Hate and cruelty an appropriate sexual turn-on in females

I have long thought (since 1992) that it is something of a sexual turn-on for females to feel hate and cruelty toward other males when having sex. This first occurred to me when I decided Victoria's secret (what made their models sexy) was to imagine themselves having sex with one male while torturing other males to death, behavior which I could not in any way manage to see as morally appropriate. Thus, it was an occasion of not a little grief and insanity that I should find sexy females thinking that. Ha. Yesterday morning, the morning of January 15, 2006, the answer occurred to me, and it is so simple and silly, one must be careful not to laugh.

Is a girl feeling hate and cruelty toward other males while having sex with a clean, good male something that will make her lustful and wet? Yes. Is it appropriate that she and her sex partner want and encourage such lust in her? Yes. Is this lust illustrative of some dark truth, e.g., the ubiquity of evil and that even the best people would tend if they could get it toward murder or apocalyptic mayhem--that absolute power corrupts absolutely? No, though it may well be that even the best people would do evil things if the reward were great enough. Is it illustrative of the fragility of the human psyche and more particularly that of the supposedly more fragile female, that a girl if she wants sex desperately will not be able to help being full of anger at anything that gets in her way, which insanity can lead to extremes, making such lust at best a kind of silly release of anger and at worse a cause of significant excesses and evil? Not particularly. Is it illustrative of that even the best of us are nevertheless a certain amount of kinky? No, not at all. That we all have within us ancestral feelings toward human sacrifice? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if such latent feelings are there, but surely human sacrifice is quite irrelevant in the modern genetically diverse world, so No. The answer is way simpler and lighter than any of that.

If a girl is full of lust, if she can feel hate and cruelty just as easily as ever, that means that her love and lust in all likelihood is NOT caused by love chemicals having been put down her throat or into her hindquarters, and so the hate naturally would be supposed to fill her with lust! If a girl can hate during sex, it is a useful sign she is not being sodomized, and so prudence demands that she cruelly hate during coitus, so that she can make useful and informative observations on the extent to which she can hate and easily imagine herself inflicting cruelties upon others without the least compromising her benevolent simultaneous sexual love for the man she is copulating with. Even if a girl knows she is not getting compromised by sodomy, it is still a reasonable and just thing for her to hate to increase her lust, lust being something good. After all, there doubtless have been over the years millions if not billions of individuals who thought they knew their love emotions were real, when in fact, they were just caused by sodomy. Sodomy is insidious, the emotions want their own proof of cleanliness, thank you very much.

I don't think we should torture in Iraq, but...

Here is a comment I tried to post about "Losing in Iraq" at Done with Mirrors. Apparently, it was too long, and so was truncated.

An interesting well-reasoned post. I am inclined to think torture not a good idea, at least not until things are very desperate, but the most important thing is to be clear about what sort of torture might be appropriate. IMO it is a big mistake to paint every type of torture with the same brush. The sort of torture most effective against villains is not the same as the sort most effective against the justly heroic. To understand the difference one must understand sexual depravity.

The main significance of torture, IMO, is in its application by rogues to obtain sexual obedience in abusive relationships. It has to do with sodomy, the putting of chemicals in the digestive system (where they can be absorbed so as to affect the brain). Why? Because semen, containing E-type prostaglandins, is an algesic. Not analgesic, like aspirin, which works by blocking prostaglandins, but an algesic, i.e., a substance that increases sensitivity to pain. This makes sodomy a very useful tool of the torturer to make his torture more effectively terrifying.

It is morally paramount that whatever torture be used not be in any way similar in style or motivation to that torture that sexually depraved types use. I remember when I was in Ann Arbor in the late eighties or early nineties there was this radio program that came on public radio talking about right wing death squads in Central America and it was really to me obscene because it minutely detailed how the right wing mercenaries supposedly tortured some prisoner by sticking a live rat in his rectum, and though presumably they'd never admit it, it was kind of obvious to me that notwithstanding ostensibly the show was against right-wing death squads the tone of the show was about trying to elicit a kind of evil perverse pleasure by way of elucidating the details (I seem to remember the second installment of the series wasn't even broadcast, even the radio station or its donors perhaps realizing it was obscene.)Needless to say, such torture is not, and should not, be the American way. Nor is the American way to shoot our enemies in the ass like [I erroneously thought] some singer called Toby Keith says [he talked about a "boot" in the ass as opposed to a "bullet" in the ass--apparently I heard the song wrong.] (according to 60 minutes). Nor should it be to kick our enemies in the ass, which is too much trying to be all things to everybody (would that be a euphemism for sodomizing or a euphemism for punishing people for a disposition to be sodomized?). The kind of appropriate torture less likely to alienate our worthy friends would be an anti-forcible-sodomizer type of torture.

What girls, etc., seek to punish when they feel rapaciously threatened is the groin of the abuser. A kick to the balls is the most reasonable technique in the self-defense anti-rape courses. Why? I am inclined to think this be the case because sodomizers, and more particularly sodomizers aroused by sodomy, tend to end up with some of their own algesic chemicals in their testes. This isn't just ironic. I suspect it is "the" irony--the irony responsible for the concept of irony being something interesting (it is otherwise odd that irony seems the hardest to define easily recognizable situation). Unfortunately, in humans, prostaglandins seem more produced by the internal seminal vesicles than the testes, but still, I suspect testes are to some extent affected by the algesics produced for sodomy. There is one primate (the aye-aye) who purportedly lacks seminal vesicles, and thus probably makes his prostaglandins in his testes. This jives well with the wicked-looking long and bony middle claw-like finger that the aye-aye uses to probe and skewer tree grubs in bark--one can imagine it would make a good testicular torture implement. Anyway, if we do go the torture route, I say we should do it using sexy young female torturers very cleanly but relaxedly and sadistically ripping into the testes of our targets with exacto knives or some such thing, trying to maximize their pain.

People say that groups like Al Qaeda are motivated by religion. I am skeptical. I figure they are mostly just a bunch of sodomizers who by way of glorifying their peculiar sexual proclivities, find it convenient to glorify violence and torture, those being probably the favorite pastimes of most of them. People who don't live in a place (like the American Southeast) where religion is still quite respected don't I think realize how many people who have basically no authentic religious spirit at all nevertheless find it convenient to pretend to all manners of religious sentiment. That's what I figure is happening there. In fact, even if Islam is more anti-forcible-sodomy than Christianity (I rather suspect it is) that doesn't really make Al Qaeda being mostly a bunch of depraved sodomizers less believable. Reasonable people nowadays mostly see that your standard religions are rather outdated, so religions probably don't have that much effect on morals nowadays. But formerly, perhaps it was different. When the Middle East was dominated by a hard-ass religion maybe being hard-ass wasn't the trait would-be maters there felt the need to admire much over the years, which perhaps has not caused those tendencies to evolve from sexual selection as much in the Middle East as in the West under the sway of "turn the other cheek" Christianity. (Islam might not be hard-assed in the sense that it perhaps does not give married women much defense against being dominated, but unfortunate though that is, the sort of abuse in marriage is not a rapaciously initiated kind of abuse that most of the members of Al Qaeda presumably prefer.) True, being under the sway of a hard-assed religion might have led to fewer sodomizers in the Middle East having been able to succeed, but still, what few sodomizers that did prosper would be expected to have been very potent and dangerous. There probably are not a great number of evil Al Qaeda types in Islamic areas, but the few of them probably are very potently evil and disgusting.

There is a great danger with torture. On the one hand, people insanely tend to view too much as sexual abuse. We are not getting our asses screwed, we're just getting killed. So in a way, by allowing torture, there is the psychological danger of our viewing what is just an enemy combatant as some sort of forcibly sodomizing child molester worthy of every feeling of revenge and cruelty we can imagine. On the other hand, ritual torture and killing is probably tied up with feelings toward human sacrifice (which probably wasn't particularly uncommon in our ancestors of a few thousands of years ago), and various confusions about such feelings are dangerous, not so much because humans feelings toward human sacrifice are insane, just that human sacrifice and more particularly confusion about human sacrifice is dangerous, possibly leading to genocides or even human extinction. (And human sacrifice is less reasonable today than ever because of the great genetic diversity of humans now as a result of the explosion of travel and migrations.)

Yeah, I know my ideas are weird, but they are not just same old.

Beauty is only skin deep?!?!????

The expression "beauty is only skin deep" is wrong on so many levels, one doesn't know where to begin to refute it. You can't just say the statement is wrong because doing so manages somehow both to insult beauty and to insult surface beauty. To a sensitive person with visual sensibility, there is really no problem judging beauty largely by the surface (especially at the first), because to such a person, the surface tends to reflect what is inside as well. Moreover, I could and do argue that, in a way, surface beauty is more special than deep beauty because surface beauty must be of less importance to snobbish people who desire exclusive associations. If, say, the only people you are willing to meet or mate are members of your exclusive clubs, parties, or gated community, you really won't likely have a great number of associations and you will have plenty of time and opportunity to get to know each acquaintance fairly well. It is when love is so important to you that you are unwilling to rule out a special person no matter how brief your previous knowledge of him or her is, that your appearance becomes important. A person you see at a park, grocery store, train, etc., that could be what you want, and if your personal appearance reflects you and your tastes, that other person if sensitive can know your character is such you might well want him, and it could be the difference between you having a happy love life or an unhappy one. This is why prettiness is more important for females than males, males more tending to make the first move.

