex, it is only understandable what interpretation she is likely to put on her sudden increase in the lustful carnality of her desires for him which other girls can induce in her. She will think that her newly awakened sexual desires are a result of jealousy. Female lust, like all lust, is frequently (and wrongly) identified with depravity. If she comes to want him more when something gives her occasion to imagine him in bed with another girl, she will think maybe that jealousy is causing her to want to be more addictively controlling and carnal in bed. “Fuck you,” she might say in her new lustful abandon, something after all there is a kind of appropriateness to her saying when fucking. But she'll probably say it like it is a bad thing, that competition with other females has given her the need to control him with lust before other females do, whereas of course he needs her (and lots of other girls) to fuck him in the carnal lustful way. Her being all carnal and lustful when having sex with him is just what he needs, and his wanting to take pleasure in it is not some sort of bad addiction, but a higher , more beautiful emotion even more respectable probably than his appreciating her lust from his love of her. And something similar happens when she interprets the newly awakened sexual desires for other girls that a desire for increased lust can cause in her. When she thinks about a female sharing her would-be lover in bed, it makes her want to get all lustful and carnal not only for him, but also for the girls sharing him in bed. She will of a sudden have homosexual desires! Well, we all know how pathetic people are at asking the wrong questions. It is sodomy (semen in the digestive system) that is properly disgusting. Male homosexual behavior is wrong because basically it means sodomy. Males sodomize males to control just as they sodomize females to control. Jealousy leads males to sodomize males and thus to homosexual behavior—girls know this intuitively. So girls figure that if they of a sudden have sexual desires for other girls caused by mutual love for a male, well, what underlies this sudden homosexuality may well be the same thing that can make a male want to sodomize a competitor—jealousy. In a way, it might be surprising girls would be so quick to think badly of themselves, but remember that when girls become addicted to depravity, they behave unjustly in a way that hurts other males. When a girl feels like maybe she wants to hurt others, as she might feel if she of a sudden wants to screw with lustful carnality in a way suggestive of jealousy in her, she doesn't need to think that she is fundamentally a bad person. All she has to think is that somehow she is under some sort of addictive influence. She will probably think on some level that her new found sexual desires for females are an addiction. She will wonder about herself similarly to how she wonders about the male she loves. She will wonder whether the desire for sex with limbs all intertwined in a bed full of young lustful wet females has addicted her just as it has addicted him, even to the point of wanting to use her lust to addict all of them and her lover to her as well. It is all the more easier for her to feel bad about herself because she knows she doesn't want her lover's own lust, and he's not the sort of person that in bed with them would make in himself his own lust, anyway. It might seem that she want to addict him to her even though he is so good he doesn't want to addict anybody to him.

The feelings girls have toward other girls tend to differ depending on the degree of intimacy involved. At first, I think girls are mainly afraid of the pleasure they feel toward other girls. But upon intimacy, the increase in the lust and its concomitant pleasure that this intimacy brings, not being something willed, is a great deal more innocent feeling than internal lust that was willed would be (especially, perhaps, if sunbathing be involved). Once intimacy occurs between them, this probably makes girls much more comfortable with the sexual pleasures they take in one another. But I would expect this would feel like a sudden increase in love that itself would be scary, especially since it would seem to have to do with chemical effects of lust mucous on one another's waists (sodomy, after all, has its effects chemically). So I think at first sexual fears in girls toward other girls have more to do with fear of false pleasure, and then later more to do with fears of false love. (Perhaps on rare occasions things can occur totally backwards; a girl can be in love with another girl first or more surely, and then interpret increased sexual desire for a male occasioned by thoughts of the other girl having sex with him as a desire to keep the male away from the girl lest he take her away from her; this would be a likely explanation for one girl suddenly making another girl feel very contrary toward some male who indicates he wants the former girl, even when such contrariness is not deserved.)

Sometimes it can be hard to determine from girls' behavior what exactly it is that girls think they want. For example, a girl can give the impression she likes music in which males scream and rant about how terrible lustful girls are. But it may well be that she doesn't like the music because it expresses her true feelings so much as it is relaxing to her that she can appreciate emotions so contrary to the feelings she mostly feels are more her own, but which she be afraid of. If she be worried that maybe some addiction has caused her not to sufficiently appreciate males who are skeptical of female lust, well, she will find it relaxing and suggestive that her emotions are real that she can emotionally appreciate males screeching about sluttish girls feeling lust (girls sometimes do actually feel lust for sordid reasons). Or maybe she be worried that her heart will be broken if the male she would otherwise want to love beautifully and cleanly make it impossible on account of his being addicted (as though that be possible) to the desire to absorb female lust chemical through his penis; a female wanting sex with scads of males is a pretty sure sign she be screwed-up, maybe she wrongly figures males don't naturally want sex with scads of females, and that accordingly there be something swinish in a male about him desiring quantity in his mates, even if he is very careful about protecting himself from venereal disease. (Actually, the more males think about maybe having sex with lots of females, the more careful they would tend to be about avoiding venereal disease and appreciating virginity, as makes sense inasmuch as the more females one has sex with, the more harm that will be done from getting such a disease.) If a girl is worried whether she be wrongly willing to let some other girl screw her over in a bad sense, and whether she be crazy for loving a man who is perfectly comfortable with it, it may well be relaxing to her if almost at the same time she is lusting for what might screw her over, she also can appreciate males criticizing girls for breaking other girls' hearts. Usually, girls straightforwardly like to explore emotionally what rocks their boats. But maybe if a girl is sufficiently afraid, the emotions she plays with tend to be the opposite of the ones that she mostly lets hold sway.

Advice to Members of the Various Social Classes

2008-05-30T15:46:00.001-07:00

I wrote this post a little over a month ago. The tone of it I didn't like, and so I didn't post it at the time thinking I would later improve it. But I don't see myself revisiting the matter any time soon, and so I decide now to post it. It might get people to thinking more correctly about the main idea even if it has an imcompleteness and a black-and-white rich vs. poor quality about it I didn't intend.

Snobbery is a bad thing. I don't think many would deny that. However, sometimes the various classes have certain peculiar capacities for virtue that, to the extent interactions between classes occur, are more likely to be encouraged from within than from without. Take the wealthy. The wealthy I'm afraid do not tend to be particularly discriminating when it comes to discriminating depravity from innocent wildness. Why? Partly because it is to a certain extent in their interest to encourage people to have sexual relations from money rather than sexual abandon. Having money, rich men are very capable of attracting females with money, but, relatively speaking, not perhaps as especially capable of attracting females with sexual abandon. But I would say that it is a great deal more in the interest of the rich for them to discriminate between depraved sexual abandon caused by depravity (sodomy) and innocent sexual abandon caused by great sex than they realize. If a woman leaves a wealthy man because she quite innocently thinks it beautiful or pleasant to get fucked by some less wealthy man, well, chances are if she had the choice she'd still probably leave the wealthy man, anyway. I'd even bet that in all likelihood she wouldn't have trouble finding a wealthy man whom she would also prefer to get fucked by than to remain in her present situation. And no matter how great the stigma against such unbrotherly behavior toward members of one's own class, men being what they are, it's going to happen no matter what the level of snobbery. And of course, more than occasionally poorer females can fall in love with richer males and have (free) sex with the latter--fucking between the classes goes both ways, and isn't always just prostitution one way any more than it is always just depravity the other way. Here's the thing, though. Rich people do tend to be cleaner than the poor. Not for any unselfish reason, but from a kind of snobbery. The less females have sex from the depraved addiction of sodomy, the more they will have it from money or the admiration of an ability to make money, what rich males want. But in contradistinction to innocent fucking, if a female leaves her wealthy mate on account of sodomy from a poorer male, well, her adultery or leaving him is something that very likely would not have happened otherwise. The wealthy are less likely than the poor to (wrongly) respect sodomy. This is one of the reasons the party of the wealthy, the Republicans, are more anti-sodomy than the Democrats. And I think mainly this is why (sodomy being strongly associated with violence) private schools tend to be safer and less free of physical bullying than public schools (at least it is my strong impression that private schools are safer that way).

The rich tend to be kind of clueless when it comes to depravity. They tend to group depravity with innocent fucking and file it all away as "vulgarity" and just forget about it. I notice this when I listen to opera, the rich man's version of hillbilly bluegrass music, or at least that’s the way I look at it. Opera is preposterous. That said, opera is not morally annoying and conniving the way most bluegrass music is; it is just stupidly naive. I rather think that I would like most rich people who like opera; rich people especially are to be admired when they possess an interest in art forms exploring the emotions involved with depravity and failures to distinguish it from innocent mere sexual lust. Operatic emotions are what the rich would do well to think more about. Actually, I'm inclined to think it is not the wealthy who are most to blame for the wealthy's frequent lack of discrimination in the depravity sphere. Lots of poor males want to screw rich ass. It is not in the interest of these truly vulgar poor to encourage in the rich a sense that sodomy is something they ought to watch out for more than an innocent desire to get fucked. The poor may be better than the rich classes at discriminating depravity from innocent sexual pleasure, but they tend to be selfish when it comes to edifying the rich. Needless to say, this particular ignorance causes it to be convenient for the rich to look at all the wildness of the common folk as mere vulgarity. The rich know they are ignorant about wildness and so are scared of it; scared rightly. So scared they often decide to live in gated communities and socialize just in country clubs, etc. They make sure their lawns are mowed carefully and be free of weeds, because for all they know maybe it's letting the lawn go to pot that makes depravity--they don't really know to more fear getting screwed by the occasional molester in the horde of transients they let in their communities to do all this work. But they still lock their doors and put their alarms to the on position. Indeed, with little interaction with the other social classes, snobbery really can take hold in the wealthy; a worse snobbery that is so isolated from the poor it doesn't even have to feel the need to view depravity as vulgar. Then vulgarity is criticized not from fear of depravity but from possible guilt arising about the clique necessitating justification of exclusiveness. Once the wealthy are totally isolated from the poor, there is no particular reason to think they won't be just as depraved (among themselves) as poor people are.

So I guess my main point about the wealthy is that there is a kind of desirable clean attitude that can arise in the wealthy from individual selfish snobbery, so long as snobbery isn’t so excessive as to preclude interaction between the rich and the poor. Because it is in the selfish interest of wealthy males for females to mate more from money or respect for money than from depraved emotions, wealthy males have an unusually selfish interest in viewing sodomy with contempt. But what really is the benefit to the wealthy to view females seeking innocent fucking pleasure with the same contempt? Perhaps wealthy males are just deceiving themselves in thinking that they really could cause their women to not want to fuck from general principle. A group of mostly like-minded people who espouse the truth, even if the truth is espoused for selfish reasons will have force to protect the few in the group from lies. In particular is this so regarding depravity, what people are more conformist about than anything. In a society where almost universally depravity is viewed as such and where almost universally there is no confusion between depravity and the innocent pleasures it is frequently identified with, there will be little danger of anyone in that society coming to view through addiction depravity otherwise than what it is, even if there be a few in the society secretly pushing depravity on others. But to view innocent fucking pleasure as akin to the sordid addictive pleasure of sodomy is a lie. A group of males might think that by forming an exclusive social group holding to their own views on the immorality of fucking that will keep their females from going astray. But that fucking is evil is a lie. There will be males in the group who secretly are not quite as against fucking as they make out, and there will be females in the group fucked by them. Such snob associations serve but half a purpose to rich males wanting to keep their women folk from straying. They mostly don’t do anything if their females really want to fuck from innocent reasons, and if the females want to fuck from not innocent reasons, well, the standard opinion of the group, being half lie, won’t be nearly as effective in protecting her as the truth would. Snobbery is a bad thing, but if rich snobs would only be smart enough to be snobbish in their own selfish interests, i.e., in a discriminating way rather than as vulgar interests have encouraged them, it wouldn’t be nearly so bad. Whenever I go to rich communities, I get the impression that these people would be unusually discriminating in distinguishing depravity from innocent sexual wildness, it’s just they lack understanding. More than other groups, they would believe both in innocent wildness and the importance of sexual cleanliness if they only were not so totally unfamiliar with wildness for wildness to be a great risk akin to sailing a ship in uncharted waters.

An Untitled Poem

2008-05-30T15:18:00.000-07:00

(Usually I write long poems, but for some reason the poet muse just stopped after having written just a few lines)

I know not what
God would have of me
To do now.
I'd like to return
To a safe discovering—
The very sort I had
As a child
Reading a book
And marveling
At the world of safe adventure
Learning clearly bode well
To present before me
A river flowing
I only had to float upon.

