The killer killed because he was evil

My thoughts on the VPI killer:

He was a bad selfish man who was stupid enough to think he had something to gain by being evil. To be unselfish for the greater good is the most rewarding thing to be unselfish for; this is why most people have evolved to have good tendencies. Similarly, to be unselfish for the bad is the least rewarding thing to be unselfish for. The killer has hurt himself, his family, his ethnicity and his species. He has gained nothing.

Badness is merely selfishness, but sometimes badness goes beyond that into evil. The reason is that bad, selfish people surround themselves with lies to the effect that being selfish is more rewarding and powerful than it really is, and sometimes they believe these lies. If a bad male is going to do bad things to others by way of controlling them, naturally he gains by trying to be especially scary and by trying to suggest his badness has a gloriousness that will occasion admiration. To be especially scary, often he will tend to pretend that his desire to control goes beyond itself into a natural desire to kill and maim those that don’t serve his selfishness. He’s wrong; a dead servant is an unrewarding servant.

Anyway, what happens is that guys like this killer naturally like movies, games, music, etc., suggestive to others that they are into death and murder. Doing so increases the fear that others will have for them, which can on occasion serve a bad selfish purpose for them. What not infrequently happens, however, is that they end up believing themselves that they are into death and murder. People aren’t born with innate moral propositions. On the one hand, they can understand themselves (and gain these propositions) by abstracting their understandings from their innate tendencies. On the other hand, they can simply accept whichever of the standard understandings of identity most suits them. Most people are a combination, to a certain extent how they understand themselves will be based on reflection from innate tendencies, and to a certain extent they will understand themselves by copying a group’s ostensible understanding of human nature generally or of the human nature of the individuals in the group.

What Mr. Cho was by nature, I figure, was a violent nasty forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist. These sorts of people do kill to terrorize fairly often, because like him they tend to be stupid enough not to see their own self-interest. But they don’t much thus kill if they possess even a little understanding. (If there were some gene that projected a natural tendency to kill the disobedient, yes, that would tend to make abuse from an individual with such a gene more terrifying, but then it would also tend to make people so strongly hate and harm the individual with such a gene that it is not reasonable to suppose such a gene exists).

What differentiates Mr. Cho from most forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist killers is that for some reason he was too stupid to see that his desire to kill is related to a desire to control. Typically, your forcible-sodomizing terrorizing rapist killer will kill when the victim which through nastiness he is trying to control resists, killing either stupidly, on account of his believing the hype of his threats, or selfishly on account of his not wanting her to get him in trouble. Mr. Cho on the other hand seems to have interpreted his desires pretty much as just a desire to kill. What is different about him that makes him even more evil than standard evil?

The main difference is like I have said that he for whatever reason was more stupid about himself than typical, believing that the hype from people like the Columbine killers represented a faithful understanding of his natural tendencies. This stupidity in all likelihood resulted from a combination of natural stupidity and a bad abusive environment encouraging of error.

Contrary to media hype and unlike many natural forcible-sodomizing rapist types, he was not particularly weird (that is, weird for naturally forcible-sodomizing rapist types). Most child molester types probably usually use sodomy to get their victims to unnaturally lust for them. Since (this is one of my theories) people tend to think for themselves to the extent they have had lustful and more particularly lustful young female ancestors, as offspring of child molesters you tend to get, for example, bizarre totally weird stupid people, the sort who probably form a significant subpopulation of internet newsgroup posters (basically those cranks who are not insane), believing all kinds of very strange ideas about science, etc., notwithstanding they not only don’t know what they are talking about, they don’t even have enough intelligence to write coherently. These non-insane cranks, the weirdest bad people I have encountered, though they may well often be (forcible) child molesters, they don’t tend to be the senseless murderers, probably. At least cranks think for themselves. The people who believe it pays to be unselfish for the bad pretty much have to be more-or-less completely indifferent to human nature; they could not believe in evil for evil’s sake unless they mindlessly believe the lies and misunderstanding of others, something truly weird bad people are not at all likely to do, believing instead their own mostly mindless understandings.

It is interesting to note that the child molester types who use debauchery to force their victims into feeling lust would tend to be stupider about things in general than sodomizer molester types whose debauchery works merely by forcing terror, but that when it comes to understanding one’s own molester tendencies the lust-inducing sodomizers would tend to be more cunning, because being true to oneself in one’s molester tendencies, as lust-inducing molesters would tend to be (if my theory about lust and epigenetics is correct), would cause these molester tendencies to evolve well compared with one’s other tendencies. This would explain why Cho seemed to not be a complete idiot when it comes to things in general (he was after all a student at a fairly acclaimed college, impressive notwithstanding the publicly available dramas he wrote are poorly written), while he nevertheless was a complete and total idiot in understanding his own tendencies and more particularly his violent tendencies. His natural sodomizer and molester tendencies were much more about forcing terror than about forcing lust, which probably is typical of people like him who are so very stupid about understanding them.

Another difference between Cho and a more typical evil violent person is that Cho didn’t much tend to make himself look angry. A common misconception is that what goes by anger in abusive people has much if anything to do with anger in normal people. Naive individuals, mostly afraid to consider the truly obnoxious, are inclined to excessively induct from their own observations of family and friends, etc., that anger is what causes people to be mean. But it is a mistake to think that people like Cho are much like normal people. Anger is an anti-sodomy defense and more particularly an anti-forcible-sodomy defense, something to keep one fighting against abuse after the effects of sodomy make one want to stop fighting. And strong anti-sodomy defenses are not what sodomizer types tend to possess, because if they did, you’d expect them at least partially to have inherited the defenses from their female ancestors, who, however, would not be expected to have much in the way of anti-sodomy defenses or else the male ancestors with their likely sodomizing tendencies would not have been able to succeed in reproducing with them. The truly vile have little if any tendency toward anger or the other anti-sodomy emotions. This explains what has been widely reported about Cho, namely his tendency to be emotionless. Most bad violent people try to fake anger and the other emotions that make them look human. Faked anger as well as anger can make unjust behavior more forgivable to others. What sets Cho apart is that until his propaganda at the very end, he wasn’t one much to fake anger. Unlike, say, Hitler, who had studied how to appear emotional, he apparently didn’t spend time practicing how to appear angry. The reason for this I think is simple. Cho never really cared about trying to make his evils appear justifiable because probably his plan for a long time had been not to control or deceive, but to kill--to kill more or less as he did.

So why did he wait so long? My guess is that a large part of his fantasy was not just killing lots of people, but also killing a particular type of girl. Remember, deep down his behavior is caused by natural forcible-sodomizing rape emotions. In his early morning prowlings, something about the girl he was to kill first probably made him want to be violent. Maybe somehow her boyfriend dropping her off early in the morning gave him an excuse to argue she was trying to be provocative. Or maybe she had something innocent about her that made him think she’d be an easily controlled victim. Whatever, he doubtless wanted to find a girl he thought a suitable object of his disgusting violent tendencies. Probably he had planned things in advance; if the first girl hadn’t been available to choose, it would have been some other carefully chosen girl that was his first victim, but it wouldn’t have just been some random girl, since that was probably a significant part of his fantasy. And it had to be the right situation—e.g., a somewhat predictable one—so he could later do the mass killing he also thought he wanted, which he wouldn’t be able to do if he got caught at the first. And he probably felt he had to act soon before he graduated and had less easy access to the young people sodomizers tend to prefer to do hateful things towards.

If it weren’t what I expected, I’d be distraught that people are trying to make Cho seem insane. Insanity is an antisodomy defense not commonly found in the disgusting. Looking at Cho’s tapes of himself--the one’s he sent NBC--it is very hard not to notice how staged and fake they seem. An emotionless man faking emotion, and not doing a very good job of it since apparently he wasn’t much practiced in it. One can’t have insane emotions when one doesn’t have emotions. The backlash against the mentally ill and the eccentric will perhaps be the worst effects of this whole fiasco. People tend to be too unwilling to admit that real evil exists. The killing occurred because Cho was evil. It’s kind of like 9-11; many refuse to believe that it occurred because bin Laden and his henchmen are evil, they are forever trying to blame it on something else like the U.S.

Many say it is best not to think much about the murders; for instance, that thinking about them is what Cho would want one to do. But on the one hand, people will think about them, and it is important that if they do think of them that they think about them the right way. And on the other, people like Cho are a real danger it behooves people to understand. Intuitively, it seems to me that if the world ever gets destroyed in a hail of violence (a real possibility) people like him might be largely responsible.

I tried to write a poem about the tragedy, and it started out well when I was talking about the students, but then when I started talking about the gunman, the poetry died. Hard to be poetical when considering someone evil like that. Maybe some day I will feel like finishing it. Probably, or that's the way it feels now anyway, I have spent too much time thinking about the killer; but still, having thought about him and written this post, I might as well post it, yeah.

