Being sad toward the playful

This entry gives another take (quite different from the last post) on how a girl might go about ensuring a guy could be sad before and during sex with her if he also happens to want that.


This poem rather assumes that girls want me more than perhaps I have much evidence for, and just sort of takes for granted they are very much attracted to me and not much annoyed at my failures and deficiencies. No matter. To the extent the assumption is incorrect, the poem is irrelevant, and of course it doesn’t matter what irrelevant poems say. Poetic license.



Sexy girl at play

Sexy girl
Undressed
Wants it all

But not yet

I can see
the way she wants to play
Smiles and lightnesses
She’s ...
not quite ready to feel all the way.
When she is,
she’ll bring her hand over her face
and when it leaves below
she’ll show herself
all serious.

When at the surface
She’ll laugh—
make like she’s playing a game.
I’d join, but I’m not so keen on laughing.
I mean, she’s pretty and attractive
lightsome and cool besides.
I could think about her deep inside
About going all the way,
That might keep me serious,
But it is not worth it.
I’ll join.

Pretty girl, why are you so pretty
at play
in a smile and a laugh?
Is it lovely to pretend
I should
(or maybe just could)
on an emotional level
in every clean and lightsome way
fuck you?
Deeply it is for all sexier and better to be each total serious.

Perhaps your merriment at play like training is.
I ought to be able to resist it,
Maybe with practice I can,
and sadly play,
which if I could,
I would be more sad when we are not playing
and you’re total serious
and I make sexual love to you.

I don’t want you to smile at me in play
Unless
if you later let me go all the way
you’d let me feel smiles and laughs as I do it
and take every drop of your love
all for myself.
Not that I’d do that even if you let me,
but still,
that perhaps is irrelevant.
Sexually I love you.
(And I don’t mean “love” as a synonym for “want”,
though for sure I also want you sexually, at least to the extent it’s allowed.)

I want to be holy and good to you
in bed.
When I started writing this poem,
it was to be a mortification of sorts.
An exercise in description
of how beautiful it would be
just to play with you
whether it be tennis,
badminton,
or some other sport.
All true that as well as this.
I could accept your smiles
as beautiful
and maybe unavoidably smile back
but not for long.
I accept that you are sexier,
and more comfortable,
and at greater ease,
if you first have an opportunity to play.
Being serious,
fixating on your deepest needs,
it makes me like holy,
and sad,
but is rather putting the cart before the horse,
and thus might not set you in the greatest ease.
The ease is more important right now,
and I or you,
we might learn something too.

This, I say, is how things started out,
but the thought of you
and me
on the surface
accepting that
it makes me realize
play is about sex,
and between us,
just about completely so.
Greater acceptance of lightness,
could make me so much more sexual,
as girls get less afraid to go,
I’d be less afraid of their rebuke
of my being rather more open of my desires
and visions of naked girls
would glide through my brain
soft and beautifully.


We could be open
about sex
much more than we are
yet it be all
just play.
The surface makes me sexual
when I have the right attitude toward it
a most pleasing seduction of me, play,
and innocent.

The world looks at happiness,
so wrong,
Lightness no gift to a female in bed is.
Nor, indeed, does sadness in me
aught in common
with obsession has.
They would scoff at me,
making a poem like this,
my darkly saying “fuck” here and there,
like I can’t help it,
even in a poem about how play
sometimes preferable to seriousness is.
But lightness in you
only beautiful to me is
in play
I’m inclined to think.
When you are light,
I don’t really want to be
otherwise than dark,
except insofar
I can’t help being so.
My sadness
not a rebuke of your lightness is
Nor is your lightness a defense
against my darkness,
but just a kind of trick
to protect me with experience from the prevailing scoffing lie,
so when we’re both dark
and still
and quiet
sexually loving one another
in coitus,
my increased sadness,
my more minor mode,
when they are the most important
they’ll give us
more erotic pleasure from our having sex
than we otherwise would have.

Blessed are those who mourn
for they shall be comforted
by coitus with girls loving sexual pleasure.

I am going to miss you
I could be angry
and bitter
maybe I won’t be able to help
being that some,
but mainly
I will just be normal
No drama
no star-crossed lovers.

I know somewhat how strong girls tend to be;
A bridge to them that isn’t right,
they’ll burn it down
and not look back
perhaps
as much as they should.
An unfinished bridge
is not necessarily a shoddy one so far as it goes.
And a stoppage of construction
not always the fault of the builders.
It seems
oftentimes a girl will be special
and something will get in the way
and for years I’ll not give up
but nothing happens
even though
it seems to me
if the girl felt as she did,
why, she would try something,
see what has become of me,
leave a clue somewhere--
a way to finish the bridge
that merely never got finished built.