Girls and Concentration

2008-05-30T14:03:00.000-07:00

Every so often I encounter a young female in what appears as a kind of constant fixed concentration. Emotionally, it hits me, “whoh”! Just a glance at such a female instantly gives me an awakened feeling notwithstanding I had before had no occasion to consider myself as asleep. But unlike waking up in the morning, when a girl's look awakens me thus I feel more dreamy afterwards than before. It's as though it is a sudden intimation that there has been frivolity in my life that needs removal. Like a sudden realization my brain was considering the planet Crouton all this time when it should have been planted here on Earth. Who would have thought? And yet there is terror in my emotion, too, like waking up on account of a nightmare. A beautiful nightmare. Like from sleep lifting my torso perpendicular to the bed all of a sudden to stare forward into the abyss before the bed, because I feel in my bones the nightmare was the warning of a benevolent monitory spirit who knows just where the real danger lies, aye!

This I know: that there is a peace in loving, a peace much desired that can't be gained merely on account of being sought. A coolness rests in the level gaze of a girl in concentration. It's a sacred thing, a girl like that. It's a trance.

I myself have been at times in a state sharing certain particulars with a trancelike state. But it is not the same thing, the thing that I have felt. I have been so that my holiness, my worship, my purity of thought and even my caring did seem not just as essential to what my love demanded but as the most necessary proof that my nature remained undefiled. Was I undefiled? Was my love virtuous? They became the same question. Were I to have stopped loving, it could only have meant to my emotions that some abomination had been afflicted upon me to change my fixed opinion. The best way I could gain the sort of peace I needed to do math was by never suffering myself to stop feeling even an instant the holy pure emotions involved in my worship of her.

When in such a trance-like state, I never had much occasion to consider sex that much. It was my love that was special and had to be kept sacred, and if I wanted to have sex with her, well, big deal, that's a fairly run-of-the mill emotion for a male to have—not really any need to focus on that. But when girls love, they tend to think of it as a wanting of sex. Girls love most importantly through sex. So when love makes a girl go into something of a trance, I daresay it is sex the girl is concentrating on. I think girls go trance more than males, actually. They are more often targets of molestation, which makes tests against such more useful there, in the females. The difference is that when girls go into trance, it is an obviously sexual feeling that they keep constantly inside themselves. If the flame of sexual love is not out, it can only be because depravity has not blown it out. And so long as the flame is not out, there is real peace for her in being able to continuously recognize that, notwithstanding that if depravity didn't blow the flame out, it wouldn't have stolen what she needs to relight the flame either, and so the flame probably would be easy enough to relight.

Sodomy warps the sexual emotions of girls. It is what sodomy does. When people try to deny girls their natural sexual desires, the victimized girls are inclined to emotionally view that control as equivalent to molestation—an act of sodomy. Even when society tries to make girls scared of their sexual wants and needs by trying to make the wants and needs seem as being depraved and therefore untrue, what can happen when a girl's sexual desires are thwarted is that she can view the thwarters' methods for altering her sexual desires as likely depraved. And when a strong girl feels as though depravity is trying to warp her sexual nature from what it naturally is, she will need proof to herself that this is not the case to fully maintain her sanity. She will quite possibly need to concentrate on her sexual desire all day long just to be cool, even if that be quite opposite the intended consequences of the restrictions from those wanting to thwart her sexual desires.

So there's the thing. I love girls who concentrate on sex. The way they look when they are into the sacredness of their sexual desire, it is beautiful on what I can only say as some sort of higher religious level. It is transcendental. It's as though there is a rip in her brain through which one may see the higher universe. And on a mundane level, I daresay there is a kind of concentrated practical understanding of how sex should be to be more fun and beautiful that I see in females that I doubt could come to me so easily. I despair of having in me that same stamina of focused concentration a girl in a trance presents; my consolation is that perhaps this is not a faculty very developed in males, notwithstanding its use in sex is obvious. But when girls concentrate on sex, I suspect mostly they do so to remain sane. At least, all the girls I have seen in this state of total concentration appeared mostly in a trance, largely as if because they needed to be there to stay cool and focused. I would like to see a girl concentrating on sex as though she be in a trance, but for her not to be in a trance (though the state would so much resemble a trance, one might choose to define things so as to still classify it such). I can't say sufficiently how much I admire girls who view the vampirish thwarting of their sexual desires by society as a great evil, as something worthy of making one wake up screaming. And yet, when society thwarts a girl and the guy she wants, typically they don't do this by screwing them up with nastiness. It's all done very politely, really, in the name of religion and keeping girls safe. The underlying causes are more nefarious, but on the fundamental level, that wouldn't touch a girl who loved me, nor me either. Our separation would leave us just as clean and uncorrupted as before. Better for a girl to concentrate on sex for her sanity than to not concentrate on sex at all, but better still for a girl to concentrate on sex without her sanity depending on her ability to keep concentrating on it. It isn't right to try to make people love you by for that reason putting them in a state such that their sanity depends on loving you well, or to refrain from disabusing them of incorrect notions because so doing may cause them to no longer need to love you just to stay sane. I don't actually think people are of a nature to do this—the drawbacks of putting someone you desire in an emotionally unstable state are obviously very significant, and actually there are more things than sex or romantic love that sometimes people need to think about just to prosper enough to be useful—but I do think that there are people who think they want others' sanity to depend on loving them. I'd say that they just don't very well know what they really very well want.

Dicot phylogeny

2008-05-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

Lately I have been dabbling with learning botany. Below I link to a list I've made to help me memorize both the various families of dicots and the evolutionary relationships between the orders. The lists on the internet I could find are too detailed and spread out for beginners like me trying to get a big picture to paste details on. I post it in case someone else will find it useful. Later maybe I'll extend it to the monocots, the rest of the flowering plants.

Files last updated: July 22, 2008

botany.odt OpenDocument text version (view the .zip file in open office or save with extension .odt (e.g., as botany.odt) if browser tries to save it as .zip file)
botany.pdf Adobe pdf version
botany.doc WORD 97 version

The Rubbish that The Washington Post Will Print When it Promotes Oral Sodomy In Our Nation's Youth

2008-05-21T05:47:00.001-07:00

Yesterday afternoon I heard on NPR about a new study suggesting that teenagers don't engage in oral sex to avoid losing virginity. "Hmmm," I thought, "sounds like something I should check into." Well, anyway, after forgetting about it for a while, I recollected to look into it, and it appeared the ruckus leads back to yesterday's Washington Post story, A Debunking on Teenagers and 'Technical Virginity', whose lead is that "Contrary to widespread belief, teenagers do not appear to commonly engage in oral sex as a way to preserve their virginity, according to the first study to examine the question nationally."

Reading into the story, one becomes confused, because at first the story quotes an author of the study (Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute) as saying that "Most teens don't have oral sex until they have had vaginal sex." An extraordinary and surprising claim, I'd say, and quite contrary to my belief that oral sodomy (I refuse to consider oral "sex" sex) is an addiction that screws up sexual desires. But then later one reads, "Jones noted that the analysis could not determine which sexual activity [oral or vaginal sex] tended to occur first." So what is it? No evidence mentioned in the story corroborates the former claim. Perhaps the latter remarks only apply to sexual activity initiated more than three years earlier? Conveniently, the article links to the "full report" of Non-coital sexual activities among adolescents, so one may check for oneself.

Going to the latter link, one finds the paper is full of arrant impossible nonsense. For example, “The overwhelming majority of non-virgin teens, 87%, had ever had oral sex, compared to 23% of virgins.” But then later, “Relative to adolescents who had not had vaginal sex, those who had sex within zero to six months of the survey were 9 times more likely to have had oral sex, and this effect was incremental. Adolescents who had had vaginal sex more than three years prior to the interview were 33 times more likely than those who had not had vaginal sex to have had oral sex.” And the words “adolescent” and “teen” appear to be used interchangeably. So simple math indicates that some people have had oral "sex" 9 x 23% = 207% of the time while others had had it 33 x 23% = 759% of the time. I don’t need my graduate degree in math to see that when probabilities are greater than one something is wrong. The most disturbing thing is that the Washington Post would print an article about such a ridiculous non-sensical paper and that other news organizations would pick it up. I can’t believe anyone with above average intelligence at the Washington Post bothered to read the paper and think at all critically about it, or How could they have judged its conclusions newsworthy? It is hard to say exactly what mistake the study paper makes that causes it to refute basic axioms of probability theory; my guess is that the study authors are confused about the meaning of "times", which refers to multiplication and not addition. Or maybe they were confused about the difference between addition and multiplication. Needless to say it is more important to first understand the basics of math such as the differences between multiplication and addition, and that "times" means "multiplied by", and that percent means "per 100", than to venture into "multivariate logistic regression". And it is totally irresponsible to give the impression one is competent enough to understand the latter when one doesn't understand (I'm guessing) basic arithmetical concepts.

What is really wicked about the Post's decision to print an article dignifying a research paper of absolute rubbish (before it was even published) is that The Post encourages the falsehood that sodomy is not something that addictively can screw-up sexual behavior. What a cheap heinous way to sell newspapers, to publicize bogus studies couched in the language of statistical analysis written by people who give the impression they don't know enough math to understand the difference between addition and multiplication, just to be able to have extraordinary headlines that appeal to people's most insidious addictions! Like an aggrieved camelid, I spit at The Washington Post. And I spit at most of the rest of the MSM for blindly picking up the story without using any thought to evaluate it.

Kudos to The New York Times for ignoring the story. They ran a story a few weeks ago, Students of Virginity, dealing with similar issues which was actually insightful and sensical.

Should males make much use of their own practical faculties?

2008-04-05T07:19:00.000-07:00

This is a post based on very recently discovered ideas (like last week). In particular, I have but a very vague idea of the niceties involved in distinguishing the practical from the theoretical, not having thought much of the underlying philosophical distinction. Nevertheless, I thought it well to throw this out so people can chew on it.

As readers of this blog should know, I believe that intraejaculate sperm selection is responsible for females wanting to have sex with virtuous males at a young age, a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia. If a female when young wants sex with a male before she becomes adult, it is a sign that she is unusually certain she desires him—she doesn’t need to wait to make sure he’s right for her. And so if a male is not deceptive, his being wanted sexually by young females is accordingly a strong sign that he is exceedingly desirable to females. The particulars of sex between a virtuous male and a young female would accordingly be supposed to select for sperm coding for qualities that are especially desired by females. But just the other day I was thinking about this a little more carefully, dotting all the i’s and crossing all my t’s, so to speak, and lo! I noticed an important subtlety that I had not erstwhile observed.

The part of beauty that is easiest to judge is character. Accordingly, if a girl knows a male to be good, why wouldn’t she just ask him whether he has talents worthy of her, and use his estimation heavily in making her decision? Being good, he wouldn’t be dishonest. And doubtless he knows the extent of his talents better than she. And I think that’s right. A male should be open with a girl evaluating him insofar as his talents are concerned—it’s not immodest for him to display his talents. And males being open thus allows bad males to be open without stigma, ensuring that deception will be a tool employed by bad males, ensuring that intraejaculate sperm selection will tend to cause girls to reject bad males. But a male shouldn’t do all the evaluating of his prospects, no; besides being ridiculous, it would ensure that girls would not gain by waiting in evaluating the prospects of a good male, inasmuch as such prospects would not be measured directly by her; nymphetal philokalia would be hindered.

The distinction important to make is between a girl largely taking a male’s word concerning his talents and between her largely taking his word concerning his prospects. Once a female knows a male’s abilities, she is scarcely less able to evaluate his prospects than he is. And this evaluation would be expected to improve with her age and worldly wisdom. But notice something that this implies, namely that evaluating prospects through worldly wisdom is something more useful to girls (and thus females) than to men. But how really can one go about intelligently evaluating prospects (and in particular, the relative usefulness of talents) otherwise than through worldly, practical wisdom? So maybe when it comes to practical knowledge of how to be successful financially, socially, and sexually, or even of how to reform the world through (teaching) truth provided one knows truth, females would be expected to have evolved to be more skilled at it. Maybe even girls are not particularly annoyed at males who just sort of aren’t very concerned with figuring out how to get ahead or to accomplish things, because it indicates a tendency to delegate practical decisions to females. And a male who delegates such practical decisions to females is a male who presumably encourages girls to make their own decisions regarding his prospects. And sexually that is the kind of virtuous male a girl might be expected especially to be sexually pleased with, because intraejaculate sperm selection that occurs in sex between a male and a girl only would be expected to select for characteristics especially pleasant to females to the extent the male’s ancestors also shared this tendency to insist females use mostly just their own worldly wisdom in evaluating his prospects. But it is more than that really. For what has such a male use for internal worldly practical wisdom anyway? It’s mostly girls with worldly wisdom who would want him sexually, and eh, heh, if females with worldly wisdom are in love with him, Why not just make use of these females’ worldly wisdom to guide him in his practical decisions? He does better to concentrate developing his talents and theoretical wisdom—to understand why as opposed to how. He won’t have much need of practical wisdom. When it comes time to making practical decisions, he can just trust the most loved and practical of his lovers to nudge him in the direction that they find most likely to be profitable, ehheh.

Sadness, Holiness, and Piety Explained

2008-03-26T14:30:00.000-07:00

Though I have blogged about the ideas in this post numerous times before, I haven't posted a good summary of them that could easily be linked to by way of justifying them or bragging on them, so here goes.

