Public Display of Affection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flowers and male gamete selection

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

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

What I was going to do

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.