Anyway, a few months ago I decided to Google this hated-by-me saying to determine its origins, which I figured must be associated with something sinister. Just how right I was surprised even me, however. Apparently, the quote originally comes from Sir Thomas Overbury's The Wife. Sir Thomas Overbury was the homosexual lover of Robert Carr (or Kerr), who was also the homosexual lover of James I of England. Carr and the wife of the Earl of Essex decided they wanted to get married. This infuriated Sir Thomas Overbury, who wrote a poem concerning his supposed ideal wife to try to dissuade Carr from marrying. Included, according to the above link, was the phrase "All the carnall beauty of my wife/ Is but skin-deep, but to two senses known", whence the saying.

In other words, the expression "beauty is only skin deep" originally was a pleading by a sodomite in the King's court to keep his illiterate homosexual lover from screwing a disreputable mostly powerless young woman as opposed to sodomizing himself and the king. Did it work? No. The impudent "Lady" Essex and (presumably) Kerr schemed to have Overbury put in the Tower, and then secretly murdered him by slow poison (which didn't work as well as expected, so they finished him off by feeding him "corrosive sublimate" (I believe read somewhere what was used was sulfuric acid or something similar to it)). I imagine because "Lady" Essex took away for herself a good portion of the sodomy that previously had been destined for the king, Kerr fell out of graces with the King, who in his starvation had found a new, more cunning sodomizer, Georges Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham by way of finishing his rival encouraged the unfolding of the plot, as a consequence of which the "shocked" King remarked "if I spare any that are guilty, God's curse light on me and my posterity for ever!" Kerr and the Countess of Essex were found guilty, but doubtless motivated by his fond memories of debauch, the king pardoned them (after hanging some of his accomplices). The debauchery of James I is largely what gave the Puritans a plausible case for their rebellion. Apparently, most of the anti-sodomy laws date from this period of the ascendancy of the Cromwells and of the beheading of James I's son Charles I [update: I think this was an error on my part]. (It is interesting to note that, according to MacKay, James I's only other son, the virtuous young Prince Henry, who hated Kerr, was suspected of having been poisoned by Kerr, perhaps with James I's debauched connivance, an alternative explanation for Kerr being able to secure pardon--his knowing so much allowed blackmail.) As for Buckingham, he "is supposed, with great probability" of poisoning the king, which according to Mackay "...rests upon circumstances of suspicion stronger than have been sufficient to lead hundreds to the scaffold." Buckingham's motive? Partly because (as MacKay speculates) "his hope that the great influence he possessed over the mind of the heir apparent would last through a new reign, if the old one were brought to a close."

I can imagine that Overbury's poems originally were popular because people made fun of them as being immensely ridiculous and scandalously dumb. Unfortunately, nowadays people don't know the context, just the saying.

I should point out that there is a good deal of disagreement about the nature of the homosexual relationships which King James I, Kerr, and Overbury, actually had. The main question is who was sodomizing who, or as the homosexual community would more likely put it, who was dominant. MacKay, being from the nineteenth century when people had reasonable notions about sodomy, I believe is right in giving the impression that Kerr, the illiterate nobody, was the likely sodomizer and more dominant one. The disagreement you'll see on the net is not so much that James I had homosexual relationships, but that perhaps he was the dominant one. But this scarcely seems credible inasmuch as Kerr had essentially no power or abilities. In fact, James I in his youth (before he became debauched) was especially fond of scholarly pursuits. It scarcely seems credible he would want to dominate an illiterate person of no power like Kerr. Presumably the king was more the debauched than the debaucher. But not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course.

Corollary of conformity in parents

It occurs to me that, since I neglected to do so earlier, I should point out that from parents tending to be conformist in their parenting it follows quite generally that as regards the opinions which parents especially use to inform their important parenting decisions, people quite generally will tend to be unusually conformist. In particular, parents in parenting especially need to protect their children from depravity. Therefore, one may suppose that the general attitude of people toward depravity would tend to be (a) stupid on account of it merely comprising the few opinions of those who are independent enough to think for themselves about it, and (b) conformist. It is clear to me that there are but few people in this world willing to hold weird opinions about what constitutes depravity; most people just go along with their impression of standard opinion thoughtlessly. At first I thought this was because, quite reasonably, those who in some sense think themselves abused quite rightfully tend to be hesitant to use their viewed-as-impure sensibilities. And though there are people clean as snow, Where is the person so sanely confident in the own purity of her innocence that she will not to some extent feel compromised and ashamed at times? This insane tendency toward conformity, which affects us all (though it be actually desirable in the person addicted to abuse), does cause clean people to undesirably be conformist. However, such conformity strikes me as rather general as regards sexual matters. No, there is more to explain the general indifference to the truth of the particulars of the evil of depravity than just collective insanity; much of this indifference arises merely because a parent rather than a daughter generally make the key decisions as regards if a mate or would-be mate of the daughter is abusive of not. Should then girls mostly judge depravity for themselves instead, leaving mothers mostly out of the equation? No. Notwithstanding that such custom would in the long run more make people think for themselves about sodomy rather than just adopting standard opinion, it isn't worth it. That girls (and boys, too, for that matter) be well-protected from sodomy is just too important.

Anyway, conformity explains the otherwise surprising failure of many people to see that sodomy is likely an evil addiction in the very simple sense that semen likely contains chemicals that are addictive and capable of being especially well-absorbed by the digestive system. And notwithstanding the truth as regards sodomy is simple and black-and-white, it is well for the anti-sodomite to suspend his general disdain for the ad populem argument. Notwithstanding people believing something just because others do tends to make me grimace and shake my head, I can see the desirability and importance of pointing out to others that during much of recorded history sodomy was in fact mostly viewed by people as a vile addiction, and will be accepting if, unlike with my well-reasoned hate of sodomy, someone's hate of sodomy is based merely on a desire to hold traditional 19th-century opinions there. Mostly unenforceable or unenforced anti-sodomy laws, laws against sodomy marriage, these restrictions perhaps may not seem important in themselves, but if for nothing else than that they are reflections of societal attitudes that create in the herd impressions of these societal attitudes, they are important and useful, even if not as useful as explaining the truth.

The sixties

Much can be explained about today by accepting that older people have a great deal of nostalgia for life in the late sixties. For instance, older people want to see the Iraq war with the same lenses they saw Vietnam, as if their generation is the expert about such things. Indeed, it does seem to me that culture made great leaps at that time. In particular, it is obvious that the music of that era was head-and-shoulders above that of this era, both in quality and originality. Not only that, great accomplishment were made in civil rights and we actually managed to send men to the moon and back. Cultural advances came in leaps and bounds. Why?

What most seem to agree on is that during that time, on average, people rather quickly became much more permissive in their sexual morals. This permissiveness I do believe is responsible for the sudden advancement of the arts. Even in the sciences, it seems to have had no bad effect. But you have to ask yourself, What went wrong? Why for instance did we end up with the crummy music (on average) of the Reagan years? I suggest the reason is simple. Becoming more permissive is mostly all for the good so long as you don't get screwed-up. And if a girl does become sexually permissive and imprudent in some general indiscriminate sense, she is likely to get screwed-up, but her fall is not something that is going to happen immediately. It is not as though once people in the sixties decided to be sexually carefree they all immediately ran to their nearest drug dealer and sodomizer for depraved kicks. No, doubtless it took time for them to get screwed-up. More especially did it take time, because presumably only after a good many people started enjoying depravity did it seem very plausible that such depravity was something that a carefree nature might want. So after a people becomes imprudently carefree, there is a little time where the people are artistically profound because they now lack the artistically repressive false stupid prudish fears yet still haven't had time to be encumbered by the impure defiling of depravity notwithstanding they have abandoned beautiful and reasonable prudence.

If my theory is right, it would seem that when a society suddenly becomes more sexually permissive, one would expect a sudden cultural advancement, especially in the arts, but it would not tend to last very long, and would tend to be followed by a screwed-up period of little cultural advancement. It would be interesting to study whether history bears that out quite generally.

Anyway, I can't see the Iraq war has many points of resemblance to the Vietnam War. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt—though I am not an expert about the war, I trust that whatever the difference was, there wasn't the night-and-day difference in terms of virtue between the two sides fighting. In Iraq, however, it is perfectly obvious that Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists are quite evil in comparison with the democracy-desiring coalition forces. I think the surprising amount of vehement opposition to the Iraq war has a good deal to do with people's attitudes toward the sixties. Young people then made such great artistic advancements, and naturally (the Vietnam War being stupid) it was the anti-war artists who mostly made these advances, so there is the tendency to believe that if we can somehow rekindle the anti-war sentiments, we'll end up with cool music, a more beautiful freer love, great sex, etc., etc., etc. And if there is going to be free love and great sex in the new anti-war movement, many will not want to be left out or thought the new kind of "square". It all seems rather silly to me. The sixties are over and done with. People don't need to be sexually more permissive, and they don't need to be sexually more puritanical, it's six the one half a dozen the other. What is needed now as ever is discrimination between selfish loveless prudishness and prudence. Too many people don't know the difference between love, the most beautiful thing there is, and getting screwed in the hindquarters, the most disgusting. Why? Because on the one hand, right-wing cold women want their cold sexually loveless selfish prudishness to be viewed as just not wanting their hindquarters to get screwed, while on the other, left-wing sodomites want not wanting your hindquarters to get screwed to be viewed as cold loveless prudishness. Evil is strongest the one place it is united, and where evil is most united is in identifying prudishness with prudence, depravity with love.