I believe that the main significance of sadness is that in males it restricts genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Selection selects not only for gene qualities, but also for how well genes harmonize with each other. Accordingly, genes close together on a chromosome are more likely to have alleles which harmonize well together than one would expect merely from looking at overall allele frequencies; the disharmonious chromosome regions tend to die out. Genetic crossover has a large chance of destroying harmony and a small chance of creating harmony. Nevertheless, people have evolved to crossover their chromosomes because the occasional small advantage can compound generation after generation rather like interest on an investment does, to eventually create large gains. Thinking in terms of this simplistic compounding model, something that gives a 1% advantage each generation can after 100 generations turn into a 1.01^100 = (approximately) 270% advantage. But no compounding can ever cause a disadvantage to be any more than total; a –100% advantage is the worst case-scenario, corresponding to the chromosome region dying out. The important point to distill from this is that the disadvantages of crossover are short-term while the advantages are long term.

The genetic material of a male will mostly be separated from that of his mate after just a few generations. A male's mate can't significantly benefit from the long-term advantages which might accrue from his having heavily crossed-over his chromosomes during spermatogenesis, notwithstanding she can be harmed by the likely short-term disadvantages. Accordingly, it stands to reason that females are sexually pleased by males not crossing over their chromosomes, provided they have the capacity to sense whether such crossover is occurring or not.

Clearly genes will evolve more useful traits if selection is determined more by actual life skills determining mating and survival success than by luck doing so. It is entirely reasonable, therefore, that genes in males would try to make males sexier when they are unlucky than when they are lucky, provided that there is no overall harm to these genes in the long run by so doing. And mostly all that matters selfishly to genes so far as crossover is concerned is that on average over the generations the crossover rate is about right; no harm in regulating it from generation to generation according to circumstance. A male who feels himself unlucky becomes sad, and this sadness (I posit) discourages crossover in his developing sperm. Mostly females have the ability to see whether his sadness is authentic, and so females find him more sexy-like-a-Keats-poem as a result of his sadness, and as a result his ill luck less influences his reproductive success. "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted" (by more sex, on average). Similarly, if a female has had bad luck, she will be sad. This should be a sign for her mate that she expects him to reward her by feeling her sadness—by making it his own—so that as a result her offspring will have an advantage. (In a female, eggs mostly develop while she is just a fetus, and so she probably has no control over how much genetic crossover occurs in the genetic material of such eggs.)

But a male could also restrict crossover just because he loves a female unusually much. In my opinion, this feeling is best described as being "holy" for her. (Amazingly, according to the dictionary, the word "holy" actually comes from the Germanic word for "whole", as makes sense if the significance of holiness is that it causes chromosomes to remain whole.) I will leave it to your own judgement of your experiences with people (and yourself) as to whether you agree holiness be related to sadness. I think it is, and that in fact the emotions are the same in their underlying biological effect.

Also, there is what I call piety. Ideally, males who feel themselves unusually morally inspired and beautiful would assist themselves by appealing to females by keeping their chromosomes whole, taking away from their genetic material in distant descendants, who from randomness aren't likely to be quite as special. What I think happens is that feeling special morally can cause a male to feel a "pious" emotion that restricts crossover, making him more sexually desirable to females. It is subtle, though, trying to imagine a process whereby males would evolve to care in this manner. That is where nature comes into play. Birds, squirrels, other animals and maybe even plants—they all probably just don't love otherwise very good humans as much if the humans aren't pious. And when nature wants to reward someone, it can give subtle hints about truths that can be useful to sensitive people—hints that people can benefit from which can probably, among other things, make genes evolve to encourage piety when nature expects it.

All this said, there can be something insane about gloom. Sometimes misfortune can make one feel screwed up, leading to insane emotions appropriate for people who have been defiled, but quite inappropriate for others. The way I see it, though, is that the main reason sadness has gotten such a bad rap is that lucky people, having been lucky, tend to have more power and influence than the unlucky. Powerful lucky males can selfishly benefit by disparaging sadness. They quite likely won't be disparaging their own emotions, while they may encourage their unlucky sexual competitors to feel emotions making them less sexy to females.

Financial meltdown

2008-03-19T14:00:00.000-07:00

I am alarmed that the government's main response to our financial mess is to encourage more lending and to shore up what loans already exist. Trying to return to the situation we just came from is not a reasonable option. The correct method of dealing with this mess is to put more money, money not created by lending, into the hands of citizens, and gradually to restrict institutions from lending, by requiring higher reserves, so the underlying cause of the fiasco will not repeat itself. Easy credit is what started this mess. It is as though there is mass denial that there was any thing wrong with this easy credit system. The stimulus package as first proposed, just giving rebate checks to ordinary citizens, was a very reasonable if not very quantitatively signficant response. But since that time the responses by our government and the Fed have been quite idiotic, imo, just a kind of delaying the day of reckoning, the upshot being that the time of suffering and economic uncertainties will be prolonged and that everything will crash harder when it does crash. I predict a time of great suffering for Americans (and much of the rest of the world) as poverty spreads from the stupidity of our leaders in dealing with this economic crisis. Perhaps the suffering will be great enough that it eventually causes people to see that the easy-credit banking system has all along caused poverty and suffering by ensuring with mathematical certainty that the debt people have to banks will always be just a little less than the money deposited there. Perhaps it will mortify people into seeing the truth. But the Great Depression and the Savings and Loan crisis didn't teach people, apparently, so who knows?

A couple poems

2008-03-18T15:27:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple poems I have written lately, after thinking lazily about the ideas in them for a few weeks or months (usually in the morning). Don't just assume that my having written the poems implies that they are about real people or thoughts I sort of wonder might be in girls' heads. I find that the most interesting poems are about sex, and writing poems like that you've just got to assume that the various girls imagined in the poem like you awful much or, I don't know, the poem would be about having sex with girls that don't like you much, which I ken is kind of too rape-like to make a good poem. So, not that I'm saying girls don't like me a great deal to the point many of them are perfectly willing to become totally captivated by me, but not that I'm saying that some do like me that much, either, since I am not above being fanciful when necessary.

I think I am getting better with age at deciding how much sexual explicitness to put in a poem without getting emotionally cowardly or bull-headed depending on my then attitude toward censors and whatever exists of the police state. Ironically, I feel that makes the general tone of the poems more safe, making them less something a prude or a censor might find offensive, yay, which makes me feel unusually at ease posting them, yay. I actually think most people will find these poems unobjectionable, especially if they look to the main meanings of them. The first poem starts out prose-like.

Beautiful girl

Something strange has bothered me for some time.
The most beautiful girl (judging by her pictures) I have seen,
I sometime wonder whether I love her best.
Intellectually I love her most, probably,
but emotionally, I just seem to feel more holy feelings for a few other girls.
I think I’m finally beginning to figure out what the situation is.
I knew there was an answer, now I’m beginning to see it.
Most lovely girls, even most girls who are very beautiful,
they try to look beautiful.
But this girl goes beyond that.
It’s as though instead she actually tries to be beautiful.
It’s as though when she arranges her appearance she thinks to herself,
“this is more beautiful than that, I’ll do this.”
This might seem a subtle difference, but it is quite significant, I’m inclined to think.

Most pretty girls are like,
“I will get more sexual pleasure from a possible lover if he thinks me beautiful,
so I will try very hard to make sure he finds me beautiful.”
Trying to look beautiful is just a subset of their main objective, trying to look so they might be worshipped
in the way that gives them the most pleasure.
Mostly, girls aren’t wise enough for it to be prudent for them to have sex from love rather than pleasure,
especially because what gives girls (real) sexual pleasure is extremely close to what is good.
But there might be a girl or girls so virtuous and good, they rightly would have sex more from love, because they are so wise, it isn’t really imprudent.
But the thing is, girls are very good at trying to be loved emotionally.
If a girl tries to be loved emotionally, well,
if she is worthy of it and very beautiful to begin with, she may well succeed better than a girl who isn’t trying that, I’m afraid, notwithstanding the girl who is trying to be beautiful may actually be more deserving of such love.
For instance, it is a beautiful thing for a girl to try to be sort of encouraging of a fanciful aspect in her lover.
One isn’t quite as accurate when one is fanciful and dreamy,
but one gets new ideas better;
they’re largely silly, but
time can refine out what is not quite right,
and the new ideas might some of them be great discoveries
beneficial to humanity and beyond.
It’s quite the magnanimous thing to do.
I say magnanimous, because I don’t really know whether it isn’t sacrificial at least in a limited sense.
A girl might make me so fanciful
I could do all kinds of funny things.
Maybe I’ll start flapping my arms like a fairy
so I can imagine myself flying away with her.
The thing is, though,
if I am next to her,
observing her beautiful person,
trying for a more pleasing, more sacred devotion,
and then
I’m flapping my arms like a fairy,
How am I supposed to be possessed of the holy pious sadness
which is also appropriate and which she would need for sexual pleasure?
Notwithstanding an understanding that such fancy is no occasion for impious laughter,
I might find it difficult,
when flapping my arms like a fairy,
to be entirely myself to the extent
that would be virtuous.
It would be quite difficult not to consider
I’m being very silly
and not to allow
common misconceptions about the connections between silliness and the jolly
to intrude certain misgivings that could cause in me a jollity
that just wouldn’t be holy,
no,
not very holy at all.

I guess I should be more precise about what I mean by a girl trying to be beautiful.
After all, the way I define beauty in persons, it is mostly something innate.
I think the way the word is used, basically beauty (in adjusting appearance) is what beauty does (in adjusting appearance); anyway, that’s what it means to me in that connection.

So what am I to do?
Oh no,
and how can I force a girl to be true to herself if she doesn’t have sex mainly for pleasure?
My powers, my abilities to adjust love according to my perception of how true she is being to herself will be largely useless.
Fortunately, I don’t think it matters much.
Remember, a consequence of a girl thinking for herself is that by so doing she will do sex better.
Especially will this be the case if she already has much understanding
(not for any profound reason, but just because using your own skill works better when that skill is significant)
and love
(love is very close to sex in females).
So I figure if I ever have a relationship with her,
she would be herself, anyway.
I just have to concentrate more on loving her better because it is the right thing to do,
because she is worthy of it.

Actually, though, there is another consideration.
There are girls I kind of look at and think,
Wow! all that girl cares about now is sexual pleasure,
Excellent.
And some of her friends look like they think that of her too
(and I suspect they might feel mostly similarly)
And she, and they, are beautiful.
But then I consider my feelings about it a little more, and no,
that’s not quite true she has no place for feeling love.
It’s like she sort of senses something in my brain she loves.
Whether she actually has been webspying or just can peer into my mind,
no matter,
she just wants to love the girl I find most beautiful,
the girl I have mystical fanciful feelings for.
She doesn’t love me, she loves herrrrrrrrrr.
And it’s like,
that could be useful, actually.
Sacred girl will try so hard to make me love silly girl more,
it will work.
A division of labor.
One girl trying to inspire me,
because it is beautiful,
another trying to make me love both,
no,
she wants me to love silly girl more than herself.
Even though else she has total contempt for what is called love,
as if
girls being supposed to be led first by that is what gets in the way
of her own sexual pleasure.

I enslave girls,
I will enslave her
to be what she already would recognize
is more herself
than
what she allows to live her life.
Imagine the comfort to her
of knowing what mainly she loves
loves me too
and yet is not my slave
at all
but my equal.
I wonder whether you can set her free,
and if so,
Should you?
Would you?
Will I ever love you more than her?
Do you expect me to?

Or After

Sometimes a girl will give herself up
to sexual pleasure
and sometimes
she won’t.

Sometimes a girl will think
“if I only don’t get emotionally
into
it—
the sex —
he can’t hurt me
too much.
I won’t be his slave
because then I can resist his charms.
I know how to please him,
I’ll love him so,
we’ll see who’s slave
and who’s not,
yeah.”

Funny it should give her such solace
Not to feel it.
I think she thinks she’ll get just as much pleasure
not being totally into it:
That being totally into it
And losing oneself
Just a phantom seasoning
be
Of no real consequence.
Lust willed less easy to judge than lust unwilled?
That’s true, especially when sunbathing,
but I am thinking of her pleasure here
in a more direct way than of what pleasure her lust will
give herself in bed.
It’s the pleasure herself that mostly scares her.
If she doesn’t seek it
when she’s getting fucked,
she’ll get the same amount,
at least if it’s real—
she thinks that,
but she’s all wet,
and wrong.

I will love her so well
in bed
she won’t be able to help
being into that.
She will not be able to resist
not trying to increase the pleasure
inside her.

