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
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Rubbish that The Washington Post Will Print When it Promotes Oral Sodomy In Our Nation's Youth
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.
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.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Should males make much use of their own practical faculties?
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Sadness, Holiness, and Piety Explained
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Financial meltdown
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?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A couple poems
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
More impressions about Obama
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why Obama makes me uneasy.
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.
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.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Is dancing adult?
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.
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.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Speech against free speech being free maybe should not be free
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.
(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.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
How much freedom should parents give to children?
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Catch-22: Guilt corresponds to sanity, Masturbation corresponds to bombing
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Girls and Love
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)