Various poems

I haven’t felt much like writing lately, and just haven’t been in a state to write interesting clear prose about my girl theories, etc. I did however write these three poems over the course of the last month or so. I don’t think they are my best, but I suppose they are post worthy. Lately I have been thinking much about the foundations of mathematics, and in particular trying to write up carefully my ideas about the subject, and in particular my ideas about incorporating a third truth value of “silly”, which I think allows mathematical discourse to be a little simpler. If mathematicians allow themselves to assert silly things, it reduces pedantry, and it’s no big deal because I make things so it’s always pretty obvious whether something is silly or no. Anyway, perhaps this employment of trying to make math less pedantic without being sloppy will be seen as a legitimate excuse for my not having posted much of late. Part of it is just that I am so isolated there isn’t much of anything (or anyone) to inspire me :( .

Girls

Sometimes
girls are prettier
than what one
would expect
So soft
And fluffy
I remember
Long time ago
I thought
it was something
Else.

Tra la
Sacredness
Demands
Patient Indifference
Patience
Patients.

Well,
I remember
Something else,
too.
How an equation
So apt
And seemly
Can be a
More profitable
Consideration
For my thoughts
Than mere
Strangeness.

Yes,
She wrote that letter,
the one she never
mailed
Because if she didn’t,
Well, that would be
even stranger
To me anyway.
Perhaps I’m not sane to say so
but I say so
as I so believe,
knowing no better way.

Times were
goblins ran amuck
In the very streets
of very city they
ran foully did the
goblins as they ran
they did the blad.
Bad goblins they.
Try not
To associate with
them
do—do not—
try not to not
associate them
with.
Brrrrr! Taoism of Yoda.
Blub blurb.—

I love silly
Want to take
A girl
by the arms
“Let’s be silly.”
We jump up and down.
Saying whatever
“Whatever”.
If it makes any sense,
Wherever our fancy
Strikes.
“Shhh!”
there it is—
The gloomy one—
We all fall down.
The gloomy one has it way
Before
And after too,
Sometimes
After three.
Silly, silly
I will gain respect
In the community
metamathematical
By introducing silliness
there.
No really.
A gobblobkin
crosses our path
we look at one another astounded
In the front seat
And wipe our brows
with our handkerchiefs
A sigh from each of us relief
Rises
Sexual desires too.
I don’t want to be silly with
Every girl I meet
I want you silly
Like I want another girl totally
else
And a good many in between.
Preferably all at once.

[Comment: The girl I want totally else is a French girl I saw on a train once. She was arguably the most beautiful girl I have ever seen. Hard to say whether I love her best, though, because (a) she made it seem impossible, like I shouldn’t care, or like destiny was against it (in a very clean sense, though, of course) and (b) it’s like comparing apples and oranges. I really got the impression she liked me; my guess is just that she really wants to live in France (e.g., near her family), and she is not inclined to think I would fit in very well in France.]



Love

Love is warm
And pretty
Soft
And Fluffy.
I remember
I spoke
What grace
Was
But haven’t
Actually
Gotten ‘round
to it.

Grace,
the ability
to be pure
in thought
beyond.
Sacredness,
the ability,
the property,
of not invoking
anti-addiction
mechanisms
for no reason
or an addictive one.
Obsession,
to the wise one,
it flies away
like a bird to
its nest
after necessity
demanded fright.
And impatience,
it has no place
in a sacred life
safe from depravity.

I can be relaxed,
cool,
and so too will she,
it is reason sufficient to
sacred be.
Sacredness is largely
taking care
about what one eats.
Gobble, gobble, stuff,
stuff,
the sort of thing
evil intestinal bacteria
might just encourage
by making us eat
with less grace,
by way
of making us eat
less refinéd food
in less refinéd amount.
An atheist
should say grace
even if there’s a god.

I remember now
How it was
How with young girls especially,
And girls temperate and prayerful
even more,
One doesn’t reaaaly want
to possess them too much
At the start.
No.
there must not be the least opportunity
of doubt
That there could be any deception going on
inside me,
A doubt
That could give reason for her to pause
And later not to be so self-assured
In her affection of me.
Therefore, I am
Dazed
Stricken Weak
And Collapsed
In Reverent Sleepy Gaze
The lighter the heavier
her gaze upon my chest
It bend me back
Upon the upper cushion
I take her in
visually,
blank.
Whatever will be
Will be
And whatever
Won’t,
won’t.
No matter.
All is up to her
Now.
I feel oppressed
to be honest
I have decided
Something so pleasant
I shouldn’t risk,
making a girl,
in her power
feel like she
Can make me do whatever she
Wants
Because I let her
Because later,
It makes sense,
I’ll make her obey.
Me.
But only after I obey
her.
Anyway, I find her oppressive, I figure, because finding her so
and not hiding it
makes me honest
About what I’d prefer,
and what I later
will expect
of her
instead of what she will expect of me.

The spirits of the ages they nod their heads,
they do agree
that’s what will be,
and so I daresay eventually it will behoove me to try.

But only after I obey her.
Grace then, in her,
And sacredness
in me
Are more than
just emotions girls
like a fair amount.
Sacredness will
keep me from
being too obsessed,
and impatient
at the first,
and later too,
(Though later it doesn’t matter as much.)

There is
Something else
And not just how sacredness
Makes me sanctify myself
In the now dim pleasures
Of the distant past generations
And the benevolent best wishes
Of quiet ghosts.
Telling me
An emotion of steely-eyes with
To have a greater concern
For the distant future
Would be
In their eyes
Appropriate.
Yes.
No.
There is something else.
Something more...
down-to-earth
I could pray on
And please
By being true
To a character
Girls want to be fucked by
Give them more
truer pleasure.
For what I will seem?
For what I will be.
More sacred
Will please
Just because
It will make
My semen better. Hmm.

A simple explanation. Presumably, it’s mostly always
The more girls I shall have fucked
The more relaxed and composed I will be
fucking new ones
So if a guy is calm when he fucks
his behavior more resembleth those of his most successful male ancestors,
which maketh intraejaculate sperm selection
select for better sperm
more pleasant to the female.

Well, after writing the above, I couldn’t really be sure if I believed the last stanza (the idea of which occurred to me right as I was writing it—funny how sometimes the very act of writing a poem can lead to a new idea). It probably is right, but only so far as it goes. In other words, it is not really obvious why good males would tend to be more sacred or at least as sacred as bad males. Quite generally, nervous impatient people tend to be more anti-sodomy than other people, it seems to me. At least as far as males are concerned, I have always mostly rather admired sacred, patient, cool characters, etc.; however, I will admit that there are not a few very obnoxious laid back people. Things that encourage good males to be sacred and not enthusiastic:

1. A guy wanting sex immediately and for sure can be manipulative, perhaps exaggerating the extent to which he and his girlfriend need to have sex right away, ere they get screwed by vicious types or the purveyors of the conformist orthodoxies pushed by the self-serving majority. Make it seem like love never runs smooth, that Romeo and Juliet, Bride of Lammermoor or Westside Story situations are the norm, and that therefore enthusiasm is our friend, allowing consummation before evil corrupts it. Well, girls do sometimes get screwed to keep them away from true love, but on the whole guys wanting sex right away probably selfishly overestimate the dangers of it happening.

2. Coolness is smart even if it perhaps isn’t associated with moral goodness. So perhaps if males are good enough, a girl will get more pleasure out of selecting for smartness than for anti-sodomy characteristics, since mostly he is totally anti-sodomy anyway.

3. Patience is more of a marriagey thing than a fuck thing, and quite good males tend to be more concerned with marriage than fucking. This historically has been the reason (since college days at least) why I have seen patience and sacredness as something indicative of male virtue.

None of these explanations really satisfied me particularly (probably 1 is the most satisfying), so I decided to write another poem, which doesn’t really at all explain what I was getting at, but which talks about something rather different, as is appropriate and indicative of purposiveless action, a good thing except when depravity be involved, which it isn’t:

Sacred Girl

Sacred girl
throws herself
Upon the pile of
his recollections.

She never lets an
enthusiasm
lead her a place
she wouldn’t go else.
And impatience is not
what she is about.
She’d rather go nowhere
than somewhere
impatiently.

She looks at me
like she is saying
she respects my
sacredness;
empathizes
with my coolness
almost as to say
she wouldn’t find me attractive
else.
Wants me to imagine it
Our Common Bond
like as to make it
a tacit understanding
we’re cool
and that’s why we like each other,
just because we respect that,
everyone true knows sacredness what respect’s all about, yeah,
that’s it.
She is frightened I don’t believe it,
sacredness no holy grail to me,
and I don’t know,
somehow figures if she just behaves as if we do believe it,
I will.