Conformity in parents carefully explained

(Comment: by daughter, I mean mostly to exclude adult daughters; I am mainly speaking of adolescent and teenage daughters in a society with reasonable age of consent laws, the idealistic case, being more relevant one may hope to future generations. Also, for those unfamiliar with statistics, an estimator of males is unbiased if the males of a particular worth are going on average to be estimated at that worth. Such an estimator is not at all going to be a best or risk minimizing estimator.)

Looking back at my past few posts for my explanation of why parents tend more to be conformist in parenting than children are in living, it occurred to me my explanation might be a little sparse in its details. Indeed, upon rereading, it took a whole hour or so for me to understand and recollect my reasoning—how to look at things in the right way. And I wrote it just a week or so earlier! So I clarify. But first I go over the various considerations that might predict when exactly a mother could influence her (young) daughter’s sexual decisions.

There are some matters regarding sex in which it is right that girls conform to their parents' understanding. For instance, even a girl who wants to be true to her own true nature in making her sexual decisions should see that if she is uncertain about a decision, then the opinions of her parents, each being genetically half her after all, can inform her decision in such a way as to make the girl's decision more likely to be that of her own true nature. People aren't just products of their genetic makeup, they are also products of their environment, yet what people should tend to be true to is their own genetic makeup. Accordingly, to encourage her own decisions to be more reflective of her own true nature and to be less reflective of the external influences of the noise of undesired circumstance, a girl if reasonable will refine her sexual decisions with the opinions of her family.

If a girl considers herself to have lived a free, clean life and doesn't at all feel like she has been a victim, then of course her own true nature will be much more reflected by her own opinions than by those of her parents. Accordingly, when a girl considers herself full of innocence (an opinion likely to be largely derived from her parents' opinions of her), she shouldn't much weight the opinions of her parents as to her sexual decisions (of course, given a particular weight a girl has ascribed to her parents' opinion, the more the parents' estimation of a male differs from her own estimation of him, the more her refined opinion of him will depend upon her parents' unbiased estimation, but that is a different matter, following merely from weighted averaging really being a kind of averaging.) The interesting consideration is what happens when parents' opinions of a male differ very much from a daughter's opinions. (It is still interesting to note the importance of being clear-headed about the Bayesian statistics involved, though. For instance, a girl could barely not want to have sex with a guy and a parent barely could not want her to have sex with a guy, and then, after they learn each others' opinions, they could quite reasonably both want the girl to have sex with him. This could be valid statistical reasoning, since each before could be biasing their estimation with knowledge of how the worth of males is distributed; viz., males worthy of having sex with girls are rare, so it is much more likely that an unbiased estimate of a male's worth that suggests or almost suggests such a high worth be an overestimate than an underestimate. Thus, the typical choosy mother's (biased) estimate of a rather desirable male will likely be less than her unbiased estimate of him. But only if the mother's unbiased (with respect to her knowledge of the prior distribution of male worthiness in the general population) estimate of a male suggests that her daughter shouldn't want sex with him should that discourage the daughter from wanting him; otherwise, it should have quite the contrary effect (even if because upon considering that truly worthy males are rare the mother had decided just using her own reasoning that the daughter shouldn't have sex); typically a mother has to want her daughter to have a man much less than the daughter wants to have sex with him in order to be able to change her daughter’s decision about having sex with him.

Let us first suppose that a girl, before refining her opinions of a male with those of her parents, wants sex from some male, and that the mother, before refining her opinion with that of her daughter, is that the male is an undesirable jerk. In this case, the mother is likely to believe that her daughter is messed-up, and so to an unusual degree possesses opinions not reflective of her daughter’s own true nature. The daughter will probably believe her mother (especially if the daughter believes her mother is not generally deluded or messed-up), because, obviously, messed-up people might be supposed to be not particularly effective at unbiasedly estimating their own messed-upped-ness. It follows that the daughter will refine her opinions of the male heavily by those of her mother; and since these latter opinions would be not only heavily-weighted, but also vastly different from those of the daughter, the daughter will very reasonably refine her estimate of what her own true nature wants to such a large degree that she no longer will want sex with the male, who with a great probability is obnoxious. Especially does this downward refining seem reasonable because females know intuitively that it is more common for unbiased females to greatly overestimate the worth of a male unbiasedly judged desirable than to greatly underestimate it, which makes greatly overestimating a male's worth quite a risk. This refining is obviously a good thing, and one rather wishes that things always happened so reasonably. At any rate, the tendency is for a mother to effectively control her daughter’s mating when she believes strongly her daughter shouldn’t mate with the male under consideration.

On the other hand, when a girl would not wish to have sexual relations with a male whom the mother would want her daughter to have sex with, the situation is a little different from a merely opposite phenomenon. Sexual impurity is largely a black-and-white phenomenon—a girl is either into sodomy or she isn’t; it follows that if a girl is overestimating a male’s worth, very possibly she is overestimating it a great deal. This black-and-whiteness also follows from the reinforcing nature of delusions; the more deluded a girl is, the more confusion makes her vulnerable to further delusions from seducers, whereas the more a male has (by mostly being honest) made her wise, the more difficult it will be for him to lie to her at all. But girls disliking sex excessively is less black-and-white. A girl who fails somewhat to unbiasedly appreciate a male’s sexual worth is going to be much more common than a girl who fails drastically to unbiasedly appreciate a male’s sexual worth; i.e., mathematically, one could say that the distribution of the parameter of male worthiness (as defined by a girl's true nature) corresponding to a particular high unbiased estimate that she can make will be skewed to the left.

Occasionally, a girl might from an excess of puritanical superstition reject a male whom the mother would want her to have sex with, but if the mother doesn’t have that puritanical excess, it is not particularly likely that the daughter possesses it unless she considers her mother screwed-up, but then if she does think her mother screwed-up, the daughter would not have been likely to take her mother’s opinions seriously anyway. So you wouldn’t expect very many mothers to be able to convince their excessively puritanical daughters into sex unless the daughter already almost desired it.

Similarly, if on account of the daughter being too screwed-up to appreciate what is good sex, the daughter doesn’t want to have sex with the male the mother would want the daughter to have sex with, the mother’s influence upon her daughter does not per se stem from the mother’s opinion differing drastically from that of her daughter but from the daughter believing she is screwed-up on account of that being the opinion of her mother. In any event, it is rare that a mother who thinks a male much more desirable than her daughter does is going to be able to convince the daughter to have sex with him. If the daughter’s opinion of the male is high to begin with, then the difference would entail the mother having a truly extraordinary liking of the male, so extraordinary as to be, well, rare—rare even among women who want their daughter to have sex. On the other hand, if the difference in opinion is great on account of the daughter having a below average opinion of the male, then because the daughter in making her decision is likely to take a kind of average of her opinion and her mother’s opinion, the mother’s opinion of the male again would have to be a truly extraordinary opinion in order for her opinion to make a difference in her daughter’s decision. It is very rare that a mother whose opinion of a male differs radically from her daughter’s opinion of him succeeds in convincing her daughter to have sex with him.

To sum, the important, useful, less infrequent phenomena are a mother convincing her daughter not to have sex with a male the mother likes much differently (i.e., much less) than the daughter and a mother convincing her daughter to in fact have sex with a male the mother likes a similar amount to the daughter. The latter sort of control is much less appreciated than the former, and I think that is because in a way it is not control at all. Indeed, the latter situation in all great likelihood implies a mother’s respect for her daughter’s sexual innocence so great that the sense of ease the daughter feels at knowing her mother thinks her sexual desires, be what they may, are not at all screwed-up would in itself push the daughter over the edge and into bed with the desired male. No reason, really, why a mother who wants her daughter to have sex should try to force her daughter to change more directly her feelings, when all the mother has to do is, say, rub the daughter’s shoulders while (she) the daughter is obviously lusting for the male under consideration, and maybe say how pretty and innocent she looks. Sometimes a sledge-hammer approach is not the best one!

Now let us go to the question at hand, namely, why it would be expected that a mother would tend to be more conformist than her daughter(s) in deciding whether her daughter(s) should have sex presently.