It doesn’t have to be that way
At worst, if you keep thinking about me
to no direct purpose
you’ll merely gain wisdom.
These stories
of people in love
who go berserk
when they can’t do anything about it
anytime soon
from no fault of their own,
they aren’t about me
or anyone who would think about my opinions.
I occassion no withdrawal symptoms.
And though frustration
and bitterness
can be the lot of the wronged,
with resignation to what can’t be changed
and with honest appreciation
that oppression
need not occasion
gloom
or subservience
as long as there is hope
of grasping freedom
through effort
and the intellectual resolve
not to see a bogeyman where
mere injustice lay,
I say,
though difficulty
may change the perfect
or almost perfect
into something less than that,
it mostly need not be more than a delay or a lessening,
and even if it turn out more than that,
well,
one shrugs one’s shoulders like a Frenchman
and goes on,
the best one can,
with sanity almost perfect
intact.
The pedestrian
non-disgusting evils,
they may displace the perfection
of love
at its most fine freshness,
but reality one accepts it and goes on.
Shoots a basket,
plays a game of solitaire,
and not less than the extent to which it makes sense,
tries to repair things
so we can patch love up
and have it later
still quite nice,
especially since reflection on a special past or future communications will have made new wisdom.
Sometimes dreams are more real
than what seems like reality
because fear, impatience or bitterness keep us from seeing that
definite real steps
can make dreams come mostly true,
preserving your love mostly like new.
It is OK to settle
for love that’s a little cracked or faded.
Maybe no great forces are aligned against us.
With somewhat greater freedom
and power
we could try again to please each other.
And if not possible
to settle,
or if you decide from the sorry state of the bridge to remain apart forever,
which wouldn’t surprise me, yes,
I’ll gradually come to be more saddened and a little more frustrated at times,
but it will be just a minor blip to my sanity,
and need not be any more than that
to you either.
No reason to seek an excuse why our parting was deserved by either of us.
I’ve never been the least bit angry at you and don’t know why I would be.

I will miss you.

Sadness a girl magnet

I'm clever. Indeed, I claim to be the discoverer of the purpose of sadness. Observation seems to indicate that people are sad when things don't turn out as well as they expect. Why should this be such an obvious emotion when for the most part people like to show off by displaying their successes and hiding their failures? The answer is subtle, and involves genetic crossover.

What matters in a chromosome region is not only the value of the individual alleles of the genes that make it up, but how these alleles harmonize with each other. Selection selects for this harmony just as it selects for the fitness of the individual alleles. (This is why horse breeders care not just about the performance of a horse, but also about the performance of his relatives--a horse may have performed badly just because his genes don't harmonize well with one another, and harmony being less genetically transmittable, it is less of a consideration to horse breeders than the actual fitness of the genes in the horse.) A chromosome is not just its parts, it is also how well the parts fit together. Because selection selects for how well alleles at different genes harmonize, genes that are close together on the same chromosome will tend in any given individual to harmonize more than one would expect from mere chance (i.e., compared with two alleles picked at random with probabilities in proportion to their frequency in the population). This is especially important because a little careful thought (which I won't outline here) shows that a gene whose alleles would tend to have harmonious or disharmonious relationships with the alleles of some other particular gene would more likely tend to arise or to become repositioned near and on the same chromosome as that latter particular gene.

As is taught in high school biology, during the meiosis that occurs in sperm and egg development, each pair of chromosomes may swap from one member of the pair to the other genetic material in a process called genetic crossover. Harmony that has been selected for between alleles on one side of the crossover point and alleles on the other side of the crossover point is destroyed. Accordingly, children from gametes in which much crossover has occurred are less likely to have (alleles of) genes which harmonize well with each other. Such children are less likely to be fit. So Why, then, does crossover occur at all? The answer lies in what Einstein supposedly called the most powerful force in the universe, compound interest.

True, usually genetic crossover tends to lead to a gamete less fit than the average fitness of the chromosomes from which it was composed. But on occasion, a gamete as a result of crossover is more fit. And a more fit chromosome region, because it is more fit, is likely to increase in frequency over the generations. With each generation, the expected population of the chromosome region becomes greater and greater. Like compound interest on an investment, the growth in population occurs mainly in the distant future, and can be enormous if the region stays intact frequently enough. A loss, on the other hand, can never be greater than total. And the loss is likely to be in the short-term. Genetic crossover occurs because sometimes it leads to new combinations that can lead to large long-term advantages. These occasional long-term advantages, by their occasionally being enormous, make up for the short-term losses that genetic crossover is more likely to bring. Genetic crossover has a large chance of giving to descendants short-term losses and a small chance of giving to descendants long-term gains. Since the long-term gains can be enormous while the short-term losses never are worse than total, crossover has evolved to happen.