Can pleasure lie
in place so bare?
Can people grow up
koalas?
She’d yawn
before having sex with me
just to make sure
I wouldn’t get
too excited.
Always close to her spiritual self
she does things
as her spirit wills.
Peace of mind
Lack of drama
necessities
to those who would deign
to be honest
to their own essential selves
or perhaps,
God,
the holy spirit,
and whatever else
that’s good
which leads us on our way
when we’re still enough
to hear.

Sacredness and posting more

I know I haven't been posting much of late. It were well, I think, to post more often, even if that means a higher post length-to-profundity ratio, because somehow I feel doing so would give people a much better impression of what my life is like. My impression is that some of the people around me (family) wouldn't particularly like for me to talk about them, what with the inevitable juxtaposition that would cause of them with all my weird and therefore (to them) embarrassing ideas, and so partly because of that and partly perhaps because of a tendency to fear excessively being trifling or slow, I wonder whether people get a very good impression of what my life is like and what I'm like as a person. So this morning it seems like a good idea to try to be more regular if rambling in my postings. The topic for today will be sacredness.

First, my impressions. Let me list the things sacredness is different from.

Sacredness is not holiness, which (imo) is significant in males because it restricts genetic crossover in spermatogenesis. A beautiful female inspires holiness because genetic crossover is more likely to lead to less fit children than more fit children, what since it removes whatever harmony (between genes on opposite sides of a crossover on a chromosome) that has been selected for (by selection) in previous generations. Occasionally chance would have it that a crossover causes harmony to increase rather than decrease, but this is an advantage that only the male is going to be able to take much advantage from because, like compound interest on a long term bank deposit, most of the gain happens (when it does happen) in the distant future, when the female's genes in descendants will be mostly separated from the male's genes (and in particular from the chromosome region where the crossover occurred).

Sacredness is also not male "eternal love" emotion or "universal love" emotion. Though lately I have been thinking there is much more to these emotions, e.g., in their allowing females to affect gene conversion, and maybe even in their possessing some sort of strange magical (i.e., involving chemical and scientific processes that are majorly not understood or even seen as possible) quality, mostly I think these love emotions in males have to do with establishing long-term bonds between their genetic material and the genetic material of the wife or well-loved mate, by encouraging genetic crossover in daughters' oocytes. This would explain why females' eggs develop very early, while they are still in the fetal stage--this said early development allows the egg development (in my theory) to be influenced by the particulars of the chemicals that the emotions of her father has placed on the sperm that produced her. What seems strange to me about this lately, is that my imaginings seem to indicate that this emotion is something I can have for some but not for all the females I would be having sex with. It's not that I don't pretty much want to have these loving emotions for mostly every fairly pretty girl I would be having sex with (especially if I am having sex with a well-loved girl simultaneously), it's just that somehow myself and more particularly females rather like the idea of using this emotion (or rather the withholding of it) as a sort of weapon to make sure that, e.g., girls are lustful, trusting, and let us say tantric (behaving so as to encourage intraejaculate sperm selection). Holiness makes for a better weapon in a way, but it is not fair to use withholding it as a weapon when more than one female is involved, because that would be unfair to the other females one is having sex with or will have sex with a couple months or so later (sperm development takes a while). Love emotion seems like it is something a male can tailor to just one female he is having sex with. It's something he can add to his imminent ejaculate drops right well right before the instant he introduces the said semen drops into the female, probably. This is very scary and therefore confusing to females, I posit. The idea of a male becoming very loving toward a female he is having sex with right before he moves on to have sex with the female he actually is feeling love for, right before those love-affected drops of semen come out but while the less-loved female being joined to him can experience, being in coitus, the full sensory experience of impending love, well, the female so slighted is likely to feel this some sort of horrific taunting cruelty, but really more than like he would want to feel the love for the slighted girl too, it's just she needs to be more obedient to his sexual wishes, that's all, and he feels like he can force her to do that by using love as a sort of carrot weapon. Since he know he is good, she will benefit just as he will by behaving as though she believes he is good, and so his willingness to risk scaring her away by his controlling behavior is quite magnanimous, said scaring her away being an enormous loss to him, much greater than their more mutual loss of her not being lustful and trusting. What is strange to me is that somehow it seems as though girls love the idea of men using this love emotion as a weapon (to control other females); somehow they don't seem to mind the male going back-and-forth between herself and the girl he feels (even if temporarily) no love for. This back-and-forth seesaw-like sex of course allows sex to select for studly sperm, but it is surprising that (what is my impression of their sexual sensibilities) girls can like males to punish females they are also having sex with at the same time by withholding love emotions. If sex and sperm goes back-and-forth, What is to keep the well-loved girl from being fertilized by a sperm meant for the other girl, a sperm that has not been painted with "eternal" or "universal" love emotion? Indeed it is surprising well-loved girls don't seem to mind (in fact, quite the contrary), or at least it would be surprising, except that I feel sort of the same way. It is as though there is some sort of magical encryption involved, something that I don't understand (but which I thought of last summer when thinking there might also be some sort of magic involved with love that can transform a female into possessing some sort of magical power), and unfortunately, electron physics is something hard to shoot for an understanding of, especially to someone as myself who thinks well mostly when he thinks lazily and in the exact order he is interested in things. (Aim-and-shoot science and math is something I'm not very good at it.) Also, it seems to me that when I was young, I would think of this love emotion as "universal love", and now that I'm older, I think of it more as "eternal love" emotion. It's as though young males have a greater tendency to possess this "loving" emotion. Holiness I think is the opposite. Now it is hard for me to imagine not feeling holiness for a female I have sex with, whereas when I was young, a girl being holy seemed like she must be a goddess, and that it meant obviously I should be willing to marry her. I'm not clear about how age relates to these differences, and how general these differences are (i.e., not particular to my own circumstances). Anyway, though I can (and probably will in a future post) say some more about this eternal-love emotion, I don't understand magic or what exactly can cause me to be magic or make magic, so there is not much point in going on now about this, especially since this was supposed to be a post about something else. Maybe I'll finish after breakfast or tomorrow. No use to feel determined about things when determination can't help. Nothing to do but collect data when it offers itself and try using a kind of poetical sensibility to develop the understandings as intimations of understandings come, and in the meantime, try to understand pedestrian topics better, like math, physics, botany, or whatever I feel I can learn about today. To do otherwise would be impatient. And impatience is not particularly seemly and is not sacred. Which will lead to my next post, what this post was supposed to be about.

Lust one can't help

In my last post, I mentioned the following qualification to my theory that female sunbathers can use the quality of their tans to judge the naturalness of their lust:

First, the chemicals in the female bloodstream, lymph, etc., that artificial (sodomy-produced) lust creates would have to be slightly different from the natural lust that exists in the female bloodstream when a female is lusting as a result of her own nature having led her to it. That doesn't strike me as very difficult to imagine, though I don't pretend to be perfectly clear about it.

I underestimated the extent to which I was looking at this the wrong way. A very useful and important distinction is in order, that hitherto I had not appreciated the significance of.

My previous picture of how female lust worked was basically that female brain decides to lust, female brain makes lust chemical, this makes for more lust chemical in vaginal secretions, some of this suffuses through body to make brain bathed in more lust chemical, all of which lust chemical is pleasant to the female to the extent her brain has decided it be pleasant (assuming no depravity be involved) to lust for the male under consideration. This is too simplistic. If a female brain wants to lust, for whatever reason, it will lust to the extent it is able, whether the reasons it has decided to lust be natural or otherwise. So looking at things using this model, if a female wants to lust just because of sodomy having made her want to, well, she will, and so the lust floating through her bloodstream will be just as pure and genuinely female as it otherwise would be. No useful test.

The distinction that is necessary is one between willed lust on the one hand and unwilled lust, i.e., lust-that-can't-be-helped, on the other hand. By unwilled lust, I mean lust that just comes more-or-less automatically upon considering the male or more especially considering having sex with him. Unwilled lust reflects the particular innate lust tendencies of the female toward the object under consideration given her perception and understanding of him. Unwilled lust has got a quick start, as is useful when a female is trying to figure out her natural lust tendencies by considering and fantasizing about all the various situations and male tendencies she might lust about. It is purely brain at the start. The unwilled lust when it gets started in the brain it quickly reaches out on the one hand to pleasure receptors which get pleasure from it to the extent they are primed to do so, and on the other hand to receptors in the female reproductive system that make lust chemical. The lust chemical from the female reproductive system circulates through the body and stimulates basically the same pleasure receptors. But the willed lust is different. The willed lust doesn't act on pleasure receptors directly or almost so. The willed lust goes (via nerves, presumably) only directly to the female reproductive system, where it produces lust chemicals that produce pleasure to the extent the receptors for them are primed to do so. Here is my point. If a female wills herself to lust, well, all her willed lust is going to be pretty much the same if the lust was produced by sodomy or otherwise; but if a female is feeling unwilled lust on account of sodomy, what that means basically is both that the lust receptors (mostly in her brain, presumably) have been primed by unnatural chemicals to enjoy lust and that unnatural pseudo-lust chemicals able to lock on to these receptors have been introduced. There won't be any real lust unless the female wills it, because there won't be any nerve signals sent to the female reproductive system from the brain to make the lust chemical (a chemical males can't make, in my opinion, from a totally different reason).