But there’s something graceful
almost
about her reluctance.
She’s really too sacrosanct
for me to force her to grasp pleasure
if she were in bed with me.
She’ll become a slave
as she feels my forearm slightly brushing up against her back
because I’ll love her so well she won’t resist getting into
her own pleasure
while she’s having the sex.
She will become a slave because my love
will be too beautiful for her for it to be in her nature to resist wallowing in the pleasure from it.
My teeth and tongue will be mostly well-brushed,
I will be clean!
and she will remember I am the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist
and most everything I do will remind her of my appreciation of her gracefulness.
Giving in might cause her enslavement
but enslavement won’t cause her giving in.

Girls need to be true to their own tendencies when having sex,
and if they ignore some of their emotions then,
that won’t happen
to the same degree.
They, I, everybody else—
We won’t get as much
if they don’t really allow themselves to consider,
while fucking,
what their own sexual pleasure is telling them
about how to get more,
because I am clean.
That’s right,
girls have brains,
and I don’t want them to not use any part
when I’m fucking them.

And yet,
there is something good-naturedly seductive
about a girl being as true to her fears as they are.
Girls like that,
who try to please
almost as best they know how
without emotionally seeking the pleasure themselves when actually having sex—
they are so innocently seductive.
They’ll wear such skimpy clothes
before taking them off
and are sexy
because it is what they want to be.
How nice the way I could imagine they’ll milk it,
all intellectual and rational-like, yet loving and gentle.
Yeah, a girl being that way,
not getting emotionally wrapped up instantaneously as they arrive
in the pleasures felt from a penis as it’s fucking her,
reduces fears
of loving too much.
Fear is emotional too,
and gets in the way of pleasure.
I will be so lovingly appreciative of
her kindnesses,
as she senses my forearm against her back,
she won’t be able to help not getting more into herself,
because getting more of it
will just seem so much more important than anything else right then
and later,
because it will have been so beautiful so far
because her fears of emotion
that I couldn’t make disappear
by informing
were respected
by herself
and by me,
it will become more beautiful
to her
(and thus more beautiful)
to no longer fear her pleasant, purely sexual emotions
and to instead let them inform
her sexual behavior
while she is actually getting fucked,
and not just before.

More impressions about Obama

2008-02-26T14:15:00.000-08:00

I thought I would give a few more vague impressions I have concerning Obama, relating to his sanity.

An effective manipulative technique to make an issue seem more of moment than it otherwise would be is to encourage the audience to view it as THE issue. People have the innate tendency to want to view one issue as THE issue. I.e., to view precisely one issue as so important that if you have the wrong opinion about it, well, you're screwed. This is because there is one issue that is always THE issue. Don't get addicted to oral or rectal sodomy, and congratulations, you're already half-way to virtue; at any rate, you quite literally are not screwed.

What strikes me about Obama is that he comes across as believing that his becoming president is THE issue. He has a way of projecting that if we only believe in him and put him in the White House, voilá, he will make our country pure again in the important sense. There are lots of people who try to manipulate thus. For instance, preachers will tell you that if you only believe in the Bible, you will be saved. Or financial gurus will try to get you to believe that if you only follow ther advice with sufficient enthusiasm and belief, money will sprout up all about you and you will get rich. Obama is a little different, though, from the Suze Ormans or the typical evangelical preachers. He doesn't so much play on fear for he seems to think our country (with at least one important exception, namely him) already is screwed-up; the only thing to fear would be more of the same, and most people just aren't very scared of that. But once he comes in, unifies the country and maketh THE GREAT CHANGE, we will be saved, he seems to think.

I could cynically say that Obama is being manipulative, but I actually don't feel he especially is that. My impression is that Obama actually believes that he can make THE GREAT CHANGE in our political system that will lead our country to pristine springs of prosperity and togetherness. Obama is crazy, I'm inclined to think. What is very strange about Obama is that notwithstanding he is crazy, his opinions are fairly normal. Most crazy people rightly feel that THE issue, i.e., the issue to be obsessed about, is always the craziest, weirdest issue imaginable. In a society with correct opinions about sodomy, THE issue is not important, and in other societies, THE issue will tend to be the issue which seems most insane--the issue which the issues of crazy people most tend to resemble--because largely people become crazy to find it. At least in a comparatively pro-sodomy society such as ours, the typical crazy person will be wise enough to believe THE issue is about the bizarre. But Obama does not seem to have done so. What he seems to be saying is that if we just do the typical things liberal Democrats have been suggesting of late, e.g., pull out of Iraq, make the taxes a little less regressive, make health insurance somewhat easier to get, Wow! we will be saved as he parts the Red Sea of disunity before us ennabling our trip into the great promised land of THE GREAT CHANGE.

It is very hard to convince people that THE issue is THE issue, because THE issue (sodomy) is something people laugh at, and because many have addictions that make them feel THE issue is not the issue. What Obama asks of us is easy. He just wants people to believe the standard things that democrats have been saying for years. It is much easier to get people to believe normal opinions. After all, people with self-doubt want to believe in normal, and since Obama comes across as wanting us to believe we are all screwed up, his remedy of normal has a certain appeal. It's a help he has a booming, powerful voice. Zombie people like to be rescued by the strong. The big help to Obama, though, is that he actually believes. Sincerity is hard to fake, and I'm not inclined he has to.

I can imagine how Obama might have become crazy. I have read that in much of his childhood he was separated from his mother. Very possibly he viewed the separation as caused by something screwed-up. In a situation like that it can very easily seem emotionally that not succeeding here, not succeeding in defeating whatever caused his mother to be away, is a defeat by screwing-up forces equivalent to his own self getting screwed up. This can lead to an obsession. What is most peculiar about Obama is that whereas almost any normal crazy person would view his loss as having been caused by extraterrestrials from a planet orbitting Arcturus, or his mother secretly having pledged herself to the rules of the gypsy council, or some other bizarre such theory and that the answer lay only in deciphering the secret codes she has given him that lay all about him, instead he just seems to have decided that the answer to preventing such problems is the most conventional one.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against Obama because I think him a little crazy the way he comes across as believing himself on a mission. On the contrary, craziness rather suggests anti-sodomy characteristics I want in a leader. The craziness itself can be annoying and even disabling if excessive, but it says so much good about character, I can live with it. What bothers me is not that Obama is crazy, but that he is not looney enough for a crazy person. Given his craziness, such absence of looneyness doesn't suggest effective anti-sodomy characteristics, and rather undoes what his craziness suggests about his character. Accordingly, his personality doesn't suggests to me one way or the other whether he is virtuous. And the craziness itself will be a disadvantage, especially since he doesn't appear looney enough to profit from it. I don't know why he is so crazy without being looney. I suspect these traits are in his makeup. It's a very strange combination, I am inclined to think, and can't offer any explanations other than that combinations with small chances can happen, especially in a huge world like ours.

Why Obama makes me uneasy.

2008-02-12T07:05:00.000-08:00

I end up watching a great deal of CNN and MSNBC because my mom is very much into the election and likes to keep up with the election drama not very differently I think than from how I used to keep up with sports when I was a kid (only she is even more into it), and so the television often tends to be on and tuned to those stations. We both agree the coverage is awful--the shameless emotional manipulations to make it seem like every bit of news is the most important thing to know about since the invention of the wheel. It is just not a restful thing to listen to for me, and so I'd rather get my news from the internet. Anyway, what we notice is that these networks are very much pro-Obama and anti-Hillary. Right from the get go I could tell they had decided they want Obama to win. That, if nothing else, makes me not want to vote for Obama, since it makes me wonder whether there be some corruption causing the media's slant. In the debates Obama really doesn't say at all precisely what he is going to do, and though he speaks about change as though he has some original different ideas, I suspect that if he had these original ideas to a significant extent, he would tell us what they are.

Conspiracy? Has Obama bought off the MSM somehow? I doubt all that. Some of it I think is pure sexism. Obama is OK at giving emotionally dramatic speeches, that's probably his main skill. And it is a skill of presentation not unlike the skill that would make one television personality more fit to squabble and make dramatic political pontifications than another personality. If Obama gets idolized, the male television personalities probably figure they will end up getting idolized too, which might make them get sex easier. But that's all rather obvious, the same sort of thing that makes television full of shows about entertainment personalities nobody with sense who doesn't want to go into the entertainment profession would ever hardly care about. I also think there is something more subtle going on concerning Obama's mixed race.

The main reason I am uneasy about Obama is that I think he has an extremely high opinion of himself that is not justified by what he seems to be, judging from his debates and his declared opinions. I suspect he is extremely conceited. What's more, I don't think people are realizing just how conceited he is because they don't understand the significance of mixed race. Many people are prone to judging one's opinion of oneself by judging how pious one is; thus the expression, "holier than thou." This is mostly very reasonable. If a male thinks he is great, especially in the moral sphere, he will tend emotionally to postpone to future generations the crossing-over of his DNA in his gametes, because postponing this so, by creating in himself a spirit of holiness and piety, will make him in this generation more sexually attractive to females, which on some level is what he feels he needs to do, because he be unusually great in his own estimation. Obama comes across as being rather pious in aspect, which in ordinary circumstances would seem a little excessive considering how he comes across on television. But it would not appear so very excessive I should think it terribly excessive except for the consideration of his mixed race. The whole point of genetic crossover is genetic mixing. In no person is genetic crossover more relevant and appropriate than in a person with parents of differing race. Obama has done pretty well for himself. If he is what he presents himself as, there would appear to be a fairly harmonious new combination of DNA there in his person, a harmonious combination that just won't exist much anymore in his descendants unless he is more lustful than he is, because it is a new harmony. Males of mixed race (and more especially and precisely males whose parents are of different race) should be a great deal more lustful than males not of mixed race, and I really think that is their (appropriate) tendency mostly. That Obama comes across as pious makes me think he is either a remarkable faker or that he is extremely conceited (probably the latter). There are other possibilities, I guess. E.g., he could be very much into girls, who especially appreciate piety (this would actually make me want to vote for him, but I don't think that is the most likely explanation). Or he could idolize his wife an extreme degree or be extremely hen-pecked by her (I wouldn't be surprised if both of these possibilities might apply somewhat, but I think them less significant possibilities than his conceitedness). And a president who thinks too highly of himself could be quite a dangerous thing that I don't want. Especially since apparently he used cocaine previously.

I am really quite certain sons of parents of different races should be more lustful and less pious and holy than sons of parents of the same race. Indeed, a few years ago when I was on a train, I was pleased to sort of eye flirt during most of the trip with an extremely pretty girl whose parents were of different races (her mother was white, and her father was Asian--Filipino or (less likely) Thai I guessed). I would look at her all holy and pure and innocent, and she just really tried so hard to get me to look lightsomely at her like that was how I would feel about her if I liked her--not so much in a seductive way like she was temporarily adopting seductive emotions to destroy misplaced guilt in me, but like she figured with emotional lightness all around is how our physical love and attraction if it ever came to that (I don't wish to indicate whether I think it already came to that in her) would be. It's as though it never occurred to her that I could physically love her in a holy way or that holiness could ever have anything to do with anything but priggishness. And I deduced from having looked at her and (a great deal less) at her other family members what the deal was. Her brother also was a very special person (though I didn't look at him much, duh, since his sister being so pretty and of the opposite sex was of course much more interesting to me), at least he looked that way, and his sister probably loved him and their family so much that she definitely didn't want him to have the holiness that would be inappropriate from the point of view of producing lasting genetic connections between her mother and father. She sensed that her brother, a lovely son in a beautiful interracial family, will need when dealing with females to be emotionally lightsome and not very all-serious like, and that's how she just sort of assumed all males should be. That is something else that is weird about Obama. He says that he believes in making one America (a very good and effective political goal, which if I recall by the way was Edwards' stated goal four years ago before he apparently decided to change this time around and run mostly using the standard rich-are-evil-wicked-people platform), but if he believed that emotionally, Why wouldn't he emotionally be lightsome like cream (the girl somehow reminded me of cream or creamy smoothness, or maybe some sort of ideal healthy vegan creme since I mostly avoid milk products), since in some sense that would bring his parents together? (Of all my biological theories, my one concerning males being able to regulate genetic crossover in gametes should be the most obvious. It just doesn't make sense to anyone who thinks for himself that such a tendency wouldn't evolve given the ease with which such control could occur and the usefulness of it to evolutionary survival.)

I prefer Hillary to Obama. I am also OK with McCain. The Republicans seem to be getting better, and the Democrats seem to be getting worse. The Democrats have the cowardly wrong position about the war and they are too pro-sodomy. The Republicans are too much for the wealthy and tend to be too much in line with the evangelical fanatics. McCain comes across as less for the wealthy and the evangelicals than the other Republicans, and he has the best war position of all the candidates. Believe it or not, what bothers me especially about McCain is that he has been (and I guess still is) very much against Amtrak. I have always loved trains, and with today's energy crisis, they make more sense than ever. How could anyone be against trains? I'll probably vote for Hillary over McCain and McCain over Obama.

Is dancing adult?

2008-02-08T09:46:00.000-08:00

Is dancing adult?

