What I was going to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaupthinking, music and girls

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tattoos and my not silly protection racket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Caricature of myself

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

He swam across the sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Girls, dizziness, and trust

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various Ideas about Girls

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

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

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

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

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

Outline of poem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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