All these considerations point out some pitfalls too often placed before us. People of little understanding in the scientific community are forever not just doing brain scans of humans and comparing them with lower animals, which is important of course from the standpoint of figuring out how people have evolved, but also concluding that because the brain areas involved in abstraction evolved later, this proves abstraction and the will that such abstractions control somehow are higher and better than the more primitive brain areas involved merely in producing tendencies and more direct likings. And basically what the gist of their recommendations end up being is that lustful people should use their will more to control their lusts. Well, that is a WRONG, PERVERSE recommendation to a girl trying to figure out if her lust be authentic. Things are a lot more complicated than these experimenters are wont to make us believe. Sure, after concluding that lust not be authentic, it is very important to use the will to decrease lust, but in a way since that follows automatically from it being even more important for the will to will the female into running away kicking and screaming (which by removing the female from the sordid causes of her lust will in fact reduce her lust), this is not really using the will to decrease lust in any direct way as such experimenters tend to seem to suggest. As we have seen, authentic female lust is easily distinguishable from pseudo-lust induced by sodomy basically only to the extent the lust is not produced by the will, but by the more primitive less abstract area of the brain. Experiments, even if state of the art, oftentimes are a very poor substitute for thought, especially if (as occurs to me at the moment) their real purpose (or rather the reason the experimenter has the tendency to push his explanation of the experiment--it is giving too much of a compliment to suggest these experimenters actually have much by way of the understanding needed even to frame such a purpose) is to confuse the psyche about the experiments that really ought to be done and which girls are pleased with innately.

All of this clears up in my head something that has been bothering me for a while. I have noticed intuitively that girls are very scared of lusting and that even when having sex they would be. The logic I have produced supporting this has been awkward and not very implicative of the strong fears I suspect there ordinarily would be. After all, Why would a girl who wants sex soon, while she is still young, be afraid of lust during sex when sex that doesn't involve female lust might as well be postponed because present non-lustful sex will for all practical purposes have the same capacity to please her as sex she could have later by waiting? A better, more precise way of putting things is that girls are afraid of willing lust, during sex or otherwise. The more will a girl puts into lusting, the more her lust would resemble lust produced by the same amount of will but initiated by sordidness, and the harder it is for her to distinguish the two.

Something that kind of led me to the thoughts I had today was the intuitive impression the sunbathing test would work much better if the male the girl lusts for is nearby. Doubtless it is easier for a girl to lust without will if the male is there (especially if he is not particularly dressed much), so his presence might be expected to make her more at ease with the conclusions of the lust tests.

Another kind of lust test a girl can use is to see whether unwilled lust can make her reproductive system wet with lust mucous. But that's a little tricky perhaps, since some unwilled secretions might be related to lubrication (important in avoiding abrasions that perhaps might permit addictive chemicals to be absorbed) or to pressures exuding exudates from the blood (high blood pressures there might keep unwanted chemicals trying to enter (say through abrasions) out rather as pressure in a buried water pipe can keep contaminants out of the water (and so after pressure drops, water can get muddy). (But in the female reproductive system the situation is sort of reversed, the contaminants are in the inside rather, trying to go out through the vagina wall into a region of higher pressure.)

Lustful female sunbathers checking their tans to test the cleanliness and reverse transcriptase qualities of their lust.

Today it has occurred to me that a female by lusting might protect herself from the harm of sun exposure. Indeed, if my theory is right (confer the post before last), female lust needs to encourage a genetic conversion of some of her mate's sperm DNA to her own DNA, which needs must be done (presumably) by using RNA as a template. One can imagine that the same chemical that allows this to occur in the zygote allows RNA transcription to occur more readily in other places in the female, and in particular to occur when it can be useful in repairing DNA damaged by excess sun exposure (or other things), as could be useful in preventing cancer, for instance.

OK, here's the deal. Suppose a lustful female were uncertain whether her lust were clean, natural, and innocent--a lust from herself as a result of real feelings that came from her own judgment and sensibility applied to her object of affection--or whether it be sordid, as a result of depravity (sodomy). This is needless to say a kind of doubt and mixed emotion females have in their intuition all the time in our not very discriminating society. No problem, all the girl has to do is lust while outside in the sun. If while laying out she lusts long and hard for the male who occasions the lust she wishes to test, concentrating fixedly on how his penis would be to her during sex, etc., and she doesn't get nearly as sunburned as normal, if she enjoys the warmth, etc., without getting much burnt, then she should know that presumably her lust is real. Onnnn the other hand, if she does get quite burnt, that should be evidence to her if she is feeling lust that maybe she should change drastically. The lust being artificial (caused by sodomy) would perhaps lack the blessed reverse-transcriptase properties that natural female lust possesses, and so she would not have been protected from the DNA damage of the sun's ultraviolet rays. Any DNA damage on one chromosome could not very well be repaired by the DNA on the homologous chromosome (as my theory posits can happen) as it would if her lust had been real, and so she would experience the burning pain of irreparable degradation of surface epidermal DNA. The sun god does not approve of "her" lust, and the somewhat hellish pain would lead her (perhaps, at any rate) to think she should reform, evidence the obtaining of which was worth her now slightly increased risk of getting sun cancer.

I point out now two qualifications of this theory.

First, the chemicals in the female bloodstream, lymph, etc., that artificial (sodomy-produced) lust creates would have to be slightly different from the natural lust that exists in the female bloodstream when a female is lusting as a result of her own nature having led her to it. That doesn't strike me as very difficult to imagine, though I don't pretend to be perfectly clear about it.

Second, these arguments about female lust also of course doubtless (if followed beyond my current level of understanding) have to do with retrotransposons, since it is well-known reverse transcription from RNA is how retrotransposons (along with retroviruses like AIDS) manage to reproduce themselves. Giving one's retrotransposons free reign to replicate about one's chromosomal DNA might at least under ordinary circumstances be disadvantageous (for example, in causing other kinds of cancer), even if the chemicals that encourage this free reign might be expected to protect against acute genetic damage from sunlight, for example. Female lust seems innocuous enough--not like it can create some scary and dangerous (to the female) amount of retrotransposon activity--but it does kind of make sense that if it were as simple as female lust prevents cancer, females would have evolved to lust a great deal more. But I must confess I just haven't figured out how retrotransposons fit in, though I'm quite sure--it makes obvious sense--that they are relevant somehow.

Intuitively it also makes sense to me that my view of the connection between solar radiation and lust is correct. Obviously young lustful females have something of a tendency to lay out more, and to get a kind of physical enjoyment from being in the sun. And something that has always struck me as strange is that I (and others, I presume) don't fear sunlight as much as the pain of sunburn would suggest I should. The couple of times I have gotten sun burn, well, I never had any inkling pain-wise that I had gotten too much sun until after I had already gotten sufficient sun to have gotten burnt and had left the sun. My intuition is almost always more right than that, even about abstruse things, so what happened? And my intuition about the danger of sun has seemed remarkably lacking. E.g., last time I got sun burnt, I figured, well, it's cloudy, so no need to worry about getting sunburnt (I never was taught in science about the inability of clouds to absorb UV rays). This sort of intuitive idiocy is actually sort of useful to females (and I suppose leads somewhat to idiocy in males, where it is not useful since males can't make female lust to protect themselves, but where it still exists presumably because males and females mostly have the same DNA). If people knew and intuitively felt how dangerous the sun is while or before getting sunburnt, well, it probably never would occur to them to lay out in the sun as a test to see whether one can get sunburnt, which only a loony person would do who isn't wise enough to see the appropriateness of it, and anyone that wise would tend to know already whether her lust were real, and so wouldn't care for such a test, unless maybe she wanted physiologically to be like a girl prudent enough to have undergone such a test. But having an innate tendency to enjoy the sun even somewhat after it has inflicted damage (and to respond very painfully to such damage once it occurs) perhaps gives us a protection against lusting on account of artificial, sodomy-induced reasons.

The Seminal paper

I noticed that the seminal paper about RNA inheritance, written in March of last year, about RNA inheritance in cress plants, is online. This is what first got me to thinking about RNA inheritance, and is really more suggestive of what I think is going on than the paper mentioned in my previous entry about mice.