The key point to note is that the gains from crossover, being long-term, are not very much able to be shared by the mate of the person in the gametes of whom the crossover has occurred. True, it is advantageous to mate with someone with genetic fitness, since this fitness is likely to make for more fit children, grandchildren, etc. But before very many generations, the genetic material of mates will mostly be separate from one another. In fact, it can be shown (assuming constant populations and an average amount of crossover) that about one-half of the consequence in descendants to your genetic material from your mate's genetic material will occur in your children. In other words, half the advantage to your mating well will occur because your children are worthier than otherwise. (The rest will occur because your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, etc., are worthier than otherwise.)The advantages of mating well are mostly short-term. The advantages of having worthy genetic material can, however, be very long-term indeed. It is rewarding to be fertilized by genetic material in which little genetic crossover has lately occurred.

It follows that your mate could be rewarded by discouraging genetic crossover in your gametes prior to fertilization. Females presumably can't do this since it is believed that genetic crossover is determined in the fetus in females. But I think males can. If a male loves a female well, she is holy to him, and this holy emotion in the male I posit is significant because it discourages genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Selfishly, what matters to the male is having the correct rate of genetic crossover over the generations, so his genetic material can mix with other genetic material to try new combinations, etc. It is of no harm to him if he and his male descendants over the generations encourage or discourage crossover according as a prospective mate deserves it or not. And the advantages to groups whose males vary their crossover rates thus would be enormous, it allowing females to be rewarded more according as is just, thereby encouraging evolution. And moral qualities too would be advanced, since it may be presumed females would quickly evolve an ability to detect such holiness, and good females would more tend to be rewarded by (likely good) mates according to their worth while bad females would more tend to be rewarded by holiness according to how much her mate deemed it necessary to attract her with it.

Fate, too, is important, however. Sometimes a male should and would be quite successful, but alas, he has had bad luck. Evolution works better to the extent selection is determined by fitness rather than luck. Accordingly, it is reasonable that if a male feels he is likely on account of past bad luck to have been less reproductively successful than he would otherwise have been, he is going to want to give himself an advantage. He can do this by restricting crossover in gametes. This is no real harm to himself. If a gene acts to restrict or encourage crossover according to bad or good fortune, that gene won't suffer--it will still have the same average rate (over the generations) of crossover, which is what mostly matters to it. When a man feels he has had bad fortune, his genes will make up for it a little by reducing a little his possibility of distant gain by making him sad. Sadness I suggest, like holiness, discourages crossover, and therefore is a girl magnet. Genes don't mind switching the girl magnet to SAD/ATTRACT in a male with bad luck so long as they are allowed to turn the magnet to HAPPY/REPEL in a male with good luck. Indeed, the genes' success will improve if they do so. Sadness in a male is a sexual turn on to females.

Lately it has been occurring to me that girls often try to make males sad. This is why girls like to surprise males when they give gifts. If you think a girl is going to have sex with you, it is hard for that not to make you happy. So more fun for the girl to make out like she doesn't feel anything for you, and to try to make you sad, and then after you've been sad for a few months, "Surprise! Time for sex." Or something like that. (A couple months or so elapse between the stage of crossover in spermatogenesis and ejaculation.) A lot of males make out like females like sometimes to make males sad because sadness hurts, but I like my explanation better, and do trust and hope I am correct. To be sure bad males are forever trying to give girls false understandings of their own (the girls', that is) tendencies, but that is another matter, I suppose. I guess I should point out that I am not really bothered by females hiding their affections in this manner, to make affection when it comes a surprise. No, on the contrary, if a male is quite good morally, I can see how it would be moral of her to in fact encourage him to be sad. The genetic material that will be together with his in future generations can't be expected to on average be so good as the average of his genetic material, so discouraging crossover in really good individuals at the expense of their likely good (but less good) descendants, seems a pretty good thing to do on the whole. Yes, probably girls are more moral about wanting really good males to be sad than the really good males themselves are. Alas, when like the clever fox one understands girls, one is rather too wise to be tricked by girls into being sad. Yes, this thought of girls manipulating me into sadness rather makes me feel a male fox standing on his hind feet dancing about in glee. I am clever, perhaps too clever at times for my own good or even the good. But then the fox really feels he has got something if he understands the female fox's manipulations to make him sad. I? I don't understand what the dancing fox has got. It is difficult for me to be otherwise than the sum of my parts. I think I could be sad just to attract a girl or girls, but it wouldn't be easy. My guess is that I could do it to the extent I'm pious, but not otherwise. Piety also discourages crossover, and I take it to do so because being moral attracts girls more than older females, and so if you mainly attract girls, you'd might as well do what girls want to the nth-degree by discouraging crossover and being pious (which piety is no real disadvantage if you really are so much into moral philosophy that understanding moral rightness is almost a continual quest). Piety take a lot of concentration and isn't the easiest thing to maintain in this busy world--I mean, unless you are a monk, but then monks aren't supposed to have sex with girls, which is the whole point of piety IMO.