For the past few months or so I have had in the back of my mind the question of why some girls like to dance. It seems innocent enough, dancing, and yet some girls seem to be quite determined in viewing it of an importance to themselves beyond whatever I could imagine it being to me. And I don’t think dancing has anything to do with young female sexuality. So I have been trying (duly purposivelessly) to understand it. I shall first give a poem about dance I wrote a few days ago (making a few edits along the way) and then make some clarification and also comments about further impressions I have concerning the matter.

Silly Doodle Poem

Don’t know what I’ll say.
Am saying it for myself
I love to dance
For someone else
But not myself
It doesn’t do much for me
in the capacity
of just me.

Dancing is sexy
When its purpose
is seductive.
When girls giggle
They go
To-and-fro
Arms too
Up and down
A drill
If it looks like
The girls will feel
more comfortable
Doing it.

But just as a dance,
(And Why would a girl dance for me
for any other reason?)
A dance really pretty conservative is.
It’s mostly about play—
Playing at being an adult.
Yeah, that’s about right,
that’s my inference.
Women move when they have sex.
Women behave sexually like responsible adults
Because when girls, they played at it.
Girls like being still,
quiet and music-free
When they have sex.
And if they didn’t,
somehow a Gregorian chant or such-like
sacred hymn would please them best
loved, I imagine.
But girls wonder, I’m sure, what it’s
like to love like an adult.
To most girls,
the girls who wait
to have children,
it’s really pretty much the only relevant concern.
Sex absolutely still is weird.
A girl want to see if stillness and quiet and peace
really is what she wants now.
And how is she to know that?
Without experimenting—play.
For a girl, dancing is the opposite of sex.

But dancing can be seductive to males less wise than I.
Which in a way can make it seductive to me,
I mean given what that implies about her general attitudes.
For no such dance will ever be for me.
To me a dance with me or about me is just silly.
SILLY

I don’t like music.
At least, it has no relation to my thoughts for her.
They’re best most absolutely still
And yet,
I would go along,
for her,
not seriously,
but just because it’s fun to see her have play—
to help her see dance not really
very relevant is to anything I feel and
yet if she were to wait and get normal
I could do normal OK too, but Why
really would she ever want that?
I’m not that sort of person.
I would never claim that.

I think she’s obsessed with it—
Being able to dance,
yeah, in her music,
if my understanding of custom be accurate, and she does as custom dictates,
She throws her head about violently
thrashing like dance is what it is all about
and frustrated wall-banging would be a natural consequence of
ever getting rejected when wanting it.
Sometimes people obsess
At singular frustrations.

Seduction not what she is after.
And it’s not what I want from her,
Yet I keep coming back to that, Why?

To some guys,
Guys who don’t feel as good about themselves as I,
a dance can be so seductively light
With laughter
And clean movement
there Can be conveyed the notion
A mere instant of pleasure
Can amount to more than a month
of sexual love.
That’s OK, it’s normal, it’s what women give normally
When they want to give.
Losing oneself in a song
like some other losing oneself?
No way, I’ll stay myself
and so won’t really take dancing too
seriously. I won’t be into the music, but you.
I could do that,
I’m pretty sure.

Love dawdles, it seems,
More than I had expected,
I don’t actually seem to be very fast or forwards
When it comes to actually communicating with females.

She is too scared:
The simplest inference I can make
from my tendency not to do anything.
On some inner level I can’t reflect well upon
I have evolved to have considered her scared given the data.
But that’s just a guess
I’m more sure that what I’ve evolved to feel
as the right speed probably is.
Glacial it is,
Until I feel otherwise.

I could make her less afraid
By dancing with her
Or just enjoying the spectacle
Of her movement.
I don’t have to make it more than
it is
Because it won’t be about me on any fundamental level.
It is not important to me,
Just to her
Maybe about me as much as someone else,
but as to the last point, it makes no difference,
Whatever..., I like dreams even if just dreams.

Back to seduction
Girls can make a male want to sexually enjoy her
In no still tantric way.
Innocently they do this to the
men they want
to value pleasure
more than guilt.
Girls aren’t fools
Lots of desirable guys don’t get it.
I didn’t get it.
Neither did anyone else,
male, female, or neutral.
A girl setting out to please
Can make
A moment of bliss
That leaves one awestruck.
Really what’s the point?
The more religious the girl
The more one wants to tell her to remove the crucifix from about her neck,
Because she needs to be herself
And devoid of vampire fears
To enjoy
Great sex and make it enjoyable.
How could I have determined
Without lengthy derivation
When throwing away the crucifix is
What I wanted her to do
That I should be as holy and sacred
As I ever possibly could be.
It’s easy for me now to see this
but I really didn’t see anything
except from a standard direction
then, back yonder,
The words,
the WAY OF PHRASING THE QUESTION,
they weren’t my own
I thought I was my own man
I wasn’t yet man.
I knew I loved my holiness more
even though I loved them both.

Try to seduce
And many people will (unjustly) try to spit on you
Try to dance
And some people will (unjustly) think you are trying to seduce
They will hate you for it,
Others will find it dull
or that it is not quite preferable to what they wrongly see as its only alternative.
Or, as I would probably be if I were as vulnerable to music as I was at your age,
that they aren’t up to the risk of letting their feelings for you
be controlled by a song.
I think I can dance.

The depraved pedantic
Don’t want women to remember
How they had thought they would love when older.
The play of their childhood is what the fallen women remember of themselves,
and it could make them pure.
But it would require too much understanding
for the wicked
to behave with such cunning.
Bitter men,
when the bitterness tastes bad,
they believe girls dance because they be natural sluts.
THE END

OK, now for a clarification. When I was speaking of “back yonder” I was referring to my high school days. A long time ago indeed.

Now I feel I should more-or-less list my other impressions about dance and music, some of which I haven’t developed as highly.

I really do feel dance is more of an adult thing. For instance, one would think, given my attraction to young females, that high-school cheerleaders would be more attractive to me than (say) professional cheerleaders that one sees at sporting events, and yet not so. High school cheerleaders when they leap around all over it’s unappealing to me. But maybe partly it is just that the aesthetic when it comes to makeup, facial expression, etc., that one sees on high school cheerleaders nowadays who make it to television has been twisted by ESPN, the event organizers, coaches, or I don’t really know because I hardly care, blah, blah, blah. If they would stay still, they could be prettier, probably, but then that wouldn’t be cheerleading, I guess. There are doubtless many pretty high school cheerleaders (there were a fair number when I went to high school) and gymnastics is quite interesting to watch. Not that I am particularly attracted to professional cheerleaders—I really am not into movement—but mostly they are prettier and sexier to me than high school cheerleaders on television, at least when they are cheerleading.

Dance if it is slow and ballet-like can have a kind of gracefulness about it that is appealing and beautiful. It has a way of showing off balance. And balance is related to bipedalism, an important anti-sodomy defense.

Dance can be an interesting way for females to express strength and distaste. For instance, Paula Abdul was cool when she danced about cataloguing her frustrations about males she might otherwise want to be still with. Like I said, dance is the opposite of sex. But presumably females in a spirit of having been inspired by a male would have more interesting things to express than those in a spirit of contrariness, the attractiveness of female strength and/or coyness notwithstanding.

Some songs probably have a slightly addictive appeal. These would be the catchy songs. Songs if at all catchy (and perhaps the majority of popular songs are catchy to some degree if not just plain boring) interfere with my sense of poetry and can make concentration (e.g., when doing math) difficult. And there are catchy songs which are not at all pretty. The most prominent example I can think of would be “Wreck of the Old 97”. It is a very catchy song that is dreadfully ugly; you can take my word for it, or if you are fairly invulnerable to catchiness, you can listen to it yourself and see my point. So the ugliness makes it quite clear to me that catchiness isn’t just something in my mind saying that there is something profound in the song I need to listen to. The young are probably most vulnerable to this catchiness. And I should point out that whereas catchiness might be something one normally can accept somewhat (it is a very mild addiction probably to most people), a male is very hesitant when he is being taken as expressing his feelings for a girl to risk having his feelings corrupted by a catchy song that he fell into. I would be very reluctant to dance in a spirit of seriousness with a girl. Danger, danger: Nothing I could seem to be feeling she should take seriously as the authentic me. If I wrote the song myself, perhaps I might feel somewhat different, but that is not my talent. But what about the expressiveness of music? How does it compare with poetry, for example, in importance.

Music can be useful as a way of clarifying the sense in which something is meant to be taken. For instance, in movies, when a movie is trying to make some subtle point, music can be an effective means by which to clarify the intended meaning or sense of a scene. Music can make the expression of the movie more compact and efficient. Oftentimes, however, music in movies only serves by way of trying to force the viewer to feel an emotion with a strength it is not natural for the viewer to feel; frequently it is manipulative. Can’t create a sympathetic treatment of a character? Create a sympathetic song to make the audience feel more like crying than the underlying meaning of the movie itself would. There is a subtle difference between using music to help the viewer find the meaning of the movie and using music to manipulate the viewer into believing the meaning of the movie by means of warping the audiences’ emotions so as to find the truth of the meaning more plausible; but there is a difference.

I do think girls somewhat attracted to the expressiveness of music. Girls, being young, don’t have as many impressions to deduct from as older people do. In a way, I feel this might make logic less useful to them compared with emotion. But then a rational outlook is very useful to girls when it comes to avoiding sodomy. And in some ways girls seem to be fond of deduction. Just look at the popularity of the Nancy Drew books (which I enjoy reading myself). And words come from society whereas notes might appear more naturally authentic and God-given. But I look at it this way. Music is mainly about expression if it is not addictive. And if there are no words, well, what is there useful to be expressed? Music is important mainly in the sense that it should be important in movies—as secondary to the meaning rather than primary to it. (I tend to prefer songs with words in them.) If it tries to be more than that, I think it mostly ends up being less than nothing.

Hmmm, vaguely it seems like I had a few other mostly less interesting things I was going to say about music/dancing that I might have forgotten. But I can't remember whether I forgot something. If I do remember that I forgot something and remember what it was, I’ll jot it off in a suplementary post before I forget. No need to wait about posting what I have written so far.

Speech against free speech being free maybe should not be free

2008-01-24T15:26:00.000-08:00

I am inclined to think maybe our First Amendment Rights are too broad for their own good. The most important freedom of speech is freedom to speak about matters not concerning freedom of speech. It is offensive to argue against such freedom of speech, and so it is not unreasonable on the face of it to believe that such arguments should not be allowed, as allowing such argumentative speech dangerously weakens our guarantees of the most important free speech. Once a paricular type of speech gets banned, it is very difficult to legally argue the inappropriateness of the ban (as is typically necessary to change the ban), since to make a good case that a type of banned speech should not be banned mostly necessitates arguing in a way that is banned. Thus it is incumbent upon a nation that treasures such freedoms of speech to take measures to protect them from bans. Enshrining rights in a constitution or bill of rights is one approach. Another effective way to prevent such bans is to forbid (constitutionally or by statute) people from arguing for them. Hard to get a law passed if you can't argue for it! My proposal is for three new rules:

(1) Speech that isn't about freedom of speech is free speech.

(2) Speech against a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is not free.

(3) Speech for a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is free.

What makes me uneasy about this proposal is that I also think (as does our legal system) that threatening speech should not be free. And sometimes people should have the right to not be spoken to. So definitions probably would have to be modified somewhat for this to be a good idea. In particular, the line between threatening speech and non-threatening speech is not always a clear-cut one, and so it scarcely seems appropriate to put people in legal jeopardy for arguing exactly where such a line should be drawn. I thought my idea interesting, though. In particular, it is not at all self-defeating as would be the case if one enacted a law saying that speech against free speech (as opposed to a free speech) is not free (hard to enforce a law that is illegal to be spoken!).

Looking at my justification above, one can see there really is no harm in allowing speech for or against freedom of threatening speech. One doesn't have to be at all threatening to argue for freedom of threatening speech. Usually, though, the most convincing argument for the right to express an opinion A is in fact to argue the reasons why opinion A might be correct and of significance. There's some subtle philosophy underlying the right approach, probably.

How much freedom should parents give to children?

2007-12-02T16:07:00.000-08:00

It seems to me that many parents are quite immoral in the tyrannical way that they try to go about controlling their children. Clearly if the important qualities of people are to evolve, it is best that one’s fortune be determined by these qualities, and not by the qualities of a parent or whatever. Where children have no liberty, their success will only half as much be determined by their own qualities, and so, all things equal, people will evolve half as well there. For this reason it is especially morally incumbent upon a parent that children be allowed freedom in making their own moral and relationship choices, since it is imperative for the greater goodness of humanity that these qualities evolve well.

What exactly constitutes appropriate discipline? There are some appropriate reasons for parents to try to force children to do things, and let us try to enumerate these reasons, which will give us an idea of the (limited) disciplinary rights that are natural and appropriate to parents.