RNA Inheritance

This paper, DNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse , is very interesting. As soon as I heard earlier this year of the notion of RNA inheritance (in plants), it occurred to me that the same phenomenon could be what is needed to ennable the mismatch repair and gene conversion that is believed to occur in spermatogenesis to be postponed slightly (until formation of the zygote) so it can be regulated instead by the (female) mate's genome, something I had predicted in January 2004 as being likely on account of how certain very lustful females seem to like lust more than I otherwise could account for, in a way that resonated with me.

It occured to me earlier this year it makes sense that something like what this paper describes would be significant mainly as a way of repairing DNA (I predict that) not only because it would ennable gene conversion in spermatogenesis to be postponed, but also because it would allow damaged DNA on one chromosome to "use" the (RNA made from) DNA of the homologous chromosome to repair itself. This also would for instance explain why sunburn is so much more of a big deal cancer- and pain-wise than the gradual sun exposure that produces suntan. If my hypothesis is correct, genetic damage is only very harmful if it is so intense that both copies of the DNA are likely to be damaged at homologous places. In other words, the signficance to cancer of genetic damage is more proportional to the square (or perhaps third- or fourth-power, thinking strand-wise) of the recent damage.

Here is a good example of the evils of censorship. I had posted the poem explaining my ideas about this gene conversion phenomenon way back in 2004, but because my paranoid parents convinced me I was taking too much of a chance jail-wise of posting such an erotic poem about mere girls, I removed it a week or so later. Well, gee whiz, not only is it not pornography, the idea of it might well be key to understanding cancer among other things. And by having taken it down, now people can't see what a genius I was to predict the phenomenon before scientists did any experiments to make it plausible--not like that's going to help my standing with the scientific community, that I would need, for instance, to be respected enough to get a good job if I ever need to do that. So fuck, I'll post the poem, exactly as I posted it in January 2004, with the same preface I posted it with then. As my relative Maria Weston Chapman once said (regarding Channing's hesitance to speak strongly against the evil of slavery and of women not being allowed to speak in public about such when he felt this might reduce his support among the "respectable" people who put money in his collection plates), "Without courage, no truth, & without truth no other virtue".



[Here's a poem about sex. More particularly, a poem about sex with young females. The stereotype is that parents don't want their young daughters' having sex. However, if my theory is right that girls actually have a greater capacity for sexual pleasure than older females when having sex with a virtuous male, then it would stand to reason that a parent would want her daughter to have sex while she is still young if the daughter is in love with a virtuous male. In particular, mothers, typically being more in tune with their daughters' wants and needs, would probably feel this way. So I try to describe the emotion a typical mother of a pretty female would feel toward her daughter if the daughter actually should soon have sex with a man.

There are several notions I am trying to get at in this poem.

There is the notion that it seems as though girls should have sex largely for their own pleasure. This seems reasonable for at least three reasons. First, for the same reason that sexual pleasure is a most selfish pleasure in males, it is a most unselfish pleasure in females. Yeah, it is a pleasure, and like all pleasures is somewhat selfish, still, it is less selfish than other pleasure. Secondly, moral virtue in males being an especial sexual turn-on to a female when she is young, sexual pleasure is even more innocent in young females than in females generally. Thirdly, when a person is unsure of what constitutes her own view as to what is moral, as young people may be presumed more to be, it rather seems more safe for her compared with adults to be ruled a little more by pleasure than by moral laws. This third reason is the reason I was mainly trying to get at and understand in the poem, my mostly not having thought of its application to young-female sex before.

Also, I am trying to figure out why mothers (and to a lesser agree their daughters) are both turned-on and disturbed by the thought of a male using sex with other young females to increase the sexual pleasure of the daughter. My theories suggest that in young females, sexual lust is unusually contagious, and so girls are very pleased at the thought of other younger females having sex with a decent male if she is having sex with him. Unfortunately, females all too often see this behavior as cruel. They fail to appreciate that the analogy between a female using one male to make another male jealous (thereby increasing the desire of the latter to be depravedly addicting) and a male using other females partly to increase the sexual pleasure of another female for him is a false one. Yes, sure, a just guy if having sex with several females is likely going to more reward the girl he likes most by switching to her most every other time he switches, unabashedly using the other girls to increase the sexual pleasure of this girl, but in him, at least, I can't see how this behavior would encourage him to feel himself less loving of any females he is having sex with. Cruelty would appear irrelevant.

Still, it feels to me like there is a great pleasure that a young female can get from a male very calmly and dispassionately using young girls for her sexual pleasure. Intuitively, this pleasure seems more great than anything I have an explanation for. I think it has something to do with crossover encouraging gene conversion. It as though if enough female unholy lust gets put in a female, genetic inversion happens in such a way that some of the male genetic material in the edge of the converted region (where his genetic material has been less thickly painted with lust and hers has been more thickly painted) will get converted through gene conversion into her DNA. But biology would indicate that such would have to be postponed a generation. I don't really know what is going on, just have a feeling something is going on (involving, perhaps, imprinting, genetic crossover, epigenetic inheritance, etc.) that I have not understood very well yet. But no reason to avoid pleasures just because they aren't understood, right?

As always, I define the word "fuck" so that it implies in addition to copulation merely the absence of any caring responsibility in the subject. Poetical words are screwed-up. Alas, there is no recourse but to a word that also has disgusting connotations. Indeed, both the sodomites and the prudes want there to be no distinction between words suggesting a female wants sex mainly for the sex (suggestive of a loving female) and words suggesting a female wants her ass screwed (suggestive of a guttersnipe). That way sodomizers can make skanky females think they are being smartly loving, and prudes can make others think their selfish tendency to mate for money rather than good sex is just cleanliness. It is necessary, therefore, for me to have decreed what I meant. I prefer this option to unnaturally interrupting my poem by otherwise necessary explanation. That poetical sex words have such unpoetical connotations could be a sign that sex is best discussed only scientifically, as in my book. The reason sex words tend to have bad connotations could be seen as a sign that good people don't tend to force them to have good connotations by using them poetically often. However, girls are not women in general. Girls having sex have had to come to their own understandings about sex quickly, or their love is not really their own love but merely the love a parent or whoever wants them to feel. Only by being very emotional and poetical can a girl understand her sexual nature sufficiently quickly-rational wisdom takes too much time. Thought is slow, too slow for girls wanting to have sex presently. So in this sense emotions and poetry are more appropriate when dealing with girl sex than woman sex. Similarly, good females very much more tend to be willing to have sex without commitment, which tends to imply a short amount of time with the male, when intuition and an absorbing of sensation is paramount, and then a long period of intellectual reflection and deduction. So good females potentially need to be both very emotional and very intellectual at different times, which makes both the poetry of sex and the dry scientifically deductive treatment of sex especially relevant to good females regardless of their tendencies to have sex late or early. Erotic poetry has an important place.]

Sex with Girls
Right now
I want to relax
To dream
Of nude young girls
By the dozens
Catering to all my
Sexual wants
Someone
Wants me to do
The exact same thing
And is frightened
I won't be cruel enough
To do it
The way her secret
Sex thrill
Wants
My penis do it
For her daughter

Cruelty
Is not what people make it out to be
The girls
I want to make love to
I don't want to love
For selfish reasons
I want their
bodies
to be used
For your daughter's
Greater sexual satisfaction
I want them-
sorry, I expect them-
to obey my penis's commands.
A body divided against itself
Can't stand.
Love
Is beautiful
Is good
I want all the girls
Having sex with me
To enjoy it
More than what I know.

I feel like
There is something
I can do
--Something I haven't thought of yet,
That on the face of it
Will give them a sexual pleasure
From copulating with me
Far greater than any I have thought of
Or understood.
Little Girls are young
And easily startled
They don't really know
What is good for themselves
To anything like a degree of certainty.
Still,
They know better
How to experience innocent purely sexual pleasure
Than What love is.
Purely sexual pleasure is the most unselfish pleasure
For a female to want in herself the increase of;
For a little girl, even more so.
I'm not really sure I want girls to copulate for love
I want them mainly to let me fuck them because
they expect by so doing an amount of purely sexual pleasure it doesn't please them to resist.
At night when they masturbate
they obtain (among other things)
an unbiased estimation of the pleasure
sex with me would give.
And then they bias this best unbiased estimator of their pleasure by
taking into account the prior distribution of their pleasure-the
distribution
that gives
the relative probability that a
non-specific man,
chosen at random,
would give an unspecified amount of innocent
purely sexual pleasure
if she should have sex with him.
Combining her best unbiased estimator with
the prior distribution-
Each in proportion to her estimation of its inverse variance-,
she would get a sum;
the sum would tell her for any given level of innocent
sexual pleasure
what the relative chances would be
of obtaining that.