Jefferson

The other day I had the opportunity of visiting Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home. I'm sure the visit gave me a much better impression of what Jefferson actually was than I could have obtained in a comparable time merely reading about him. He was into architecture, and left a great deal of himself there. The value of a beautiful object is mainly in the message it presents, which unlike a book makes its presentation quickly. Put objects of beauty about you, and when you are in a foul mood, you only have to look up to be reminded of ideas that can put you aright. Such is what I can imagine Jefferson was about. Little geometric patterns, attractive maps, painting, art, etc., in a background calculated not to distract. None of the striving for perfection so charcteristic of childish ideas toward decoration. No emphasis on perfect polish, etc. Too often people when decorating reject beautiful items that aren't perfect and "virginal" looking, and instead concentrate on absence of imperfection. If a painting is a copy and not original, well, it is not perfect, so avoid it. If a painting is authentic, well, it is likely to have a condition reflecting that age, a not perfect condition, and so again, that scares people. How silly. Original paintings are better--much of a painting lies in its brush strokes, but their often extreme expense does of course prevent most people (like me) from buying them. Anyway, I have decided maybe I should try to decorate my living space more--to get rid of decorations or visual fields that both lack beauty and distract, and replace them with a few fine artworks, even if just copies (probably all copies, actually). The idea of hiding clutter away on one level seemed dishonest to me, like sweeping dirt under a carpet, but I see, I have decided, that is just an insane approach to take. Clutter distracts only when looked at, so if hidden, it is OK.

Everything about Jefferson's house suggests his desire for wisdom and understanding. Obviously I must admire him greatly for that. More than any politician nowadays, needless to say. When in his bedroom (which to me looked to be designed to make the right impression among those who in the future would be visiting his death bed) I could feel his presence so strongly, I felt a haunting chill (well, maybe it was just a draft, but possibly it was more).

I look back at the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and I wonder whether people nowadays read them in the correct light. Maybe in those days "Rights" had something of its original meaning. I.e., when the Founding Fathers said that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", the word "rights" was chosen partly because it still meant to some extent "those things that are right", i.e., "rights" as the opposite of "wrongs". The more conservative monarchists believed liberty in the pedestrian sense of freedom from arbitrary rule or despotism was a wrong, so it was necessary to emphasize that in fact it was a right. I suppose Locke is the one to read to elucidate this matter more clearly. There is in Monticello a painting of Locke, who according to the tour guide was one of the three men most admired by Jefferson. Accordingly, I've beeen looking at Locke more closely lately. I've never much put stock in his idea that all people are created equal (also in the Declaration of Independence), which seems quite contrary to observation and everything one knows about genetics, but looking at him more closely, I sense Locke's philosophy of understanding is much superior to his political philosophy. His arguments in "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" are written with a craft more characteristic of fine authors than of what one has come to call philosophers. And his arguments that ideas are not naturally imprinted are at least when not carried to extremes quite full of common sense and carefulness. I suspect what is non-sensical about him results from his being too angry and pasionate in his struggles against those espousing absolute tyrrany, emotional responses which can lead to exaggerations all too easily.

Anyway, I think libertarianism is dangerous. Trying to call all or most freedoms rights is a dangerous thing. If the founding fathers called freedoms like freedoms of expression rights, maybe that should suggest to us that they considered these freedoms being right important justification for their being appropriate freedoms to declare inviolate. In particular, "freedoms" to hurt oneself or enslave others are not necessarily freedoms one should have.

Locke: (Second Treatise on Government, Chapter II "Of the State of Nature", 6)

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

So there you have it. Locke, who had such a hand in influencing Jefferson apparently feels man "has not the liberty to destroy himself" or to "quit his station willfully".