In parents as in children, the tendency to be non-conformist arises largely at the gene level. An allele coding for parenting authenticity (or what amounts to almost the same thing, an allele coding importunately for a parenting trait, i.e., so strongly that desires the allele produces must be heeded regardless how many people would heed it) in a parent has a fifty-fifty chance of being passed on to a child. In the case the allele is not passed down, it is of no consequence to the allele what happens to the child, and hence of no consequence whether parenting encouraged by the allele be conformist or not, so we can ignore that case. In the case the allele is passed down, the advantages and disadvantage of the allele being authentically coded for are (so far as the allele is concerned) exactly the same as would be the case if the parent shared all her DNA with that of her child. It follows, therefore, that the consequences to a parent of authenticity are exactly the same as those to a child. If a mother is authentic and true to herself in deciding how to influence her daughter’s sexuality, she will on average encourage selection and evolution of wise parenting traits (that code for wise influence on daughters’ mating decisions) in descendants; on the other hand, by being conformist, she will on average have more successful children (if a woman is not screwed up, she will on the contrary actually do better on average by not being conformist, but this is just because even the wisest clean people tend to insanely overestimate their screwedupness, and such an estimation tends quite understandably to produce conformity). Moreover, these effects will be in the same proportion as would be the case when making decisions about your own mating. What then is the difference? Why do parents tend to be more conformist than daughters when it comes to daughters having sex? The difference is that being able to influence your daughters’ sexual behavior in the proper way is not as useful a skill as being able to influence your own sexual behavior in the right way. On average, in a society with a stable population, a person will have the same amount of his genetic material in children as in herself (this will hold exactly when someone has two children). But only about half of children are daughters. Therefore, influencing your daughters’ mating decisions really is only about half as useful as influencing your own mating decisions. (Thinking of parenting as an influence on all childrens’—not just daughters’—mating decisions gives a similar result for different reasons, i.e., a mother would have to share the influence with that of the mother of the prospective mate, again making it half as useful; similarly, including the father’s say over mating doesn’t change the conclusion in this context.) A gene that is half as useful as another gene is only going to put about half as much weight in encouraging its own evolution. So far as its survival is concerned, however, it wants that all the same as much. Parents tend to be conformist in deciding how to influence their daughters’ sexual decisions because the genes coding for these parenting traits only care half as much about being authentic as does a gene that regulates one’s own sexual behavior.

Just because parents tend to be conformist in parenting, it doesn’t mean necessarily that this creates tension between parents and daughters, however. In fact, there is tension, but not all of it results from parents inappropriately trying to make a daughter inauthentic; in fact, some of the tension involves daughters inappropriately trying to make their parents inauthentic. Careful discrimination of the various cases is required. On the one hand, to the extent daughters considering sex want to be authentic to their own genetic nature, daughters will tend to weigh less their parents’ (more conformist) opinions than the parents themselves would want. Ideally, girls in making their mating decisions largely would be authentic to their own genetic material. But what a mother selfishly would want would be for her daughter to be authentic to that part of the daughter’s genetic material that her daughter shares with herself. A daughter, quite reasonably, and for the greater good, is not going to want to weight her mother’s opinion as much as her mother would want her to, because presumably half her mother’s opinion is formed by genetic material that actually is not present in her. When this sort of tension arises, it is ideal that it should be considered proper that the daughter not submit to any attempts by the mother to enforce her will over her daughter. Such an upset mother should be viewed as excessively controlling. An exception is when the appropriateness of a sexual decision made by a daughter depends largely upon whether some conclusion believed by the daughter because her mother believed it in fact is true. Such a situation I discussed in my last post, the poem—whether a girl’s extreme lust for a man is reckless or quite the contrary depends mainly on the chances of various levels of depravity in him, and daughters in evaluating absence of depravity effectively tend to rely more on their parents’ opinions than their own opinions. And just as mothers don’t appreciate sufficiently the importance of decisions properly mostly made by daughters reflecting their daughters’ true natures, daughters tend not to appreciate sufficiently the importance of decisions properly mostly made by parents reflecting their parents’ true natures. The genetic material a mother has which is not shared by her daughter will fortunately not care if a parenting decision made by the mother is authentic or not. But the genetic material which a daughter has disjointly from that of her mother will in fact unfortunately care about the mother being authentic—very probably it would prefer the mother to make conformist less idiosyncratic decisions, it not caring about the fast evolution of the genetic material it is together with, but just (genewise) the fast evolution of itself. There is a sense, then, in which daughters undesirably will excessively want to rely on their parents’ opinions more as a faithful indicator of standard opinion than as an extra indication of what her own (the daughter’s) true genetic nature desires. This cause of a daughter’s desire for parental conformity to standard dogma perhaps won’t in itself cause daughters to push heavily for more normalcy in parents, because such normalcy would tend to cause an increased tension between parent and daughter if the daughter should want sex (and such tension exists because, as we have seen, parents tend to excessively want to be controlling). But at any rate, parents will want to be authentic as parents more than their daughters will want them to be so. This leads to a very subtle point which it is quite important to be clear about. On the one hand, daughters undesirably tend to want their parents to be more normal as parents. But on the other hand, parents undesirably tend to want to control their daughters sexual behavior, with perhaps a few exceptions (daughters’ lust being perhaps one or almost one), more than their daughters want them to control it. Parents tend to be excessively conformist as parents, but ironically, daughters tend to want their parents to be more conformist than the parents do, notwithstanding this conformity is likely to make for arguments between daughters and parents. So it is not quite so simple to just blame parents for their excess conformity.

Mothers not always Protective

Mother and Daughters

When deciding whether to sleep with a man,
a girl not a woman would do well to judge him depraved,
or not,
according more-or-less
to what her mother thinks.
That essentially her filial deference here implies
that it’s not her decision
what sort of conclusion she should make
regarding his virtues
in discriminating vice
from mere (for the sake of argument let’s call it that) sexual delight
she’ll take into account
and won’t be as inclined
to let that conclusion
influence her decision
to go to bed
with her prospective lover
as would be the case
if the conclusion
came from within,
based on her own faculties of perception,
rather than those of her mother.
I say, “correct”, “quite reasonable”.

But there is another consideration
(of course)
a consideration that I shouldn’t quite call a qualification,
for though it might slightly partake of some of the characteristics of that,
well,
the consideration concerns a different sphere,
lust
which to the previous discussion,
whether you should go to bed with me,
relates not nearly so much
as to how you should go to bed with me.
Should you really be entirely true to yourself
if and when
sex present or anticipated
has made it incumbent upon your person
to decide how much to lust for my penis?
Maybe you shouldn’t entirely be true to yourself
Maybe in some limited sphere
in bed
you should be true to your mom,
not yourself.
How much she wants you to lust (or not lust, though certainly I should hope this would not be the case) for
my level of moral discrimination
(judged by you externally, from her perception)
as regards identifying
depravity
correctly
not just inclusively
ought in my opinion
control you
more than you own want there.

If a girl rejects me
because her opinion of my
faculty
at separating
depravity
from its opposite
(strange I should say “opposite”, but it’s neither here-nor-there for me to judge why saying that makes a better poem,
until I know)
is something she knows came from without,
from her mother,
as they believe it significantly should,
and she (the girl)
figures,
“Why should I take a chance on him,
when it will be my mother who triumphs
or fails
instead
of
me?
It takes the fun
of taking
a
chance
half
away.
As follows from Mendellian genetics.”,
OK.

But if you don’t inform your lust,
to the extent your mother influenced your opinion of me
in the ways you want her to,
as much as she would want you to,
I can’t believe that a good thing.

If, indeed, your opinions
of those parts of my virtues pertaining to discriminating cleanly
are determined by your mother,
your mother,
triumphing or suffering
according to her own decisions,
will,
if she thinks me possessed of
quite the eye for discriminating
cleanliness from mess,
want you to lust for my penis
more than you want yourself to.
What moral principle
could guide her away
from trying to make you do as she wants
and needs
when
if girls don’t do as their mothers want here
men discriminating cleanly
won’t get lusted for so much
by little girls
as would men possessing
other virtues less important?
It would follow from epigenetics
that if girls are true to their own wants,
rather than their mothers’,
when deciding how much to lust for a
cleanly discriminating man
whom
the daughters concluded so to the extent of their own mothers’ certitude
as regards the innocuous snowlike cleanliness of his penis’s desire
to lovingly fuck her little angel’s cervix,
people
would evolve
to be very conformist
in discriminating (or should I say not discriminating) the most innocent and beautiful love there is,
from
depravity.
There is a sense in which mothers want their little angels
protected from lust for depravity
more than the daughters themselves want it,
Just like a mother can want her little angel to give up her cervix in lust
more lustful than what her little angel wants,
when why her little angel believes it safe
is that she trusts her mom.

I hope your mother doesn't think
I have written this
in response to something
I might have thought
she might have done.
I refuse
to use
any imagination
in deciding
whether
something is directive
(or not).
"Come on",
I might tell her,
pushing her away just slightly,
somewhat tauntingly,
it really wouldn't be moral of me
to be else,
Would it now?"
I don't want your mother
to have any fears of me,
not even that I won't fuck you hard enough.

False rescuers

For some time I have wondered what group of people is most responsible for encouraging fears that have led society to take sexual freedom away from young females and those whom they love. I have been looking closer at the leading agitators for higher ages of consent, etc., and have come to something of a conclusion. The people who really agitate the hardest and most effectively against adolescent female sexuality seem to be men. Not just any men, I have decided, but men who in all likelihood have a preference for fallen women. It is not easy to seduce an innocent female. True, if a deceptive man has virtually nothing that a woman would want--if his deceiving skills are more-or-less his only ones--, the most effective mating approach for such a one would be to corrupt innocent, young, more easily corruptible girls. But even among sodomizers, it must be supposed that most have some skills, some abilities that females might want. If a sodomizer has at least a basic amount of skill he is probably going to be better off directing his appeal to older females. Not many children are born to teen mothers as opposed to older ones, presumably because typically a teen girl has to really believe herself greatly in love with a male before she naturally would want to have meaningful sex with him directly without waiting to see if her judgment changes. Probably, just because older females typically want a family presently more than teenage girls, the typical bad male even if foul usually finds it easier to seduce older females than younger ones.