I want girls to have sex with me
because they expect
A level of sexual pleasure
Beyond what they should resist.
Which basically should be the level beyond which they are not pleased to resist.

But a child may be
too scared
to satisfy her innocent pleasant lusts or, Who knows?
Might bark up the wrong tree.

A parent can help
Her daughter get what she sexually wants
By telling her if her sexual desires are innocent, and
by disillusioning her if they are not.

Indeed, I do think sometimes that girls can get much more pleasure in copulating with a man wanting to sexually please them than my theories indicate. I don't really know why, though your explanation whatever it be, is, I think, wrong. Right well it would be to find the answer. Sometimes pleasures have to be thought of and understood to be thoroughly realized. Without understanding comes some error. I want in.

More about why young female sexuality is unjustly maligned

The following is something I posted today in a discussion at essembly.com (under my name, Stephen Meigs). I liked it so I am posting it here. Actually, there is a lot of stuff (some of it several years old) that I have posted in various forums and on usenet, which my dedicated admirers ought to be able to find by googling step314, the screenname I always try to use, or Stephen A. Meigs, or rarely, Stephen Meigs.

Yeah, well, a lot of the behaviors that are sexually loving toward young females are misunderstood as not loving. Certain bad people and those who cater to them want natural affection in girls to be viewed as sordid so when they introduce something unnatural (screwed-up) there, well, they can just say that it was nothing more than what was there to begin with. And then there is another group, some of their main competitors strangely enough, who though they aren't much into defiling innocence yet are more than happy to convince a desirable fallen young lady that her misfortunes (as measured by dollars and cents, for example) had to do not with her having been addicted to depravity, but with her having had sex too early on account of girls' sexual desires naturally being stupid. The reason is obvious enough: such a male wants to control the young woman with depravity (sodomy) himself and revels at the chance of being able to do so without making the woman realize he is doing anything unnatural as would tend to be necessary when dealing with a female who has not by intimate acquaintance with depravity become sophisticated in the idiot sense. Both the ravisher seducers and the slick seducers want people to think natural girl sexuality is immoral or stupid. Their lies, being unified, have had their effect on our culture's attitudes toward girls. I shall list some of the things teenage girls in love rightly appreciate but for which they are unjustly maligned.

Girls (and females generally) like to know where they stand, so brusqueness, telling them almost right away whether you feel like you just want them for (meaningful) reproductive sex or also as a wife, is a good loving thing (even though it is not loving for a male to emotionally dwell on not wanting to care for a girl or her offspring by him, and though being brusque is impractical if carried to extremes). Anyway, what goes by politeness isn't always as loving as it is cracked up to be, and oftentimes is just manipulative reserve. These sorts of males make girls look bad by putting things off, forcing a girl requiring commitment to reject him in a way that makes her look mercenary, and they waste her time.

Girls tend to be a bundle of irrational fears when they are in love. These fears stem basically from a fear that the male she is considering is on account of a deceptive nature in him much worse than he appears. Well, a good male knows enough about himself to know that he is not bad (and to see the logic that even if he were bad, well, why would he care), so he obviously is not particularly concerned about catering to the girl's fears. Nay, because lovingly he cares about how much pleasure the girl will get (and his own), and because unselfishly he is more willing to risk driving her away, he will more than bad males try to use some of the girl's excess of affection (excess in the sense that it is more than what she needs to want to have sex with him) to force the girl to ignore her fears about him, and to have sex likes she trusts him more-or-less completely, which will be more pleasant and rewarding to everybody concerned because he really is worthy of trust. So yeah, if a male doesn't try to make a girl with whom he is having sex his sex slave in the clean perfectly reasonable sense of not allowing her to be scared much, yeah, the girl and more especially her mother will sort of wonder about him. But a girl wanting her hair pulled in that sense doesn't mean she wants to have her hair pulled in some vulgar sense, e.g., by depravity or violence. Actually, innocuous enslavement works because girls do want love emotion so much--the main tool whereby a good male typically forces a girl to be true to herself and to trust him is by withholding his loving emotions when she be bad and untrusting, which so much decreases her pleasure, she can't help but be obedient to his wishes. And this right sort of enslavement is not rape-like, because trying through reward/punishment to eliminate a female's fears about how to have sex is not rape, if she always has the freedom to walk away from sex (a freedom obviously she should have).

Another loving thing for a male to do, often confused with sordidness, is to more try at the start to put scary constructions on what he wants, or at least to not try to hide them much. That way, later, if and when she actually has sex, she will have had so much occasion to investigate any scary association that sex might have, it won't be as scary as it otherwise would be were these constructions then to suddenly jump to mind. And girls get a great deal more from good sex if it isn't scary, all things else equal. What matters to a girl's pleasure (if she is having sex with a virtuous male) is how cool she is while having sex, not how cool she was before.

And lastly, girls tend to like sex stretchy and hard, because that makes sex more girl-like, the whole point of not waiting. (I think the tendency for girls to tend to want sex presently with virtuous males has to do with intraejaculate sperm selection--young females' reproductive insides select for different sperm than older females' reproductive insides). This is oftentimes confused with a desire to be hit in a violent injurious sense, which of course it is illogical to suppose persons would have evolved to want.

Update: (June 3, 2008) Since for whatever reason this page seems to generate many hits and comments (compared with my other pages), I think it well to point out that nine months later I revisited this subject matter in two of my best posts (a two-part series), here, and here; it seems to me my derivations in these later posts are even more amazing.

Forums

Rant: I hate forums where by policy one can't see some of the material unless one has a certain number of posts. Fake posts just to get what I want seem unethical to me, though I'm sure such policies won't deter obnoxious people. I bet most of the people talking at these forums mostly don't even know about these policies, the policies tending to be implemented only after the board has been established awhile.

A poem about sacredness.

This poem of mine is kind of dim (some might say boring), but I like it. I am in a mood for increased sacredness. I also cherished sacredness during the period last year in Maryland after it was decided we were moving to North Carolina.

Sacred

Sometimes I wonder,
What exactly I am doing.
Because I don’t understand
my motivations.
No.
Of course not.
It would be silly
to act
only after when my motivations
are understood
by me.

I don’t really have a clue
what she thinks of me.
Mixed emotions!
Yes,
that is the most probable explanation
that fits most everybody.

Vaguely I feel
I could know
just how much particular people
are afraid of me.
But reason
tells me
it’s pretty hopeless.

Girls could say,
“I’m frightened.”
But they don’t.
And actually I can understand why.
If girls were up front
about their fears
that would make it easier
for the people who deserve fear.
The dangerous men would just go after
the ones
they knew weren’t afraid of them.
It’s a nuisance to deal with,
though.

And I wish I could tell
whether girls want privacy
or attention
when attention
unavoidably
may compromise privacy,
especially when a desire for secrecy
isn’t exactly what girls
are most likely to have had
the most
respect for
in men
when setting up
their option menus.

Somehow sacredness seems the emotion
I most need and cherish.
I don’t really care, actually,
what others think of me,
as much as others,
and yet,
I care too much.
I must guard myself
against
general opinion.
I could almost say,
“I am, respectfully,
your humble dutiful servant, etc.”
But I’m not.
Because I don’t want to be that.

Thinking of her
makes me want
to pick up my math books again.
To review things I’ve forgot,
and learn the fundamental things I never learned
or never learned quite right.
To turn the pages
with sacred devotion.
Jordan-Holder theorem there—
and over there,
retrace the argument that a permutation
can’t be both odd and even,
think about how it looks
composing from right to left
and left to right.
No mere irrelevant choice, perhaps.
Is a sequence the order of the dice in front of me?
Or would it be better to think of it
as a sequence of positions with the indices
of the sequence
merely the numbers I see
each one
on its own die?
It might matter,
what choice is best,
depending upon how I should think of it.
I think I’ll choose the former standard choice,
but not because it is standard.

I want to become knowledgeable
in my own way.
Without enthusiasm
I can gain wisdom
greater than what I’ve got
but there is danger
I’ll spend all time reviewing
striving for perfection
merely because I feel error
as corruption
or too readily allow myself
to fall into the chant
of the math book
encouraging me
not to skip
or think
outside the order
the math book is written in.
No error
is worth being pedantic
over.
I want to get where I want to go
Without worrying particularly
What route is best.
All I should demand
I dream
is a sense
I’m sort of going
in the right direction,
like when something makes me wonder in confusion,
that’s what I should employ my faculties
of understanding
then upon,
especially if I can behold
myself
in my imagination
considering it
with sacred concern.

Mothers, daughters, and responsibility.