Like it or not, we as humans are in this world together. Everything we do affects everyone else. Even doing nothing is doing something. Not only is it is bad speaking to say that people should have the "right" to screw up their own life or to allow someone else to screw up their life for them, it's also bad speaking to say they shouldn't have these "rights", because they are not "rights". You hurt humanity by engaging in these behaviors, which accordingly should not be liberties. Such would not be rights, but wrongs. Liberty is not generally strengthened by being "free" to lose your liberty if (say) you think you want to. Sodomy, in particular, should be illegal. Alcohol and drugs also should probably be illegal, but perhaps only if sodomy is illegal (if sodomy is not illegal, the existence of drug addictions serves the useful purpose of reminding people that chemical addiction is a real phenomenon different from stupid behavior as a result of mere stupidity).

Sexy moral girl

Today on a lark I typed "sexy moral girl" into Google. I got only "Did you mean sexy oral girl"? ("about 650 results") No. I want sexy moral girl.

Why it is so important to be discriminating

I have started this blog with the idea of putting down on the Web many of the nice little observations I have about life and, more particularly, morality. I have chosen the name "Discriminating morals" because I consider discrimination (in the old sense of the word, i.e., as the activity of a discriminating mind) as key to good moral sense.

On the great moral issues, there is disagreement as to answers. There are those who assert that unselfishness is stupid in an effort to make their selfishness seem smart. And there are those who assert that stupidity is unselfish in an effort to encourage stupidity in others. Thus, whenever some unselfish attitude resembles some stupid attitude, the group of people trying to berate the former and the group of people trying to praise the latter will encourage others to confuse the two.

Take sexual morality.

Certain elements of the right (and feminist groups) would have people believe that if a girl has sex without marriage and commitment, it is depraved or stupid. But what is commitment but a promise of resources? Why would a girl be depraved for loving a male without first receiving a guarantee of resources? Might it not often be expected to happen that a girl loves a male who (e.g., because he loves someone else more) does not love her sufficiently in return to want to marry her? Why shouldn't she please him by having sex with him? It's not like a man's having sex with another female is likely going to hurt a woman to whom he is married or otherwise commited. The simple truth is that a girl being willing to have sex outside marriage is unselfishness. In fact, the most important way for a female to be unselfish is for her to be more willing when in love to have sex without male commitment. Mostly, females should love through sex. Outlawing sex outside marriage or legally requiring (by creation of common-law marriages) commitment of a male makes the most important way females have of loving impossible, so to believe females having sex without commitment are depraved is a dreadful mistake.

What is also a mistake, however, is to react by pretending that nothing is depraved. There are those who assert that all moral beliefs about sex are just superstitions foisted on us by prudish people. After all, the belief in the sinfulness of females having sex without obtaining commitment really is that (or worse). In particular, it is claimed that sodomy is innocuous. (By sodomy, I mean behavior that allows semen to enter the digestive system.) But I am convinced sodomy is an evil addiction. Not in any religious superstitious sense as some might suspect because people who hate sodomy are often portrayed that way, but in the everyday sense of the word addiction. Semen contains addictive and terror-causing chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system (whose purpose is digestion, after all), but not by the reproductive system. Here is another reason discrimination is so very important. Sodomizers profit by encouraging confusion between sodomy and sex. Oral sodomy is called "oral sex" and rectal sodomy too is called "sex".

So there you have it, self-serving right-wingers criticize both depravity and female sexual love while self-serving left-wingers praise them both. Neither opinion has much force against the truth because they cancel each other out. Indeed, most people probably believe something in the middle: be intermediate in sexuality between a prude and a slut. But where the self-serving agree is that female sexual love and depravity are both basically the same thing. This is the widespread terrible delusion. Females can and should be blatantly sexual when in love. Moreover, they can and should be clean as snow. The two are not mutually incompatible! The truth is not a muddled compromise. Virtue in a female does not imply "sort of being willing to fuck or get fucked". "Fuck" has (at least) two meanings bad people are united in encouraging the confusion of (and no, it is not the dictionaries that matter). On the one hand, "fuck" means sex without male caring and commitment. A good female is good mainly because she is extra willing to get fucked in that sense if she should be in love. On the other hand, "fuck" means to get sodomized to sodomize. Smart girls aren't willing to do that allow that to be done to them. So then, discrimination is not just good for the general reason that I mentioned to begin with, discrimination is good because to distinguish sex from sodomy is of fundamental significance, and it's literally just a black-and-white matter of one hole vs. another.

Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same.

My opinions are much too numerous to post in a few posts. I'll see where people's comments lie, and go from there. E.g., I can further criticize the evil of indiscriminately identifying "free" sex with depravity, or I can move on to another way in which too many are indiscriminate.