It's too easy, probably, to fall into the trap of viewing all sodomizers as the same. Doubtless they have differing specialties. Physically abusive or terrifying ones probably do have a decided preference for young females with an innocence that largely precludes the dreaded sophistication that is a possibility among the fallen; viz., some fallen women are sufficiently sophisticated as to realize that the pleasure of sodomy doesn't have as much to do with who is the sodomizer as a freshly fallen naive female might think, and so sodomy tends not to be as exclusively controlling of such sophisticated females. Indeed, some depraved males are patently abusive, going after innocent naive girls and corrupting them with violence, terror, rape, forcible sodomy, etc. Some others perhaps are effective at making females think themselves more amenable to being controlled than is the case, and at creating confusion between innocuous captivation and disgusting captivity. Such men and boys also do probably prefer clean, young females to dominate. But not all bad men, nay, not even all bad sodomizing men are the same. Clearly there are advantages in specialization. The more common a particular evil is, the more females will have evolved effective defenses against it. If a male is more slick than seductive, better at controlling a female without her realizing it than at seducing her in the first place to try the behavior that allows him to control her, he will, in all likelihood, prefer fallen women. Not to rescue them from depravity, of course, but to inflict upon them his own depravities in place of the depravities of her past that were inflicted by other males.

Anyway, if a man has a certain amount of skill and success, then it is a convenient thing to do to a fallen women to convince her to try him by way of rescuing her from her past. Lots of females are messed-up as teenagers and in college, but then as a result of lack of success, say in getting good grades or in making money or in landing a successful husband, they come after using a little bit of sense to believe a reform is necessary. Indeed, in our commercialized society, people (unfortunately) are more likely to feel shame at lack of material success than at anything else. A strategy for a tolerably successful male who wants to get such a woman is to make her think she indeed needs reform. By making the woman feel good about a change, the man can more assuredly feel that she will indeed leave the other abusive men who in her past have been responsible for screwing-up her sensibilities. This is important for him, not because he wants to clean her up (in fact he wants to introduce his own dirt on top of the dirt she already has upon her), but because he doesn't want her past to compete with the depravities he himself wants to commit, thereby introducing sexual competition. He could just try to appeal to her by caring for her, but maybe he (perhaps rightly) believes his financial appeal is a good deal greater than his clean sexual appeal, and so he still finds the need to be foul in his sexual activities. What such a foul, rat-like male will likely strive for is to make the woman think her past romantic failures were merely as a result of her having had when young a lack of self-esteem that allowed her to give sex to controlling manipulative males that by nature she never would have given to anybody at that age. It is curious that one often hears people (e.g., in so-called feminist spheres) say that lack of self-esteem causes young females to excessively try sex, since I daresay a common-sense view of human nature is that a female who doesn't at all feel sure of herself, a female who lacks self-esteem and shames easily, is going to adopt a more conventional less confident approach to life, and it is not at all the case that teenage sex is something praised in conventional morality geared for the unthinking masses. It's just that girls, when they want sex, naturally tend to be submissive (see the last post or the discussion in my book about the importance of sex with young females being especially rewarding to males). This is bad basically if the submission takes place before the girl has decided to have sex. If it is after, the submission is not problematic in a girl, notwithstanding sexual submission in women is rather lame. If a girl doesn't love a man so well as in bed to trust him to an extent he could more or less control her if he saw fit to do so, then what would be bad would be her having had sex with him in the first place; bad men will exert such control to the extent they can regardless of what people think about it, and why shouldn't a good man cleanly exert a certain amount of control since there are good things he can accomplish with such, e.g., to encourage the girl he is having sex with to be more true to her own true sexual nature, which else would be difficult the younger the girl, youngsters being ignorant often becoming imitators from necessity. (Not that it at all bothers me if a girl would decide to have sex on account merely of having imitated a good friend--presumably no need for punishment or withholding emotional affection there--, but that is a different subject.)True, a hatred of young female submission, if general, might encourage girls to leave abusive males, but more than likely such a general hatred would mainly just cause girls to lack respect (on account of some submission being appropriate) for that part of society that else could rescue her. She might well think that reformists in society are stupid because they with a broad stroke reject submission, and thus make it more difficult for these reformers to argue their case against the evil of sodomy; better to try to make girls hate foul submission qua foulness rather than qua submission.

Anyway, in all likelihood the strongest forces against young-female sexual freedom are men who find it expedient to make females reject the males of their young-female sexual past without causing them to reject the depraved sensibilities mainly responsible for the females' failures. Adolescent female sexuality isn't just a red herring that the sodomizers of fallen women can point at when justifying their depravities, it is also something they directly need fallen women to see as responsible for their own material failures, lest they return to the males who first abused them. These foul men who insidiously go after fallen women do have more skills and success than typical sodomizers, and such skills make them rather effective manipulators of the popular attitude toward adolescent-female sexuality. They tend to have infiltrated certain feminist circles, warping a desire for female rights into a desire to take away young female rights. They are probably rather dangerous unscrupulous opponents who unfortunately must be dealt with by anyone trying to reform age of consent laws, etc., into more what they should be.

Of course, a good many people, especially females, really do probably from innocent lack of understanding think early female sexuality should be further discouraged, probably just because they have had more familiarity with others wanting to corrupt girls than with really beautiful feelings girls and males can have for one another. A female is lucky if when she young she meets a male she loves so well as for sex with him to be very beautiful and good, it is more likely she will meet unwanted not at all clean sexual advances (but such advances aren't particularly harmful so long as girls have the power to prevent men from initiating unwanted physical activity with them); it's unfortunate that girls need be scared of sodomy, but just outlawing their having sex won't make them safer from that. As for the dangers of unwanted advances they are rather phantom, it's not men being able to express unwanted desires to girls that hurts girls, but the men being able to act on and fulfill those unwanted desires, which alone would make girls excessively susceptible to sodomy; indeed, girls are pretty tough and are not really at all the china dolls, quaking and cracking in terror at every undesired advance, that they are made out to be.

Female lust responsible for authenticity

In this poem I try to describe how my feelings for girls and female-produced epigenetic modification relate to authenticity (cf. my last post). I don't apologize for using the word "orgies" down below. As mentioned, the word does not imply (according to my diction) alcohol or drug use. And as for the possibility of drug use, I should point out that drug- or sodomy-induced lust also presumably causes authenticity. Something I have noticed is that there is a certain type of person (they tend to hangout in science and math newsgroups, where they are often called cranks) who have bizarre theories which they argue for using a language that isn't just wrong, but incomprehensibly idiotic. Many of these people I suspect are people who have had many girl molesters/molested girls as ancestors, which is why despite they are stupid and bad they aren't conformist, but fall and rise on their own (often extraordinarily deficient) wits. The fact of the matter is that lustful orgies produce authenticity in both bad male and good males, whether the lust is defiled or innocent(though the authenticity produced in bad males by the female lust caused by the male's depravity (or the depravity of the other males who are in the orgy) tends to die out, inasmuch as such bad males tend to be so moronic as to have descendants that fail in natural selection). Of course, I was thinking of a multi-female orgy, but again, depraved orgies in which sodomy is involved produce more lust if more males sodomize. Enough said.




Being true to oneself
So hard it is
To be true to myself
When I am true to myself
I am true to that part of me most
that little girls have had sex with
in distant generations

No way
I say
can people be true
to that part of themselves
that is the best part of themselves
unless something makes them so.

Girls can do that
Because the part of me that is best
at getting them
is the part
that is most me.

No sex is more true
to a girl
than that which forces the girl
to be true to herself.

I will tell you what--
you’ll be less afraid if I enslave you
because if I do,
I can,
and if I can,
I will,
because I am sensitive enough to see what you are,
and real enough that you know sex won’t be near as fun for you
when I punish you by creating my own lust in me as I would
if you aren’t yourself
but some kind of conformist.
oh yeah it is scary being controlled during sex
but more scary having sex with a man who isn’t forcing you to be yourself
because it offers no proof that he could.
And I mean really, doesn’t your self know better what you want from sex than conformity does?
Aren’t you just like me?
Is not the part that is most you the part that has understood how to please little girls in bed
and make them lust?
You may not know whether that part of you,
a part of you I perhaps have turned on
is a true part of you
I’d be the first to admit (the world’s leading anti-sodomy theorist I am)
for all you know I could be making you think yourself something other than you are.
Girls look at me from time to time
from the arms of their boyfriends
with steely eyes
that say
I had to be forced to find myself
that’s all what being forced is about
and don’t you really wish you were so potent
as to molest me like my lover could?
Mostly they think me some quaint naive person,
these females fallen from grace.
I can be rather generous toward their desire for authenticity
in me as well as herself,
can see in that perverse contempt,
the outlines of a natural admirable willingness
toward a kind of innocent captivation.
A captivation, unlike hers (well, I can’t prove her captivation corrupt, but. . .), that does not corrupt
a girl’s sense of her own natural sexuality
but demands it.
I’d give her a crucifix
that burns red hot when it gets too close
to the forehead of a vampire.
But I say all that doesn’t matter with you,
I know I am not the vampire, not the sodomizer,
nor a deceiver either.
At least that is what I know if I am worthy of you.
If I am worthy of you, if I can innocently force you to be you,
I should, and if you slept with me I could, should, and would,
at least to a large extent (nothing is perfect).
You’re not a fool,
you’d know this,
your mom too probably.