Not long ago, I made the following observation (Discriminating morals: Responsibility)

At least when I imagine mothers of girls I would be more likely to have sex with, they probably don't want their daughters to marry or have sex when young as much as their daughters would tend to want it, but when it comes to choosing, I've a vague feeling they'd be more likely (than the daughters) to want the daughter to choose sex without the marriage than with marriage. Especially if such marriageless sex did not imply not getting cared for. Partly this can be explained by mothers wanting the extra proof of affection that a daughter proves by the daughter preferring sex outside marriage; if a daughter so much wants to attract young females to her lover than she doesn't value marriage, that is a sign of pleasant affection, all right. But I don't think that is it mainly. I think there is something else I haven't thought of, some subtle genetic argument I need to discover, perhaps implying mothers more care about their daughters' sexual pleasure (which especially would increase if it is easier for their mates to get more girls in bed) than daughters do in any given sexual relationship the daughter might have.


Three or four days ago I slept on this, and as I was waking, all came together and poetically I was filled with the great truths governing mother/daughter relationships as relates to a guy the daughter is romantically interested in. The poetry of that moment I find hard to recapture, I suppose because poetry is something I tend to use when I am trying to figure something out, and so after I have figured something out, well, it has a way of not working as seemlessly? Thus I decribe my conclusions not using poetry.

Anyway, I have decided I might well have been wrong in thinking a mother is more likely than her daughter to want her daughter to "choose sex without the marriage than with marriage" (if both mother and daughter want the daughter to have sex with the male) so that mistresses can be attracted more easily. What is true, I think, is that a mother will more value her daughter having the lustful pleasure that the daughter having sex in a (clean, sober) orgy of other girls could give to her daughter. But I failed to consider that the expediency of eschewing marriage to get more girls isn't just about how much the daughter needs to be lustful. I also should have considered that it is necessary to decide (when determining whether it be a good idea for a girl to eschew marriage) just how likely it would (or perhaps should) be that other girls would share in the sex. How much a girl who has decided (with parental approval) for sex should lust for a male involves mainly the chances that the male is much less worthy than he seems. It's not really a question of just exactly how incredibly awesome sex with him would be. Indeed, even if he's just a typical decent person, it probably won't be much if any harm to lust for him, especially if from unselfishness one considers his needs (but such unselfishness in girls seems a little too much to expect from them, because girls tend to be so constituted that mostly what is properly fun for them is what is best for them). But whether other girls are likely to have sex with a male is mainly a question of just exactly how incredibly awesome sex with him would be—it is a decision properly and most enjoyably made by the daughter as opposed to the mother.


Since a mother's sphere mainly is to judge just how likely it is that her daughter would or would-not be making a big mistake by thinking highly of a male, it should mainly be the mother (as opposed to the daughter) who decides how much her daughter should lust. The mother will more enjoy being true to herself than her daughter will enjoy her mother being true to herself, because the part of the mother that differs from the daughter won't care what the daughter does (if it could know it was not in common with the daughter), while the part of the daughter that differs from the mother will somewhat resent what the part of the mother that differs from her wants her to feel lustwise. A mother will enjoy her daughter being true to her mom's own inner nature as concerns how much she should lust. A daughter, on the other hand, is much more willing to hold merely conformist opinions about how much to lust. She (the daughter) knows that her comfort with a male she is to have sex with doesn't really so much depend on her own opinion of him, as on her mother's opinion of him. And so it always tends to be, so what is the point of a girl being true to herself so much when the possible rewards and pleasures depend mostly on whether a decision her mother made is right? So yeah, it makes sense to me that if a mother and daughter both think the daughter should have sex with a guy, the mother is likely to be much more keen than the daughter on the daughter throwing caution to the wind in an effort to have sex as lustfully as possible. As is good, the mother will likely try to use the means at her disposal to encourage her daughter to have sex in a more prolonged lustful, carnal, trusting, tantric manner. So yeah, in that sense a mother approving of her daughter having sex would tend to want her daughter to have sex in an orgy of young girls more than her daughter would (if the daughter wanted sex), because sharing sex with young girls makes sex more lustful for a female having sex.


That said, I don’t think it a good idea to get carried away with the observation and fail to realize that qualitatively at least, lust, as with the rest of sex, properly is the domain of the girl having sex and not her mother. Unless the mother had similar sexual feelings when she was young, I am a little skeptical that she, at an age implying a brain less plastic and less suited to learning, is going to be able to be as profound, graceful, and beautiful in her imaginings of love than her daughters. Mothers sometimes give me guilty looks, like they don’t really feel good about themselves when they think about me in relation to their daughters; obviously they don’t tend to put as discriminating constructions on their feelings as would be desirable. But I guess the point I am making is that it really isn’t the case that mothers as a whole are more priggish about their daughters than the daughters themselves are. If a mother really approves of her daughter having sex with some guy, the mother is probably going to be, compared with her daughter, significantly more into it being a carnal experience for the daughter. Maybe oftentimes mothers do tend to intrude into their daughters’ own business too much, taking away chances at sexual pleasure unjustly, not because the mother thinks her daughter is majorly wrong about a particular male (a sort of judgment a woman is totally justified in exerting) but just because she thinks her daughter overestimates moderately the possible benefits of having a physical relationship while young with the particular male. Mothers should more be into influencing their daughters’ fears as opposed to their daughters’ sense of male sexiness. But one is led to wonder whether a great deal of the priggishness mothers force on their daughters arises from a kind of frustration on the parts of mothers that if her daughter were to love some male the mother approved of, the daughter really wouldn’t let herself go sexually into realms of lust nearly so much as the mother would deem appropriate. Usually, I have noticed, people try to get even at people for perceived offenses with similar punishments (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.). So it makes sense that in mother-daughter relationships, one kind of priggishness may be punishment for another, even though one be less appreciated.


For a more technical look at the statistical issues underlying mother-daughter relationships as regards the mother influencing her daughter’s sexual decisions, I suggest this post of mine
Discriminating morals: Conformity in parents carefully explained


I guess I should emphasize the main point, namely the importance of mothers and daughters not trying to interfere in the others’ sphere in an effort to make the other more boring and normal. Indeed, if being yourself isn’t good for girl sex, being yourself ain’t good for nothing. Indeed, one may find by perusing this blog my theory (involving epigenetics) that girl-sex is what is most responsible for the little that people are true to themselves, something I first thought about last fall, describing it here as I developed it.


Just the other day it occurred to me one doesn’t really even need to consider epigenetics to see an important relation between thinking for oneself and young-female sexuality. If a male doesn’t have female ancestors who thought for themselves, then it makes it much less clear that those of his ancestors who were conceived by young females were conceived for especially impressive reasons. If a girl who thinks for herself feels as though it is unnecessary to wait to see if someone better comes along (notwithstanding she is young), that is impressive. But if a young female who doesn’t think for herself wants a male right away, that’s not particularly impressive inasmuch as her esteem is likely to be a result of accepting a standard opinion, rather like the stereotypical groupie, which basically is just as safe an approach for a girl as for an adult woman. (Groupies sexually copying a more-or-less standard opinion merely from conformity strike me as a little scary. But it doesn't bother me when a girl copies a friend's sexual decision; at least her choice of friend wasn't conformist.) So intraejaculate sperm selection is much more useful to a girl if there be evidence that her mate thinks for himself; not perhaps a particularly revolutionary observation, but it seemed worth mentioning.

Hesitation

Weird. I was just about to send a message to someone, and so (unless memory fails me) I opened the message window like no problem. Then I accidentally moved away from that window when I discovered a new piece of (quite irrelevant as it turned out) data on the page from which I accessed the message window. Rather than send the message immediately, I decided to look outside my window at the trees and the sky and the clouds for a few minutes, to see if after that I still felt like it was appropriate to send the message. It felt like I should send it, and when I try I am no longer able to send that person messages. Even though I don't think that person could have known I was going to send a message. Well, that's what I think happened, and obviously I am not going to be so disrespectful of the wishes of the other person as to send the message now using some other avenue of communication, or try to use some subterfuge to communicate the message. I'm pretty sure I didn't accidentally send the message. And I think I opened up the message window once successfully, though I don't believe I can be totally sure of that, because the History feature in internet explorer only seems to keep the most current visit, maybe I was just imagining I opened the send message window once before? Oh, this was like a totally consequential message (I mean whether to send it or not), and I don't really know whether I sent it--I doubt this--, originally couldn't send it, or, what my memory suggests (though it would seem an inexplicable coincidence), that I originally could send it, but then a few minutes later, couldn't.