The most important occasion in which it is appropriate for a parent to discipline a child is when she thinks that the child is behaving in an inappropriate manner that is not representative of the true nature of the child. This sort of discipline, when honestly given as a result of a correct judgment by a parent, does not reduce the extent to which the behavior of the child reflects the child’s true, innate self. It’s not a question of you getting your way or your child getting his way, it’s a question of you getting your way or whatever controls your child getting his way. Unless, perhaps, the child willingly and knowingly allowed herself to be controlled, but that happens rarely and is not the sort of thing that parents mind much except when they should. This sort of discipline is appropriate mainly in cases of addiction. If your child believes one thing and you believe something else, it is difficult to see why you should force him to behave as if you are right unless he believes what he does on account of some addiction forcing him to believe wrongly and against his nature. Another time this sort of discipline might be appropriate is if your child has been brainwashed as a result of having been exposed to stuff the child never wanted to get exposed to in the first place. But care, I think, should be exercised in disciplining the child in the latter case. It is very easy for parents to try to force a child to be what he is not by merely claiming the child has become deluded. Usually, it is presumptuous of the parent to determine for a child that a child is deluded when the child believes the parent is deluded, unless some addiction be involved. Even if vaguely or otherwise a parent feel peers are to blame for the child’s behavior, that is not in itself a justification for controlling a child unless it is also believed the child had no say in choosing the peers. It should be pointed out, though, that a fair number of things that don’t immediately seem like chemical addictions actually probably are such. E.g., skankiness is probably an addiction to getting sodomized, i.e., an addiction to chemicals introduced in the digestive system, and eating terribly is probably caused by addictive gut bacteria making one eat according as they demand it. Some might say, in excuse for parents having more authority over children, that parents being older are more likely to be wise. However, this is but a lame excuse. Maybe with respect to young children, parents are more wise than children, but to the extent this is the case, it is hard to see why children wouldn’t realize their greater ignorance, thereby deferring to parents. Children who don’t realize that with future reflection, experience and thought can come wisdom are likely to suffer to such an extent that one can’t really explain why children would evolve to be so stupid as to not realize that they might gain knowledge with age; it only makes sense that they have not evolved to be that stupid. Children don’t generally mind respecting parents for their wisdom when the parents are wise and not tyrannical.

It will be admitted that children often behave in crazy ways. However, the healthy way people come to understand their irrational feelings is by humoring them enough to realize their meaning and limited appropriateness and thereby allowing them to realize the limited spheres in which the emotions are useful. Not allowing children to live their own lives and thus to see exactly how their emotions relate (negatively or positively) to particular realities only serves to stifle the children’s emotional development. A child kept on a leash will not learn to live otherwise than on a leash, and it will hurt his/her emotional development. Moreover, a parent who takes away natural liberties from children often loses the respect of the child. Such a child is less likely to listen to a parent’s all important appropriate demands, i.e., freedom from addiction (and from addictive depravity) and will be less likely to respect the parents’ own right to liberty, etc. Parents may think they control their children, but children are not without power, and a parent shouldn’t be surprised if her inappropriate demands cause behavior in children that punishes. Ideally, people should not infringe on the rights of others, but it is entirely appropriate for a child to try to punish a parent if his/her rights are being infringed upon and all options have been exhausted. Everyone is at rights to seek remedy for injustices done against his person, and parents should not be surprised or angered at behavior of their children that could only be considered natural of anyone decent enough to love freedom and liberty enough to resist being tyrannized. Just believing that something your child believes or does is somewhat crazy does not give you the right to demand he be otherwise than himself.

Still, it does seem to me that if a parent feels extremely strongly that a child ought to be doing one thing he isn’t doing, then if the child doesn’t feel extremely strongly the other way, the parent might be excused for trying to force the child to behave according as how the parent sees fit. The parent, after all, is half like the child, and the differing views, differing in magnitude, are suggestive that the child would feel similarly to how the parents feel if only circumstance had occasioned different influences upon the child. The child might not even mind, especially if he is given the same right in reverse, i.e., to resist parents who are behaving in a way that he really dislikes. This sort of thing should be engaged in with moderation, however, or the child will become stubborn and indifferent, feeling his rights have been violated, for example, when they have been, thereafter not being at all willing to have his rights ridden upon.

Another case where it can be appropriate for a parent to demand of a child certain behavior is if the behavior of the child interferes with the rights of the parent to live his life in the way he sees fit. For example, it is a nuisance to a parent for a child to have to pick up after a child. And actually, it is useful to a child to gain the habit of putting things away when he is done with them—to constantly keep an eye toward his general surroundings looking out for stuff that should be put away, until such noticing and constant organizing becomes second nature and pleasant. Thus, it seems to me that a parent is not wrong to (good-naturedly) demand of a child beyond a certain age that the child clean up after himself, at least if the parents sufficiently put things away themselves that it becomes easily obvious when something is left in the wrong place. It is important, though, that the parent not make not cleaning seem as screwed up behavior. Gaining good habits of putting things away has nothing to do with being respectable and not screwed-up. Or if a family has so many chores that need to be done it is great stress for parents to do them all, it is not wrong to expect children to do some chores, which after all can be not particularly unpleasant to do in moderation. Exercise and basic life skills can be gained thereby. Another even more obvious example is that if a girl wants to get pregnant she shouldn’t expect her parents to be willing to take care of her children unless the parents want to help. Similarly, if a child is a nuisance to parents, the parents shouldn’t feel like they should have to take care of him after he is grown, unless they want to do so, of course. Parents also have a right to their freedoms, and just as it is inappropriate for parents to try to force children to be otherwise than what they are, it is inappropriate for children to try to control their parents, unless of course addiction or something similar is controlling a parent, in which case the child, like a parent would be with him, is at rights to try to force the parent away from that addiction to the extent it is in his power, which may be rather limited , say by trying to make the addicted parent ashamed.

Why do parents tyrannize children so much? Part of the problem is that power is not shared equally. Parents tend to have more power over children than vice versa, parents usually controlling the money and society giving them more rights. Not infrequently, men abusive to their wives will abuse children just to make controlling and tyrannizing seem more generally natural and appropriate than it is. Something similar occasioned no doubt the fierce opposition in the antebellum South to resisting attempts to abolish slavery. The Rebels were basically willing to fight a war over it. Probably, if one studied the matter carefully enough, one could demonstrate that child abuse and the belief in the appropriateness of tyrannizing children is more common in the South than otherwise, a remnant of the antebellum pro-slavery notions having held sway there less than 150 years ago. What I have noticed, is a tendency of parents who don’t believe shame has any purpose to be especially disciplinarian. Parents know that there is a place for controlling children. They should realize that mostly they should be disciplinarians only when addictions are involved, i.e., when shaming would be appropriate if necessary. Believe shame has no useful purpose (or is useful only as a weapon to get back at those shaming you), and you will not understand the sphere in which discipline mostly should apply, i.e., to behavior that deserves shame when persuasion won’t suffice to stop it. And presumably there are other people who try to make their children feel shame whenever they are trying to change their behavior; this too is inappropriate.

There are a few basic matters of politeness that also should apply when there are disagreements between parents and children. It is almost always wrong for parents to feel anger at their children. They should never scream at them unless screaming is necessary to be heard (e.g., on account of distance separating parent from child). Anger is only an appropriate emotion when you feel like you are fighting something trying to sodomize you, and it is not like children sodomize their parents (or at least, it is something extremely rare). And saying the same thing over and over to a child is a form of tyranny. True conversation contains thoughtful unfamiliar ideas likely to be of interest to the hearer. A parent explaining to a child why the parent feels the child is not being true to himself can be useful as a way of demonstrating to the child that whatever discipline meted out to the child is just. That would be useful conversation. Just saying the same thing over and over and over again is not useful conversation but will appear as underhanded punishments dressed up as something it isn’t for presumably wrong deceptive reasons.

Catch-22: Guilt corresponds to sanity, Masturbation corresponds to bombing

2007-11-27T13:08:00.000-08:00

In recent posts, I have several times mentioned I believe I had been caught in a catch-22 sort of vicious circle in my youth. Well, I have never actually read the novel Catch-22, so even though I had a vague remembrance of it having been described to me what exactly the catch-22 was, I decided I ought to look it up, especially since I had doubts about the worthiness of the book (I think maybe I confused the book with Fahrenheit 451, the movie of which I decided to stop looking at after a dose of ridiculous firemen dressed up like sperm). So I looked it up in Wikipedia of course. The Wikipedia article (this version) described the catch-22 about as I remembered it, and for all of a minute or two its logical explanation seemed clever, but upon a not very closer examination, I thought, “How preposterous!” No one would view as fundamentally significant both A --> not B and B --> not A, because the two statements are trivially logically equivalent to each other! And yet, it did somehow seem right that the profundity didn’t rest just in both A and B being impossible because A implies not B. I.e., the catch-22 is more than insanity and an application to not fly on account of insanity (A and B) being impossible on account of insanity implying the impossibility of an application to fly (A implies not B) because insane people don’t make applications admitting their insanity. E.g., as mentioned early in the article, what is also relevant is that supposedly sanity implies not wanting to fly. (Which is similar to not A implies B.) After a reasonable amount of effort, I could not see that the catch-22 is really of any at-all-obvious logical importance, which suggested to me that its logical structure resonates because it has some psychological significance.

Since people feel guilty about masturbation in a sort of vicious circle that brought to mind catch-22, I naturally decided to try the analogy there first. After a day or so of struggling with my feelings about it, the analogy I found to work was to view guilt as corresponding to sanity and masturbation as corresponding to flying. So I wasn’t exactly caught by a catch-22, but by another sort of vicious circle. The catch-22 applies to those people who when they think that they are sufficiently guilt-free and that for them masturbation is not particularly reasonable, will make application to their wills, “I am guilt-free, feel good about myself, and can’t see masturbation has any useful purpose. Therefore, allow me to not masturbate.” The will should and often does respond, “No. I agree that it makes sense that guilt-free people, being reasonable, should not masturbate if they find masturbation not useful. But if you were truly guilt-free, you would find masturbation of a great deal more importance, so I am introducing this picture of nude female in your brain. Masturbate, it’s an order.” As for me, the loop I was in was like the loop of a pilot who was sane and didn’t want to bomb. What the article about Catch-22 doesn’t mention is the other vicious circle, namely that craziness not only is necessary to keep one from applying to stop bombing, but also that bombing causes craziness. In other words, sanity can cause one to not want to fly bombing missions, and not flying bombing missions causes sanity. So a general who wants crazy pilots who want to fly just flat out doesn’t allow applications to not fly from non-crazy people, the very people he scoffs at the most. Something analogous was applicable to me. I was like a sane person who didn’t want to bomb. The more sane a bomber is, the more he applies to not bomb, and the less he bombs, the more sane he gets. So the anti-will steps in to make sure that for sane people, applying not to bomb does not entail not bombing, so the vicious circle doesn’t happen. The same happened to me. The more guilty I was, the more I would apply to not masturbate, and the more I would not masturbate or disrespect the phenomenon, the more guilty I would end up being, because it would make my masturbation not profound. So the anti-will stepped in to make sure that when I felt guilty, applying to not masturbate does not entail not masturbating. I could not succeed in (wrongly) beating down my sexual fantasies.

Now if you’ve followed my train of reasoning, this all sounds pretty ridiculous, I can well imagine. Since now I claim to be not guilty and to have fairly profound sexual fantasies, I am essentially saying that I used to be like a sane bomber who didn’t want to bomb, but now I am like a crazy bomber who appreciates bombing, and that this is a good thing. So why does the catch-22 resonate as well as it does? Well, on the one hand, it might resonate because it makes the generals seem manipulative in a clever way, which could serve an anti-war purpose. But even if Heller’s book is anti-war, if that were all there were to it, one could scarcely say Heller was anti-war, because if he were, how could his having made crazy bombing seem like sane masturbation be seen as anti-war? So it wouldn’t make sense that he would on whatever level do such a thing. No, one has to look at another possible analogy and thus vicious circle. The reason people have a propensity to view seemingly purposeless masturbation as something to feel guilty about is that masturbation can cause feelings of intense sexual pleasure. This is only natural, because it is very useful from an evolutionary standpoint to understand one’s own sexual desires, and masturbation can be a help in gaining such understanding. Accordingly, theory suggests there is a kind of resemblance between the meaningless sordid pleasure obtainable via actively getting sodomized and the sexual pleasure of masturbation if there be no apparent meaning to the latter. Instead of viewing bombing as masturbating, suppose one views it as getting sodomized. Then one sees that crazy bombing is like without guilt getting sodomized, indeed a dreadful thing. The more guilty a sodomite is about feelings to get sodomized, the more he (or she) applies to not get sodomized, and the more he doesn’t get sodomized, the more clear-headed he becomes, which would make sodomy seem less profound and more worthy of being guilty about. It is a circle that is only vicious logically−not all positive feedback is bad. Indeed, viewing guilt as sanity and getting sodomized as bombing makes it quite clear that the loop between not bombing and not wanting to bomb is a very good one to encourage. The difficulty I had is that it was very difficult for me to decide what sort of loop I was in. Was I feeling guilty about sordid pleasures or unsordid ones? Was it a good loop (given the circumstances) or a bad one? Only understanding gave a solution.