It isn’t really the problem per se that parents don’t let kids be true to themselves.
Think about it genetically, you’ll see that family should have just as much interest in your being true to/ yourself
as you do.
Unlike with you, it’s just as rewarding to a family member for you to be true to what the family member would do as to what you would do, and even more rewarding to him for you to be true to that part of you that you have in common with that family member, but so what?
The family member most true to himself will want you to be true to yourself more than you yourself want that, perhaps the most important consequence.
No, the problem is that parents aren’t true to themselves when it comes to parenting.
Parents all too often are conformist parents.
A parent, in my opinion, should decide when a daughter is making a big mistake,
and force her not to make it.
Mothers who choose wisely
what to let their daughters do
don’t get rewarded for authenticity
like a little girl would.
An authentic gene has its reward,
it evolves
better,
falling or rising
more according to its own worth.
If your mom’s a good parent,
does the right things
when intersecting your sex life,
there’s a good chance your children will be good parents too.
But it’s not as good a chance as the chance your children will
be sexually wise as teenagers
if you are.

You’re young,
your mind more plastic.
Very wise and informative you’d be
in bed
if you were yourself.
Yes, it would be enjoyable
to learn
what you would teach me
if you were yourself
such teaching would have
many applications.
So admittedly it’s not just that (if I’m good) you’ll
get more real pleasure by being yourself
if in bed with me.
It’s good for you to be yourself,
but largely it’s because I’m understanding that I want you to be so,
notwithstanding during sex to the extent I am good is the extent
my penis can force
you
to do what I want,
and what I want most
to force you to do
is
to force you
to be yourself.
Your mom may want you to be yourself,
at least she would when and if she has approved of you and I having sex.
But to really want you so, as much or more as I do,
once you and I have sex
I need to force you to want you to be yourself,
or she won’t respect me as much
or look at you steely-eyed
like she knows it will go easier for you
if she helps you find yourself
by stroking your hair
while telling you to submit
because it’s all so very innocent
and beautiful.
She will be especially true to herself
when and if her concern becomes how to help
you
get as much sex pleasure from me as possible.
Not that I wish to assert that I be so wonderful she couldn’t reject me notwithstanding
she be authentic.
No, it’s just that anyone genuinely interested in what pleases young girls sexually
must be true to themselves
because the part of a person that most understands that
is the part that girls over the generations have the most lusted for
and been drawn into bed by
Girl lust paints the genetic material it likes with what makes the desires of that material
in future generations
importunate
in a way the conformist cancer in our genes
can not resist
and doesn’t want to
when what little girls want
matters.

Conformity is a cancer of sorts.
Conformist genes
in the part of the genome that doesn’t matter
really don’t act like they would care if individuals they are in
evolve well.
They just would want to reproduce.
The important genes where evolution really matters,
they get overwhelmed by the junk,
and are forced by conformist genes not to live or die according to their own worth,
contrary to what the important genes would want (if somehow genes could want what was in their best interest).
Clearly, success should not be measured indiscriminately,
by the amount of genetic material that has passed down,
but by the amount of important genetic material that has done so.
The cancer of conformity in our genes
makes animals,
people too,
less successful than they could be,
when success is measured
using reasonable definitions.

Funny thing about cancer, though:
it is simple.
Conformist cancer lies
in the part of the genome
where nothing really important
ever evolves
hardly.
It doesn’t seem quite able to manage
to make us conform to just this or that.
So when it wants us not to conform,
like when it sees it is in its best interest
for the individual it is in
to really understand what pleases
young girls during coitus,
it has no choice,
but to give all the genes
the general reign
to the extent they are importunate,
and turn itself off.

You make me be myself.
If you want me,
I’ll make you be yourself.
If your mom wants us to have sex,
our sex will make her be herself,
and because mothers have so much control over our fears,
she’ll encourage my seduction of you
better than I can.


Even if conformity were had to the lesser, selfish extent,
morally it still would be excessive.
A good person would care about his genetic material evolving well
not just because that would benefit himself
but also because it would benefit the likely good mates his good genetic material
would love in future generations,
and because encouraging the evolution of beauty
is near to what goodness is.
What can humanity do to encourage
people to be true to themselves?

Only one thing ultimately really encourages people to be true to themselves, in my opinion.
If it goes away, people will gradually become conformist twits.
Young girls full of lust
do during copulation
and more especially copulation during a (multi-girl) orgy
[by the way, my diction does not assume that an orgy implies alcohol or drugs be involved, just many females]
paint the penis with chemicals.
These chemicals get absorbed by the male.
They create a coating of sorts on his genome that over generations
make regions loved especially well by girls
to be different from other regions,
more especially painted as it were.
The epigenetic “paint” on these regions causes the genes over which they are painted
to be especially importunate and powerful when it comes to demanding dominance
when their products are read.
As a result, the areas of little genetic importance,
where the conformist cancer lies,
they don’t get read as seriously
as the genetic regions where girls have consistently found past evolution
so pleasant
as to have lusted for it in
the sex that to a certain extent
created our ancestors.

We are all non-conformist
mostly just to the extent little girls in lustful orgies
have made us so.

Strange thing, though,
the pleasures inside you
that you will want
and let me enslave you
will awaken in you new wants
you won't be able to resist
forcing me
to be me.
You would probably be successful
since morally
we would see it appropriate
and I want you.
I won't be able to enslave you
without being me.

Fear the common, not the weird.

The other day, I got to thinking how peculiar it is that nowadays people tend to consider weirdness as something to be fearful and suspicious of. Occasionally, people will look at me or one of my original ideas as "so weird" and look slowly away from me like they are somehow more clean and respectable for having boring normal ideas. This, I say, is a modern attitude. Time was, people suspected you of being coarse to the extent you were common. "That is so common", I remember often hearing when young, and indeed, the insult is still occasionally used. The insult vulgar, used in a similar way, comes from the Latin vulgaris, meaning "of the mob" or "of the common people". True, there might be an element of elitism in such usage, but I claim the past attitude was preferable.

A good approximation is to think of goodness as love of beauty, where beauty is part goodness and part tangible useful qualities, i.e., talents. Since goodness involves love of itself, to avoid circularity, think of morality as partly love of talent, partly love of love of talent, partly love of love of love of talent,...; then define beauty as what morality loves and goodness as that part of beauty that is not talent, i.e., that which is love; from evolutionary considerations it is then reasonable to suppose that goodness is the same as morality, and that the components of beauty (as well as goodness) are weighted like a geometric distribution with ratio the fraction of beauty that is love.

The important point to distill from the immediately preceding (approximate) definition of goodness is that goodness is an ideal. Goodness is a desire to make the world more a certain way; to wit, to make the world a more beautiful place. Idealists can prosper more than selfish people because they will tend to be loved unselfishly by idealists who share their ideal. Idealists will tend to love one another unselfishly, while selfish people will never tend to be loved unselfishly, and so idealists can prosper better than selfish people. Of course, there are many ideals that people can have, so many different versions of idealism. Peacocks, for instance, would seem to have an ideal very similar to humans, but rather than considering abstract talent as beautiful in itself, they apparently consider fancy tail feathers as beautiful. Humans, being more able to handle abstract concepts, tend to find talent as the concrete, not-involving-love part of beauty. Indeed, idealists who want the world to be more full of talented complex people will tend to love unselfishly talented complex people by mating unselfishly with them. And if you are going to mate unselfishly with someone, you are going to prosper better if the mate you chose has talents, inasmuch as these talent are desirable both in raising the children and in ensuring the children themselves have genetic qualities suited to prospering.

Goodness is present in people (or rather in some people, to various degrees) because it is an ideal, namely love of beauty, and because love of beauty is more or less the most useful ideal that you can possess. The point I wish to make here is that if beauty is the most useful thing to love, its opposite may be presumed to be approximately the least useful thing to love. It is not at all reasonable then to suppose that people could arise who are evil from it being their nature to desire to further badness or ugliness. It is not reasonable to suppose that there could evolve to be people who are evil because they idealistically by nature want to make the world less beautiful; such would be approximately the least useful ideal. Badness is not, then, some complicated ideal contrary to goodness. Badness is merely absence of goodness in favor of selfishness; it is not an ideal, but rather selfishness. There is nothing special about selfishness, it requiring merely a knowledge of one's own self interest which it may be presumed both the good and the bad possess. Badness is not special; it is on the contrary common.

Yes, but one may argue that there are people who are beyond bad, who are what I call evil in that they actually do behave at times contrary to their own self-interest ostensibly perhaps just to destroy beauty. But I say these people are not by nature evil. Evil people are bad people who through their own mediocrity have come to believe the lies they have found it convenient to surround themselves with. For instance, a person who from a bad selfish nature finds it convenient to be controllingly abusive might to make himself more scary pretend it is the nature of bad people to desire to destroy those who are good, in as much as goodness is contrary to wanting to submit to him. If he too believes the pretensions he submits his girlfriend to, that could turn him from merely a bad abusive boyfriend into an evil murderer. Or take Hitler (from Mein Kampf):

The psyche of the great masses is not receptive to anything that is half-hearted and weak.

Like the woman, whose psychic state is determined less by grounds of abstract reason than by an indefinable emotional longing for a force which will complement her nature, and who, consequently, would rather bow to a strong man than dominate a weakling, likewise the masses love a commander more than a petitioner and feel inwardly more satisfied by a doctrine, tolerating no other beside itself, than by the granting of liberalistic freedom with which, as a rule, they can do little, and are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They are equally unaware of their shameless spiritual terrorization and the hideous abuse of their human freedom, for they absolutely fail to suspect the inner insanity of the whole doctrine. All they see is the ruthless force and brutality of its calculated manifestations, to which they always submit in the end.