Saturday, I came down with some weird flu-like illness (mostly just fever, sore throat, and fatigue). I am just finishing getting over that now (Tuesday), but am still tired and listless and my throat is still somewhat sore. It was strange, because I hardly ever get sick. I try to eat hazelnuts every day, like an animal that buries hazelnuts (as is good for the tree) would tend to do, but except in the fall, they are hard to get, and to save time while my sister and her family was visiting, I postponed driving to the Whole Foods in Winston to get some more. I hardly ever allow myself to go a day without eating hazelnuts, but I went about two weeks without eating hardly any, and then--bam--while at South Carolina at my late grandparents' house after having promised to drive a rental truck my parents had largely filled with stuff to get here, I get horrible sick, more sick than in about ten years, with a fever at 8:55 pm Saturday of 102.6 degress (the peak reading) that for a few hours had been going up linearly .3 degrees (fahrenheit) per hour. I tell my parents and sister, forget Tylenol, I need hazelnuts. Eventually, my Mom, despite thinking me a little batty and after having given me almonds and pushing Tylenol, grudgingly agreed to look for hazelnuts, and found the one grocery store, Bi-Lo, where they had them. Upon starting the hazelnuts at 9:10pm, my fever quickly (102.2 by 10:35) started going down, more-or-less linearly, until it was 99.0 by 10:15 the next morning. With rest my fever was inconsequential enough that the next day I was able to drive back on time and help with the unpacking, though if I had rested more I probably would have gotten well sooner, and in fact my fever worsened a degree or so on Sunday with the stress. I should have believed more in myself and my theory about the importance to health of eating nuts (well, hazelnuts, since they are my favorite) a similar amount each day, and should have tried harder to get some when my larder from fall was in a good way toward having been consumed.

Responsibility

What does responsibility-free sex require of a male? Hitherto, I have mostly viewed responsibility-free sex as nevertheless morally entailing a kind of responsibility on the part of the male not to be very caring (when it comes to non-sexual matters). Distributing caring broadly among females like halloween candy to trick-or-treaters, that mostly doesn't appeal to me. Mostly a husband should just care for his wife. But lately I have been thinking being married is something of a discouragement to getting stuff from mistresses that better-loved females would love. Girls, in particular, can be prevailed upon to do what a better loved female needs. But I think it is harder to prevail upon a girl to do these things if she feels like she might be doing it just from control a wife has over the girl's sexual lover. And I have noticed through observation that wives do tend to control husbands much more than vice versa. Maybe sometimes a girl more loves the idea of her lover better attracting mistresses to what she and he wants (sexually and materially) than the idea of his being married to her? I am not really sure the girl I have mostly been thinking of lately if she loved me (say, as a result of sufficiently believing my ideas to view me as an extremely wise person) would be any less likely to want to fuck than to want marriage, provided I didn't see it as my responsibility not to care for her (which since I think I love her might happen to a certain extent).

I know it sounds presumptuous of me to think any girl might think of me so highly that she could feel thus, but either what I believe about philsophy and sex is right, in which case I am a great moral-philosophical genius, the first person to understand holiness, sadness, young female sexuality, etc., and by far the most sensical opponent of true depravity about, in which case I figure I'm at least an order of magnitude wiser than anyone else with sufficient internet access to allow his/her ideas to be googled, or what I believe is not right (in which case marriage wouldn't be an advantage because kooky people aren't much at child-raising or money making), and of course, I think I am mostly right, or I wouldn't say so. So really, I think people must agree that I am not being presumptuous in thinking a girl I find attractive might want me such a great deal; really, I could only be dishonest to think otherwise, since it follows from my believing what I do that I also must believe myself to be, at least in some technical sense, a great deal wiser than other people. And for a male to be a great deal wiser than anyone else in any sense is something that naturally would be expected to make girls want one.

But there is another reason I think a girl even if well-loved might prefer her mate to not have responsibilities than for him to have caring responsibilities. True, mothers mostly don't tend to want their young daughters to have sexual relationships as much as their daughters want them. Indeed, mothers tend to be more conformist about judging people, and thus less likely to view a male highly. But marriage entails sex, too. At least when I imagine mothers of girls I would be more likely to have sex with, they probably don't want their daughters to marry or have sex when young as much as their daughters would tend to want it, but when it comes to choosing, I've a vague feeling they'd be more likely (than the daughters) to want the daughter to choose sex without the marriage than with marriage. Especially if such marriageless sex did not imply not getting cared for. Partly this can be explained by mothers wanting the extra proof of affection that a daughter proves by the daughter preferring sex outside marriage; if a daughter so much wants to attract young females to her lover than she doesn't value marriage, that is a sign of pleasant affection, all right. But I don't think that is it mainly. I think there is something else I haven't thought of, some subtle genetic argument I need to discover, perhaps implying mothers more care about their daughters' sexual pleasure (which especially would increase if it is easier for ther mates to get more girls in bed) than daughters do in any given sexual relationship the daughter might have.

There is so much I should and would be discussing now. Unfortunately, though, familial responsibilities have been swamping me lately, and will continue to do so for the next few weeks. In particular, I will soon be forced away from the internet for a while as I help my parents deal with my late grandparents' house. Maybe by then I will have figured out what I want to get at. Also, I want to post something about sympathy and how the danger of feeling violated is rather opposite from the danger of being violated. I.e., if you feel violated when you aren't, that's unfortunate, and needs to be dealt with opposite to how one should deal with an actual case of having succumbed to having been violated. If one is molested (forcibly sodomized), the problem with that is not that it makes you feel violated, the problem is that you are violated, and if you are violated, well, what is wrong with feeling the truth, namely that you have been violated? Precisely when one has been sodomized it is entirely appropriate to be very leary of one's sexual feelings associated with that event, as will be easier if you in humiliation view the act as one of violation. But if a male (say) gropes a girl or exposes himself, well, the danger of that is the opposite--it can by falsely making the girl feel humiliated, make the girl too leery of her sexual and more particularly lustful desires than what her natural tendency would be. For example if she was groped, and parents didn't make a point of encouraging her to feel good about herself, she might become in a kind of antsy way too afraid of superficial clitoral sexual feelings, that could lead to excess shyness when dealing with, ironically, people she by nature views as especially safe sexually. That not a few men do grope and expose themself suggests strongly that lots of people think abuse is just about humiliating. (Actually, sodomizers have a strong interest in not wanting to make girls feel humiliated about the depravity.) E.g., selfish abusive types try to make sodomy seem about humiliating (making the girl ashamed of her normal feelings) rather than the act of sodomy itself (the latter having extreme negative aesthetic appeal), and even more important probably, fallen girls trying to figure out why they enjoy skankiness naively often think the same thing. Gropers, exposers, etc., they are mostly just disgusting people who are deluded enough to think such behavior is desired or addictively appealing; much mroe so than forcible sodomizers, they presumably tend, fortunately, to get caught. Ah well, looks like I have mostly said what I said I was to say later.

A picture of me.

Here I am on a hiking trip in March of this year.

Parenting of young daughters

As discussed earlier in this blog, I rather like the idea of a mother playing a role in evaluating a young daughter’s potential mate. The mother’s main role is to keep the daughter from making big mistakes, and largely that involves sizing her daughter’s suitor up and evaluating whether he is deceptive or likely to screw her daughter up. The problem with letting a father get involved in this sort of evaluation is that genetically parents have more interest in not allowing the idiosyncrasies of the other parent evaluate a daughter’s potential mate than they do in being true to their own true (also idiosyncratic) self. The tendency would be for each parent to come to a kind of conformist compromise (each parent would forfeit his/her weird parenting tendencies in exchange for the other parent doing so), which would cause skill at evaluating suitors to evolve very slowly in parents. Indeed, such skills can only be selected for by evolution to the extent the skills are actually used, which won’t be the case very much if parents don’t use their own skills to evaluate male sordidness, but just evaluate a male’s sordidness by what conformist opinion is.

Though obviously the girl’s opinion of me matters most, I like the idea (at least in a world with reasonable laws) of not having sex with a girl until her mother is so comfortable with it she can just nonchalantly walk right into the room her daughter and I are having sex in, and as she refills our water glasses or drops off a snack by our bed, feel really good about her decision as she looks at the clean benevolence of me while I am having sex with her daughter.

I can’t really say the idea of a father looking at me at all so carefully does appeal to me at all. But I do feel the father or other male relative should play an important role in parenting. It’s just that the father shouldn’t judge a relationship so much by judging the suitor, but by judging his daughter. When at the dinner table, for instance, he should look at her before and during the relationship, and reassure/protect her according to the extent she looks like she possess/lacks the same snow-like innocence of untouched youth. A good man having sex with a girl overcomes her fears by teaching her what to fear, rather than by making her pretend sex is no big deal. And because he is honest, and because he appreciates and learns from her gracefulness, then shares what he learns, and because sex is such an effective and intimate means of expression (if had for real true other reasons), he will make her if anything even more innocent and clean than she was before. Probably not until the brightness of the innocence of his daughter’s lust for me is so strong it makes her dad squint would I feel ideally I should have sex with her.