But like I said, looking at the analogy in the first way, i.e., viewing bombing as masturbation, I wasn’t exactly in a catch-22. Or at least, I never was in a catch-22 for long. It might be of interest to see if for nothing else than artistic reasons what the catch-22 corresponds to exactly in questions of sordidness. I.e., What would an application to cease bombing from an insane person correspond to if bombing corresponds to getting sodomized and insanity corresponds to being guilt-free? Plugging things in, we see that it corresponds to an application to cease getting sodomized from a non-guilty person. Alas, those applications don’t happen either, and even if they did, the real danger of not enacting the catch-22 if the other analogy is the correct one (i.e., if what is thought sordid isn’t), would probably in no way make the will or anti-will or whatever listen to them. The sodomized and addicted need to feel guilt or they can’t be rescued.

What’s really clever about the catch-22, the one mentioned in the story, is that it is apparently necessary, in order to preserve the logical structure, to view craziness as analogous to not feeling guilt. Amazing, really, anyone would think of doing that, since intuitively craziness seems more akin to excess guilt than insufficient guilt. I sensed pretty early on yesterday after deciding to think carefully about the matter that this was the case, but just for the fun of it, I first tried to see if I could make an analogy with craziness corresponding to excess guilt, and as I suspected, I didn’t succeed. Another possible catch-22 analogy, more related to violence, would be to consider that guilt causes females to think themselves cruel, because when girls feel guilty they wonder whether their loving sexual feelings are of screwed-up origin, and a way to test that is to see whether they can have sadistic cruel thoughts while having such feelings, since if their feelings are just caused by sodomy chemicals having been applied into their digestive system, they will have a hard time not feeling love and sexual desire for everyone they think about, even wicked people of no or little beauty; being able to feel cruelty makes them feel better about their love, since it makes them know it is not just some sordid chemical phenomenon. But these cruel feelings may be misinterpreted as being something wicked that deserves guilt, which causes more cruelty in some vicious loop. The way to avoid superfluous clean cruel feelings is to stop being guilty about them, whereupon in most people they probably will seem not beautiful (and pointless). But the logical structure is I think slightly different inasmuch as sexual fantasy is always useful, whereas cruelty is only useful to the extent one might should feel guilt. And looking at cruel feelings instead as akin to uninspired masturbation may also make for slight discrepancies in the analogy (guilty people don’t apply to avoid uninspired masturbation, they apply to avoid masturbation). So the vicious circle of cruelty, though very much like a catch-22, probably isn’t as exactly like it as I’m thinking be those involving masturbation and addiction. I’ll guess though, as a lark, because ha-ha the silliness of it would feel about right, it might explain other things (e.g., how the author could have discovered something so strange as an analogy on some level between guilt and sanity) about the novel that would be clearer if I read the book. One of these days, I’ll probably try to read it.

It is an interesting observation that it is not just right-wing standard anti-Pelagian currents of thought that could try to make girls feel guilty about their sadistic sexual fanatasies. (Pelagius was a late-fourth- early-fifth-century monk from the British Isles who was declared a heretic on account of his trying to deny the doctrine of original sin and the concomitant excess guilt the church selfishly desired its parishioners to feel.) Nowadays, one sees what I shall call a kind of neo-anti-Pelagianism, very much against standard anti-Pelagianism. Sodomy being so common nowadays, an effective approach for a sodomizing male to take is to try to make his victim feel good about her allowing herself to be sodomized by him. And a way of doing this is to try to make people disgusted at females having innocuous sadistic sexual fantasies, because then his victim, unable to naturally have such fantasies, will feel like she is better than other females. He can behave as if such tendencies are suggestive of an innate tendency of some females to be evil wicked homicidal torturing creatures that isn't just in their heads. And more generally he can behave as if anyone who has cruel fantasies or who loves someone with such fantasies is screwed-up and should be ashamed. This also serves another of their purposes, namely to discourage people from rescuing others, which occasionally must be done with force, and which is to their purpose, might lead their own victims to becoming rescued. I don't think the neo-anti-Pelagianists realize that by making normal females more ashamed of their sadistic fantasies, it's only going to make them more sadistic; what is even much more scary is the neo-anti-Pelagianists' indifference to giving often violent sodomizers more control over their victims. It's not the neo-anti-Pelagianists themselves that are especially dangerous directly to people not presently victimized, it's the Hitler creeps that might arise afterwards in reaction to them. But then indirectly that makes the neo-anti-Pelagianists dangerous to everybody; and we don't need to look to the future. We should care right now about rescuing those who are subject to tyranny even if the neo-anti-Pelagianists say to do so is disgusting or presumptuous. There is nothing disgusting about the right thing. Hmm, but this post is long enough, so I quit for now.

Girls and Love

2007-10-16T14:51:00.000-07:00

Something that annoys me is that to the extent girls are supposed to have sexual desires, they are supposed to be motivated by love rather than pleasure. Love is a dangerous thing—it involves being willing to sacrifice for the other person, a willingness that is imprudent if one lacks understanding. For the rewards of being loved being what they are, there are a great many who try to trick others into loving them, notwithstanding they don’t deserve it. It’s a rare girl who understands herself and others sufficiently for it to be prudent for her to give herself away from love. Evolution doesn’t select particularly well against girls loving for reasons unnatural to themselves because unlike being the sort of person who is willing to be unselfish, unselfishness is by definition not rewarding in a pleasant sense. The difference between a girl having sex because she is deluded into thinking it incredibly pleasant sexually and between her having it because she knows correctly that it actually is incredibly pleasant sexually is like the difference between hell and heaven—girls will be expected to be highly evolved in not making the wrong choice, because ones that do make the wrong choice especially die out along with their offspring of (usually) miserable brats, while those who do make the right choice tend to get awesome well-loved children tending to leave lots of offspring. But the difference between giving sexually from true love and giving sexually from having been tricked into love is only like the difference between hell and heaven insofar as its effects on humanity are concerned. So far as a girl is concerned, giving from love is unselfish and thus (by definition) not particularly rewarding either way. The only reason it could be expected for girls to evolve to be sexually unselfish from love would be if lovers or other people rewarded them for by nature being willing to be thus unselfish. But why would males or people in general reward girls well for being loving when loving for the wrong reasons can be such a bad thing for humanity that it is probably not really prudent for girls to be especially loving?

Girls just sort of assume that men would want them to be loving. This was something I was noticing just a few weeks ago when a family trip caused me to have to eat out more than usual. When I see an attractive girl at a restaurant or whatever, of course I look upon her nicely with my pious look. But doing this, it occurred to me that one girl was trying to convince me that she too was loving and gentle-like. She just sort of assumed that my being a more loving sort of pious person meant I believed girls should be that way, too. And all it did was make her afraid and feel like thinking of me while leaning on her dad I guess he was. And then the next time I had occasion to look all gentlemanly-like at a girl sitting across from me she just sort of looked like she was trying to convince me that I wasn’t smart not to realize it be funner to not try to be pious when considering girls. It’s as though when evaluating me she decided if she didn’t convince me to realize sex can be funner unholy and lustful, she wouldn’t have any fun, and she wasn’t optimistic because my piety was real. I think she wondered whether I must be one of those jealous Taliban sorts who of course don’t claim to like lust in sex (because they don’t want their wives to be tempted to stray). I won’t pretend those girls were irresistibly attracted to me sufficiently to have paid very close attention, and not that I studied them sufficiently to be certain of the subtleties of their expressions, but I can’t help wondering whether if there were some way I could evince my tendency to be loving and pious without particularly giving the impression I want girls to do otherwise than to seek their own pleasure, I might fairly be almost irresistible, which might be a cool thing even with laws being what they are. Most girls are just not discriminating enough to realize that men with holy feelings for them really don’t want the girls to be holy; in fact, the more unholy girls are, the more they inspire holiness, probably. It’s the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you error—an error born of a rule that doesn’t work when people have differing needs. Girls are not pleased by guys full of unholy lust screwing them in a way that is indifferent to their own pleasure, and so mostly they just sort of assume it be bad and selfish to desire a male in a mainly sensual and mostly purely pleasure-seeking unholy way. I wouldn’t care if girls be selfish when having sex with me; it’s sex, that’s great for males anyway one looks at it, and in fact, if they aren’t selfishly seeking their own pleasure, they are likely to get too afraid, thereby indeed decreasing the fun for everybody.

People tend to be not very clear in their head what exactly constitutes depravity. Most people lump together lust and depravity using the word “fucking” and assume that this makes them ghetto clever, the way some people do because they feel they are in the know because they watch shows on HBO where every third word is “fuck”. Well, no. If a girl “fucks” a male by giving in to her unholy lustful emotions and aggressively seeking for herself sexual pleasure in bed, she is not being unkind to her lover the way a sodomizer is unkind to a girl he might sodomize. She in fact is giving him something very special. Lives are well-nigh ruined by not appreciating what sexual love is. A husband has an affair with female; she’s full of lust but maybe (she thinks) just because she thinks she can gain something over him by “fucking” him. Husband comes to have holy-desiring emotionally loving feelings for mistress, maybe because she is worth it, or maybe because his wife is worth it. But most people don’t understand that holiness is a sexual emotion, and so husband just sort of assumes it immoral to feel holy feelings for more than one female, the way it is mostly immoral to care for several females, and so he feels he has to choose, and of course he chooses where his interests lie. It’s all pointless. The more a male is holy (unless chemicals from a woman force him to be otherwise), the more he is loving to anybody he has sex with—wife, mistress or whatever. Very possibly, the husband feels holiness for the mistress mainly because he loves his wife too much to be unholy; but it is not very possible he’ll be clever enough to realize this. And the wife? Oh, if she finds out, and if the mistress is pretty and young enough, likely the wife will have a sudden increase in lust. But she won’t interpret this as “yeah, now I can have the extra fun of sex in an orgy”. No, of course not, people are too stupid. She’ll just think she wants to fuck her husband and mistress’s brains out akin to the controlling way guys sodomize wives and those they cheat with when jealousy makes them feel like it; and she’ll assume her husband has holy feelings for his mistress because she fucked them into him. She’ll interpret her emotions as hateful ones and seek divorce. Meanwhile, a daughter, unless she figures out the truth, will not be quite sure whether fuck is some kind of wretched disease that has destroyed her family or whether it’s a fuck-or-be-fucked world out there; in the first case, she won’t be as affectionate as she should be and will tend to get in the way by way of “rescuing” people from fucking, in the second case, she’s not likely to make wise reproductive decisions.

What her own sexual pleasure demands of a girl is very close to what love demands of her (according to my theory of nymphetal philokalia). Her own love indeed is important to her, but mainly because if she feel no love, then for sure that is a strong sign her pleasure isn’t real. If a girl really wants to feel love, she should prudently be led by her sexual pleasure first, for that will likely lead her to feel more love than if she be led by her love first.

Guilt

2007-10-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

A common misconception people make is that guilt is purely an emotion about having done something wrong. I would argue guilt is about having done something wrong contrary to nature on account of having become screwed-up. Many people behave as though there be some internal war between goodness and badness and as if guilt is the cry of goodness after badness has gotten the upper hand. But it doesn’t make much sense to me to suppose that people would naturally be divided thus inside themselves. If Abe Lincoln is correct in his assertion that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, how much the more so in the case of a person. It is not very reasonable to suppose that the moral tendencies in people would not have evolved a kind of compromise as opposed to fighting each other in a conflicted never-ending distracting struggle. And if the bad part of a person prevailed at one time, well, I can’t see why that part wouldn’t likely prevail in the future too. Accordingly, one would expect that each part of a person’s makeup would have a small say in determining behavior, and the extent to which various parts of her have a say would be fairly steady with time, provided addictions aren’t relevant. When addictions are not involved, guilt doesn’t stop people from being bad, because they don’t have guilt, and neither does guilt then allow good people to be good, because being good, they want to be good anyway.