If Social Democracy is opposed by a doctrine of greater truth, but equal brutality of methods, the latter will conquer, though this may require the bitterest struggle.

Hitler's objective was to appeal to common (in the worst sense) people. People who wanted to support leaders as though they believed, among other things, the lie that females from "an indefinable emotional longing" want to be controlled. It is not all especially difficult to define such an emotional longing: it is a result of having gotten one's hindquarters screwed by a controlling man and is as vulgar as one might imagine. If Hitler had just pretended to believe in such a natural emotional longing, he merely would have been bad. He actually believed it, though, and lo it turned out that the masses in the non-fascist countries he presumably thought hated controlling types from love of weakness didn't love weakness much at all (it is not as though he or his soldiers could personally screw all their hindquarters) and were strong determined fighters who gave his country rather worse than it dished out, it all ending in a pointless dreadfully evil destruction of humanity.

A bad person if lacking worthwhile qualities might pretend that those who claim to have especially worthwhile qualities are just fake, and that if society has given someone particular responsibilities or acclaim from a sense the person was special, that is not a very important right society should have, and on the contrary society has been faked. When manipulating others to like him, he might try, e.g., to get them to read Catcher in the Rye or similarly deceptive media that degrades the respected so that (e.g., in mating) they won't care much about his (impossible to hide) mediocrity. An evil person, on the other hand, he is so mediocre as also to actually believe the fundamental idea of Catcher in the Rye, and so he goes out and tries to shoot the president or the most popular rock star or whomever. (Strong admiration for The Catcher in the Rye is known to be one of the best indicators of a potential assassin.)

There is nothing weird or special about evil. Evil is merely absence of goodness together with a particular sort of mediocrity of understanding.

But it isn't just that distaste for weirdness shows lack of discrimination that I disdain criticism of weirdness qua weirdness. People have a degree of choice as to how much they wish to follow their own authentic tendencies. Someone who is true to himself, yes, his faults (such as are displayed), they are his own, but like Stevenson's donkey, so too are his virtues. Succeeding or failing more according to your own tendencies is a nobler thing than just imitating the tendencies of others, for the former sort of behavior, if general would lead to much faster evolution of the complex sort of tendencies humanity needs. In particular, if you accept your moral system or mating tendencies, such as you have, ready made, say from some religious institution, well, you might be better than a purely selfish person, but you are a far cry from one with authentic moral values that come from within. And a good girl judges not so much from considering her potential mate's faults and deficiencies as from considering his virtues. Faults die out, they are short term. They hurt her, but they won't so much hurt the more distant future. Virtues, they grow. They might not grow into much during her life time, but by loving them now, she just might be enabling his special virtue to multiply into a powerful positive influence upon eternity. Virtuous girls are more accepting of quirkiness in a potential mate than less good girls are.

I must admit, authenticity of belief and love of quirkiness are not so easily found in our world as are other virtues.

I wrote the first part of this post (and saved it as a draft) in late June. I felt there was something else involved, which now I have a somewhat better handle on. Being authentic is akin to mating early. Good people wouldn't from mere altruism selection be supposed to mate nearly as early as would be moral, because the benefits to one's genetic material of mating early are distant. Similarly, on the face of it one can't see how an otherwise good person would evolve to be nearly as authentic and non-conformist as would be moral. Indeed, the benefit of authenticity is that it encourages future evolution by increasing the correlation between future evolutionary success and genetic worth. And traits that encourage future, faster evolution are so distantly rewarding they just don't get selected for well by what selects for idealistic and altruistic tendencies.

Notwithstanding there are not really forces that select for authenticity at the individual level, there are forces that select for it on the gene level. I.e., it is necessary to think in terms of competition between different alleles (in diploid individuals) rather than competition between individuals. These inter-allele competitive forces would not nearly select for authenticity as much as would be ideal (unless something else be involved), but they do select for it somewhat (also they select for early mating somewhat, though not nearly so much as the effects arising from sperm selection). I believe the lack of authenticity among the good is more general than lack of desire for early mating; excess conformity is quite a systematic obnoxious problem. That said, I am hesitant to say that people should be extremely more authentic, for though it would be good if somehow there were some way to make all otherwise good people be authentic, in fact, even though a typical good individual's genetic material would prosper more by being significantly more authentic, if a good individual were to become so exceedingly more authentic as to possess an amount of authenticity that would be in the best interest of good people as a whole for every good person to possess, then that good individual would likely suffer from his idiosyncrasy, which would be bad since his willingness to be so exceedingly authentic would encourage his demise, which would make the world more full of conformists.

More later. It turns out authenticity is I am inclined to think very much encouraged by female lust and the consideration that when describing evolutionary success it is reasonable to weight success of important genes more than success of unimportant genes. Female lust has epigenetic effects, in my opinion, which allow the genome to differentiate between important genes and unimportant ones. I have written a poem which outlines the idea--I'll probably post it. Then I think I'll post various other ideas I have been having lately about female lust, and in particular its likely epigenetic effects. Another thing I've been thinking lately is that cocaine is significantly more evil than people give it credit for being; indeed, I have come across papers (Researchers Find Alterations In Brain's Circuitry Caused By Cocaine) indicating that very recent research indicates cocaine effects gene expression in the brain by altering histones. Histone modification is as likely candidate as any for how female lust produces its epigenetic effects, histone modification having a certain inheritableness that is a hot topic among epigeneticists. Anyway I have concluded that if my worst fears are true, cocaine use might lead to alteration of the histone configuration about DNA that could last centuries if not millennia, which within a millennia or two would cause the world to become full of conformist twits who hate diversity. E.g., you'd tend to see lots of war and human sacrifice. Female lust would become totally pointless, and all its beneficial effects on the evolution of higher moral traits would disappear for a few millennia. In other words, if the war on cocaine isn't won in a few generations, it would follow mathematically that humanity will, if nothing is done to reverse these effects, with a very high probability, destroy itself in an orgy of mass murder within a millennia or two. But I will talk about that later, after I have studied the situation much better. There's so much complexity (and in particular, complex chemistry) involved, it is well I think about the situation for a few years or months (to clear away the fog of ignorance) before I publicize any conclusions I might reach. In particular I have to be clear what exactly are the defenses that prevent female lust chemicals from being effectively made otherwise than by females (e.g., by males or coca plants).

Peace of Mind

My family and I have moved recently, from Maryland to North Carolina. I did not think it a good idea and still don't. Oh well. This poem is about peace of mind, and how I miss home.





Remind Peace of Mind

If I could be
More cool
What would, after all, be the consequences?

Would I forget to think about her?
Maybe feel too guilty to
walk in the woods
or weed?

Sometimes I consider these things
Sometimes I need to play games too much.
Peace of mind is difficult to obtain alone
in the midst of chaos.

The best thing, perhaps,
we could obtain from another
is sanity
Instead of being somewhat more sane than typical,
we could become very much more so.
Obsessions all, evaporate.

Dry observation:
You are beautiful when you play games,
exercise,
an augmentation of coolness to get.
But then, when you play like you’re trying to overcome
weakness,
to triumph over your tendency perhaps to not fight captivation,
or to not avoid sentimentality,
you seem like you are in danger of dying,
of not living your four-score and ten,
because instead of living you decided to
walk down an endless rut
from fear, I don’t know,
I might really be akin to one of the giant mutant rabbits in the horror movie,
that I could assure you do not exist,
cute and fluffy on the outside,
but inconsiderately bouncing on people to death and mistaking them for giant carrot sticks to be gnawed-up whole for nourishment,
head first.

Not that I am trying to be humorous.
I don’t like humor much.
I’d rather just be sad
and even.

It is not easy to be even, though.
Profundity comes,
here as well as other places,
but then it goes away
as though it wears me out
or required too much concentration
or a kind of balancing
that just can’t be maintained for long
,and,
,alas,
must needs end with a fall
more or less in proportion to the
profundity of the view
when balanced.

My impression, though,
is that profundity,
the sort of profundity associated with peace of mind
is NOT so much an activity
as a state
The activity is not the staying there,
a something within.
The activity is the bustle and assumptions from without
that must be cancelled.
Not perfectly,
which would be an exhausting undertaking,
worse than futile,
but still like a tree
that though it doesn’t change its place
when the wind blows
yet bends.

I have changed my place,
moved,
and yet inside
I can be mostly still
by being more alone
more like a tree
on Mount Washington
used to gales
and rooting in the least propitious
most rocky places.

If I were with you
I would be
more alone.
Perhaps it would be more clearly impressed upon
me
how mistaken people are
in their obsessions,
their idolatry,
to causes that kill
slowly
by displacement.
To beliefs in emotion
that belie their true natures
and in the process
to a certain variable extent
make our emotions
belie our true natures,
somewhat,
to the extent we are not alone
and unable to believe in the wisdom
of our own love
and maintain
sacred devotion
to our own inner self
from a sense that
people vaguely think
we strongly should smile
and laugh more—
be less serious or sacred--
because it be sweet
and the way successful rich people
behave supposedly.
What is between us so far
from trivial is
And that belief
I will guard
far from perfectly
as despite effort I don’t know how else
but determinedly.
Not that you are the only female
with the power to make me feel alone
or that when considered intellectually you are more special than a fair
other number of females I’ve met.
Nor, indeed, is it even wise from the point of view of maintain aplomb
to think of our relationship as something of unique and fundamental importance.
To make things out to be
more important
than they are
It is obsessive
and makes for a decrease in coolness and profundity.
Yet there is something for me to strike hard at
To ever make sure that I reflect my nature
and not just to give in
to general conformity
and its manipulations.
The truth a subtle mixture of worship and insouciant indifference requires
which you in me seem to encourage
or could
if you tried
kind of insouciantly indifferently.


To walk alone
with you
Someplace beautiful
Not really caring about much
Except trying to make you see the expediency
of viewing this
as more vain that it seems
to calm you down
and make you more cool
than even you are.
To come home and pull out a map
Look all intelligent as I trace the route
(on the map),
describing all its particularities,
the way to get to the desired location.
We have an intellectual discussion about it,
conferring like accomplished voyagers,
we fold the map up an set out,
thinking about the route—the expected twists and landmarks--rather than the destination,
which when we get there is a windswept place,
high up cold with scrubby pines barely holding on
unconcerned.
Around the bend there is a place of abandoned habitation.
"In the eighteenth century it was inhabited by Mssr. Ekbert Eclesmont,
with his four children, wife and a cat."

"Oh."

"Not that it matters."
In this poem I made it up, name, fore-name abbreviation, and all.
We’ll see streams and we’ll look at the ironwood trees
and I’ll pet the leaves on the beach trees,
left there from the previous year,
dry and papery,
not feeling the need to fall off.

I just can’t help feeling
that if I were with you
I would feel a kind of peace
if things were sort of right
and continually we tried to make
small efforts
(just small)
to keep it so
like to push the windswept hair off the side of your face
so that I can see you more clearly
and kind of frame your expression better
click like a camera.

I need to be more alone
I need to be with you
to see how to concentrate
on the truths that I know are true and important
much better than I am able.
I need to write more
less well
More like a diary
written casually
with no purpose but to say something
Good writing may come from writing well,
But compact writing isn’t always the best
and good writing isn’t what it lacks
but rather what it’s got,
to be judged rather on the extent of its virtues
than the extent of its inefficiencies.
I have a great deal to say
Why develop a style that is good just at saying a little because
it is too exhausting to be used when saying a lot?
Pshaw,
I’ll write well even
when I write well even.

The problem with internet forums

I am a person with many original ideas I hold to be important and of interest to the average person. After posting my book, Exact Morality for Today (I think if I had to name it over, I would call it Discriminating Morality for Today), on the internet, I decided the thing to do would be to get people more interested in my opinions by talking about them in internet forums. Especially did such an approach seem appropriate since people tend to be unusually conformist as regards what constitutes depravity, and I feel that my opinions are not much contrary to what it is the nature of the typical person to believe and feel if not confused (as unfortunately most people are). The average person is basically moral. Not that my opinions would appeal to an average person because they be conformist (they are not), but sometimes an idea can appeal to an average person because it is correct, because the average person is not stupid. By people seeing that my opinions were at least interesting and plausible to the average person, that would be an extra kind of advertisement that would further cause people to study my opinions more carefully.

What I failed to appreciate was that forums presenting themselves as easy places to access the public opinion as regards moral or philosophical issues, in fact vastly overrepresent the opinions of those who find it in their self-interest to lead the insecure astray. When a person vaguely doesn't feel like her parents are particularly clean or sane enough to protect her, she is likely (especially if young) to seek out the standard opinion and let that guide her as regards what is depraved. Such an approach is not an unreasonable one. It's very important that females, even fairly young females, be themselves as regards most matters; that's partly why young females tend to be emotional about love and why girls tend not to want to be viewed as studious--emotions are quicker than thought, and so a clean girl wondering whether she is in love can more quickly come to her own true self if emotional. But as regards large errors, it is very unfortunate that girls should make them. Better for a girl to defer to her mother (or her father if she doesn't think her mother is morally pure enough) when it comes to deciding what to be really scared of. A mother indeed should not guide her daughter's sexuality, but she should, I am inclined to think, more or less control her daughter's fears about sex. When she sees her daughter from misplaced fear is not being true to what otherwise would be her daughter's true nature, she should reassure and calm her daughter, rubbing her back when merely misplaced fears are keeping her from being sexual, encouraging her to pick out skimpier clothes when she wants to be sexy and mother knows its fairly safe, to write more erotically explicit lines where in her poems merely misplaced fear gets in the way of the sexuality underneath, etc. And on the other hand, when the daughter is screwed up or being insufficently prudent about some danger, she should be strong and tell her daughter she is screwing up her life or that she underappreciates the particular danger, beWARE. A smart and sensible mother makes her daughter feel pride to the extent she (the daughter) is able to discriminate depravity from innocent sexiness. It's not just a matter of praising her daughter when she is drug-free and free of sexual depravity, (say) maybe giving her a certificate of achievement attesting to her mother's sense of her (the daughter's) sexual purity. Also, for instance, when the daughter writes a sex poem or story that is very (cleanly) sexual in a cool way, where misplaced fear scarcely ever gets in the way of sexual explicitness and the desired erotic effect, the mother should put that on the refrigerator, too. (And not test scores or good grades; true, intellect is better at resisting abuse than emotion, and tests purport to more measure intellect, but really if a mother can do no better than to encourage her daughter to measure her cleanliness by her test scores, that is pathetic.) But sometimes (not infrequently correctly) the daughter just doesn't trust the mother, and doesn't particularly trust her father, either.

When a girl doesn't trust herself, her mother, or her father, she not infrequently turns to standard opinion as regards what constitutes depravity. What it is necessary to ask oneself is what exactly a girl is going to be viewed as by vulgar types, if she so much doesn't trust her parents or any other close relatives that she must rely on standard opinion to guide her sense of the common?

Prey.

Therein lies the problem with internet forums. Internet forums claiming to represent standard opinions, generally moderated by people who claim to only delete obscene or flaming posts, are usually in fact run and peopled by mostly obscene people. These are people who like to prey on the insecure individuals who are interested in what exactly constitutes typical opinions. A similar phenomenon occurs in Hollywood. I believe it goes without saying that many of the tabloids and self-advertising shows geared toward the glorification of entertainment celebrities are not morally enlightened. This is because people into celebrities tend to be insecure types looking for what is the most popular, since that gives evidence as to what an average person appreciates. The problem is not so much with what is popular or with what is commonly appreciated, the problem is with those who seek to influence those who, often on account of insecurity, especially care what constitutes normalcy.

Anyway, my advice to insecure people is that if you are going to be insecure, well, be bold in being insecure. Be wary of people who seem to be catering to your insecurity. Don't just accept what they have to say about what is normal. No, do your own polling. Approach a random sample of respectable-looking people and ask them what they think; don't ask people just because they make it unusually easy for you. So maybe someone will not be willing to chat with you because she (or he) thinks it too much of a waste of time? No disaster, they can always ignore you or tell you to stop talking--and loneliness is a more common problem than lack of time.

Blogs are I think better than internet forums. There is still a problem with blogs, though. There aren't enough really interesting blogs out there which link to other interesting blogs that it is easy to find interesting opinions by searching blogs. Blogs have a kind of mysteriousness about them that makes bloggers rather too often defer to normalcy and considerations of popularity. I can't quite put my finger exactly on what bothers me about them. I know that sounds rather paranoid, and maybe only that's the point--bloggers are rather like a lot of literary agents, so frustrated by false priggishness from paranoia, they excessively fear paranoia. A lot of it I'm hoping has to do with fear. Many internet forum types doubtless are into blogging as well, trying to be the blog that is most standard looking one with the most blogs linking to it (I often wonder whether many people linking to and respnding to posts on blogs and forums are sock puppets created by the self-same poster.) And these people prosper by scaring conformists into not being more bold in their insecurities. They want to make people afraid of just going up to people at random and asking their opinions. Insecure types are the most afraid of flaming, and the guardians of speech will call anyone being bold to express an opinion without genuflecting, etc., first to them (self-styled master of conformity) or without first posting hundreds of boring conformist posts, a "troll". It's singular, really, that the word "troll" would be used to represent someone who comes to a forum or newsgroup suddenly with a clamorous, thought-provoking post, because these guardians of the bridge into the forum are exactly like the troll in the folk tale. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, when someone says a person secrectly has some fault after he argued against the fault, he in fact doesn't have the fault himself, and I must confess I find it dreadfully tedious and clueless when people tell me, e.g., that since I argue against sodomy, well, that suggests I'm homosexual; perhaps it is just a misguided attempt on the part of the shamed to fight fire with a similar fire. But the kind of people who try to be the conformist-appearing yet depraved guardians of the bridge into usegroups and forums that purportedly strive for openness, when they accuse billy-goat gruffs of being trolls, they are being just like the troll. I believe that is some sort of unconscious strategy or deception they have. I had some impression in my head of there being a popular concept of what flaming lowlifes were. It took me quite a while to realize that actually the concept is best represented by the troll in the fairy tale; somehow psychologically it didn't want to occur to me they were exactly what they call me. Anyway, the troll-like flaming of billy-goat gruffs by disgusting manipulators of conformity all too often in the blogosphere makes even quite secure people fearful of encouraging weird opinions in a discriminating way (by for instance admitting to finding them interesting by (say) linking to them).

Collaborative filtering is something I had hoped would take off more.