Girls in particular do too often, I think, consider guilt as being quite generally an important and useful help to goodness. After all, it is young females who are in most danger of getting screwed-up, they typically being the favorite targets of abusive males (and only males can sodomize). All too often females are insufficiently generous with members of their own sex. They can come to see morality as preferring guilt to a desire to sin. If a girl becomes a skank, she needs those of her own sex to help her reform. Instead, because other girls view the unjust meanness such skankiness can cause as merely immoral—as an act of selfish indifference to guilt as opposed to just a stupid act deserving guilt—the girl will more likely be hated by her own sex. Good guys are hurt unjustly by skankiness, but I don’t think skanky females deserve the hate they receive from their own sex (or the other sex, for that matter). And when males say vile things about fallen females like they have been hurt sooo bad by them they can’t help but be angry at them, I don’t think they deserve or need much sympathy. (To a female, sympathy from a male can be sexually pleasant, to a male from a female, it’s just advice or reassurance at best.) I have to kind of shake my head when I consider beautiful girls listening to misogynistic screaming music by boys railing about female disgustingness. Some of it, I see from the lyrics, is quite full of descriptions of violence against females. The problem with hating skanks is that skanks are not made skanks by nature, but by males, often through violence. And sure, those girls with more of a heart and more of a capacity for guilt can better free themselves from depravity, and females with those qualities are to be admired for them, but How can one hate females for depravity when it is the unselfish female who are the abusers favorite targets? It’s hard for a male to addict a female into being (unjustly) unselfish toward him when unselfishness is not a part of her nature. I would urge girls to be a little careful about angry angst-ridden guys—sometimes angst is fake and just an excuse for violence. Personally, I have never had a violent thought against skanky females. I don’t bother thinking much about bad females I obviously can’t rescue easily (and one rarely can rescue a bad female easily if she is screwed-up), and if I feel a girl is good, I have faith in that judgment no matter how mean or nasty she behave. Unless, of course, I end up feeling otherwise, but that’s not likely to happen to sensitive people, who can judge innate character better than anything else external. The importance of this faith is probably mainly what gives faith its religious significance to most people. Without it, it would be hard to believe that goodness would be strong enough to exist in this world, and you would turn into a selfish cynic. The faith is beautiful and good. And the faith is correct. That guys go insane because the faith conflicts with empirical “evidence” is not evidence of the error of faith, it’s evidence of the error of standard worldly explanations of female behavior, and the extent to which these explanations guide people, at least at the start. The wise person must go inside of himself, his feelings toward her, and nature as it is, throw away his worldly assumptions, and use his own faculties of understanding to come at the truth as I did (or, he can just read my antisodomy page, but even then he has to find reasons in himself to believe the truth more than standard dumbass dogma). Don’t get me wrong, standard dogma is a far cry from being as clueless about depravity as a skanky female is likely to be, but for all that, it is still pretty stupid—in particular, too stupid to give much protection against the insanity that a failure to comprehend can cause in a male for whom wisdom is so important mostly he would just march his brain right through hell if that be the morally upright thing to do by way of understanding what afflicts beloved females.

Ironically, it is largely religion that has caused guilt to be viewed with such general respect. Presumably, feeling guilty and believing in original sin (a notion that encourages continual guilt) encourage church attendance, after all. So I figure probably some girls like death metal too much (from the little I’ve heard it, it isn’t possible to like it too little) because their excess churchiness makes them excessively hate skanky girls who don’t feel sufficiently guilty about their disgusting behaviors. They don’t have the faith. (In fairness to girls, it is probably even more trying for them to rescue fallen females, because when the screwed-up girls throw shit back, it’s harder for girl targets not to feel defiled, even though of course they aren’t defiled, it being sodomy that defiles. My apologies to any girl hit accidentally by crap thrown at me.) Yeah, that must be it.

Love and gratitude distinct in their consequences

2007-09-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

This morning I got to thinking how gratitude has differing obligations from love. There are girls in this world who have done me and humanity a service by teaching me about love—inspiring me to discover great truths I believe thitherto unknown by earthly creatures. I am very much grateful to them. In fact, I am more than grateful, I am obliged. Whenever someone does something so right to not only myself but to humanity as well, it would be wrong not to behave in a way so as to encourage such behavior quite generally. A higher justice demands that when it is in one’s power and province to reward someone for something kind and brave that she has done which greatly benefits not only you but the world at large, that one tries to do so. Accordingly, to such girls as have done such , I would always be more loving in emotion and attitude than my love suggests—it just would be wrong and inconsiderate of future humanity not to do so. A good man has something of an obligation to uphold the values that encourage girls (in all generations, present and future) to be less fearful and hesitant to behave toward a man in such a manner as to greatly benefit the greater good. How indebted I am for such girls having taken a chance on me, to the extent they did so more than typical! And yes, how indebted society is also, or at least they will be if they begin to take my discoveries seriously.

Oftentimes, unfortunately, stuff gets in the way that prevents relationships from occurring with girls when they ideally should happen. And the girls that inspire me are not the puritanical sort of girls, but those who allow their emotions more wildness. But as Locke says, “The greatest part of true knowledge lies in a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct. And some men give more clear light and knowledge by the bare distinct stating of a question, than others do by talking of it in gross, whole hours together.” In particular, often times a failure to possess a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct causes girls to view all the distinct varieties of wildness as being not distinct or fundamentally different one from another. A female might per chance come to view the innocent wildness of whatever emotion she had toward me when young as not being fundamentally different from the wild emotions characteristic of cocktail parties, bars and indeed the alcohol-lifestyle quite generally, and so I figure some of the inspiring girls who thankfully were especially likely to view the former set of emotions as innocuous may yet also view the latter sort of emotions as being the same sort of species of emotion, and thus come to view this latter species of emotions as innocuous. In short, it may well be that girls who loved me very well (compared with other girls) when they were younger, now don’t particularly love me at all—because they might adopt the standard drinking lifestyle, etc.. For indeed, it would be very difficult if not preposterous for me to imagine a female loving the drinking lifestyle and me at the same time, such a lifestyle being very contrary to my (obvious anti-addiction) sensibilities, as I would never pretend otherwise than to be the case. Rescuing someone from what she has come to want to be rescued from is one thing, but rescuing someone from something she doesn’t want to be rescued from is something altogether different; in particular the latter sort of rescue is typically a much more thankless and sacrificial task than the former. To the extent my concern for a girl stems mainly from love, I very well might be willing nevertheless to brave the humiliation, the shame, and the danger that she in her addicted state might try to inflict upon me, in order to make her feel the guilt that she can turn her life around with, if that appear the best chance of reform. Love is willing to sacrifice. But I doubt whether there is much point in sacrificing thus merely from obligation. If a girl (in her addicted state) does not want to be rescued and, more particularly, does not want to endure the shame and guilt such an attempt might cause in her, it seems doubtful to me that an effort on my part to inflict guilt upon her actually would by example encourage girls to be braver in loving and inspiring people like me. No, I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking, “Wow! If I drink and am wild quite generally, he will try to make me feel totally ashamed and guilty. Nowwww I see I feel like I should inspire him by letting myself go sexually wild when I’m about him.” Especially do I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking thus about a guy if the guy is even willing to make her feel ashamed when he doesn’t think it particularly likely he will succeed in his attempt at rescue. Much of the attraction girls have for good males really has to do with their being young (nymphetal philokalia); as females age, oftentimes the sexual attraction just isn’t enough anymore for her to want sex so much that there is much reason to think he can make her choose him over alcohol or whatever, even though you never know what’s possible.

So I guess my point is that if I am grateful to a woman because when she was a girl I became indebted to her, I would always be nicer to her (e.g., in bed, if she lets me in) than I would otherwise. In particular, just because she’s aged somewhat doesn’t mean I wouldn’t (sexually) want her and want her in a nice way. But on the other hand, if she gives evidence her lifestyle is screwed-up, and I don’t from my own nature love her extremely well, I’d probably just shrug my shoulders and forget about her, no matter if I’m obliged to her, I think because that would be my impression of what she as she’s become would want from me, namely, that which would give her the least occasion for guilt.

Seriously silly

2007-09-03T13:13:00.000-07:00

After writing the next-to-last post, and before writing the last one, I almost was going to interrupt and write something about silliness and how that relates to the attractiveness of smiling not-sad girls, even though I prefer girls sad. There's a deal to this, and though I never got the details down smoothly, I could have perhaps thrashed out something interesting. But after having a more interesting extra idea about what I was going to originally write about anyway, I switched back to my original plan. Anyway, I have now made a poem about what I almost earlier wrote about in prose.

And to random people who haven't thought about me much, let me make clear that when my poem gets to "Incongruities/when not perverse/.../there is nothing really funny about them", please don't infer that I think perverse incongruities are funny.

Girls smile

The girls smile
The girl smiles
She looks right comely
Innocent as water

No mean reason
to be all serious
When there is so much play
to be had
and fun
beyond your imagination
sir.

Tra-la
la la-la-la
She splashes her friends aaanndd
her friend splashes her back
They laugh.

They could have had me take them right there
If no one lived in this town
who might know about it.
Say.
You like play.
I know you do.

Her friend twirls about
On one toe
like a ballerina
Only easier on her toes—
she’s in the water.
Every side of her prettiousness...
Revealed.

Come on,
this is boring
she tells her friend.
They get up,
lay down for an expected while,
not quite as jolly as they were,
Because I’m not.

Long time ago,
I should have done this.
Made realize girls I wanted them sad
to give them sexual pleasure
and not just because,
I don’t know,
that appeared the holy thing for them to be.
Let me look at these girls pointedly.
I rebuke you not,
ye darling so sexy most prettious lasses
for your smiles so seductive and meet,
I just want you sad
to give you more pleasure in bed,
that’s all;
I am sad
because sexually
I love you,
and not because
you don’t please me
or because I’m not glad to have had this occasion
of delight
and beauty.
You do not need to seduce me:
my willingness is total,
even if my opportunity isn’t quite.

Most guys,
I’m afraid it’s true,
need to be seduced,
or at least that’s about all that explains
why girls so smiling
so pretty are,
when I don’t want them that way.

Pleasure
Sexual pleasure
Men are afraid of having it
to the extent
and vastness
that it is possible
for fucking to give them.
Girls try to correct man’s error,
which is however not an error in me.

Loosen up a little,
have some fun,
there every action does suggest
fear of rebuke
for pleasure sought
from men who value
pleasure naught.
Or at least,
so the men themselves have been taught,
of themselves,
that pleasure had by fucking girls
is not
true
or anything a wise man
would pursue

But wise men good,
they love themselves,
they do,
even if also
they love others too.

Do not assume,
little girl,
that people
smile just
when they are having fun,
and that when they don’t,
they can’t enjoy themselves.
It’s what they teach on Sesame Street,
I know,
but it’s wrong.
You’re right,
I’d have to be a twit
not to enjoy the moments with you,
but it’s not relevant,
because I do.
Just because 99% of men
who look upon thee serious
are gruff
to the extent they aren’t happy
at what you are about
doesn’t mean I am gruff
for the same reason.
I am gruff
not because I refuse to be pleased,
but because I want to please you more
and can better do so
when you empathize with my desire
to give you greater sexual pleasure
than I could give
otherwise.
Besides,
I have a reputation to withhold,
or at least one day I might.

It is true, though,
there’s something else involved, too,
why a laugh,
disaster,
could bring smiles
when there is no particular reason
for it to.

Incongruities
when not perverse
(and truly, there be not many incongruities that actually are),
there is nothing really funny about them
even though they make us laugh:
ha (statememt)
in my silly logic
is tautologically equivalent
to the meet (logical and)
of statement and silly (statement).
The truth value of the ha operator applied to a statement
is silly precisely when the statement be silly.
Otherwise, its truth value is false.
One can prove things about “ha” just like one can prove things about other logical operators.
One can be serious about silly,
and still appreciate silly,
silly only the same thing as funny
when fear of silly
not only makes you a pedant,
but
keeps you from having fun
with girls.
Irrational denominator
equals
irrational bottom of fraction
equals
irrational bottom
equals
dirty bottom
equals
bad bottom;
the pedant equation of equivocation,
and the equation
justifying certain excesses in the tyrannical
homework graders wanting uniformly formatted answers.
I have proven that “ha” is idempotent: that ha squared be equal to ha,
that ha-ha means the same as ha.
So why can I imagine her saying ha again and again and again and again?
Perhaps there be more truth values than three.
Maybe investigators in the future
can make logic mooorrrreeeore silly,
maybe some year I’ll do it myself.
I’m not saying I have figured out laughter,
not that I’m anywhere close,
just that I’m beginning to have more of a precise understanding about it than typical.
I want you silly to the extent it makes you
less constrained,
more easy in thought
and feeling.
I want you silly,
it’s just I want us to be serious annnnd silly.
Serious about silliness
as about everything else.
It’s not that jokes are funny,
it’s that not not laughing destroys fun,
and so not understanding silliness destroys fun,
because then one doesn’t laugh as much,
so jokes are only funny to the extent they inform
about silliness.
I am not the genius yet to understand laughter,
maybe I’ll never be,
but if I were,
(which admittedly isn’t possible if there is no upper limit on how silly mathematical logic should be)
I figure I would not find jokes funny.
It is said good comedians don’t laugh at their own jokes.
But I don’t know, I can’t
particularly think of any
error in laughter,
nor any excess fear of the silly,
that would keep me
from letting sex with girls
be as fun as it should be.
So maybe I have fun when I laugh just because that’s what people do,
and I do what people do insanely because
I don’t really understand sufficiently precisely how to deal exactly with the incongruous.
I understand
I don’t want to really smile when I laugh.
Smiling is impious,
especially wrong with the girl I probably most love,
who is so beautiful silly.