The forces encouraging people to think ill of young female sexuality—Part 2: Scenesters and young female sex slaves.

(This is a continuation of the immediately previous post. Here I deal with the issues of control that I mentioned needed to be understood.)

Life is full of situations where there are several possibilities, and one person wants one thing and another person wants something else, and someone has to decide what happens, i.e., to control the outcome. People rightly see the importance of female sexual selection, and so (ideally, at any rate) when a female does not want sex and a male does want sex, the female exerts control and the sex does not happen. In that sense, females should control their own bodies, obviously. But some situations are less clear. Females very much want to be emotionally loved by males they are having sex with, and young females in particular desire this love especially very much. As I explain elsewhere, such emotional love, in my opinion, has several consequences on genetic crossover—on both the amount of crossover that appears in sperm and the amount of crossover likely to appear in the ova of daughters. And by extension, it has consequences on intraejaculate sperm selection, that are especially important to young and lustful females. A male can regulate the amount of emotional love for a young female who wants him sexually in order to try to get her to do what he wants.

Someone has to decide how sex will be. By default, the male controls his body and the female controls her body, if for no other reason that any other sort of control would demand some sort of extraneous difficult-to-exert coercion. But there are (at least) two methods to encourage others to do what one wants: reward desired behavior or punish undesired behavior. The former method is more generally considered polite and less worthy of censure. This is somewhat understandable because punishing generally involves inflicting hurt on the other person, and of course hurt tends to harm. But when punishment involves taking away something that another loves which one ordinarily does give and reward involves giving something that another loves which one ordinarily one doesn’t give, it in every way seems more loving to be a punisher than a rewarder. The difference is merely that a punisher ordinarily wants to give the reward (say, from love), while the rewarder doesn’t—he only does so to get what he wants. A good male is likely to want to be emotionally loving toward most girls. His loving a girl emotionally when she be not disobedient is not a reward because it is something he wants to give her. On the other hand, if a male does not want to be emotionally loving toward a girl, then indeed his emotional loving behavior can only be rewarding rather than punishing. So to make out as though a good loving person using emotional love as a tool to get what he wants is akin to rewarding rather than punishing in fact to a discriminating individual makes good people seem unloving and mean. Similarly, a mother who occasionally punishes her child by not letting her go out to play is more loving than a mother who only lets her child go out to play in order to get her to do things; the former mother is much more likely to care enough about her child as to actually really want her child to go out to play. Some people might say (looking at rewarding by doing x as being the same as punishing by not doing x) that there be no difference, but it seems to me that there is a difference (as indeed would be useful in making our language more expressive), and vaguely I feel that the difference lay in whether the reward be something that would have been given voluntarily were there no need to control. True, some slave masters might actually enjoy the practice and spectacle of punishment, but this is not really rewarding or punishing for the purpose of effecting some desired change in behavior, so one couldn’t really say that such slave masters are rewarding their victims for some desired end (as indeed would sound preposterous)—they are just being vicious. The important point is just to make clear exactly what I wish to mean when I use various terms; probably people use the terms slightly differently from what I use them, and I beg leave of the reader that whatever slight modifications of standard usage I might have inflicted be necessary as being preferable to the only alternative I see, namely inventing new words. And when I say that girls having sex with good males should in some sense be like sex slaves I don’t want people to think I just am phrasing that dramatically, for mostly it really does seem preferable and more accurate that they should allow themselves be controlled by punishment thus than to say they should allow themselves to be controlled by rewards.

If a male is good, he is likely to know he is good. Girls are very afraid of being tricked into loving selfish, and more particularly deceptive males. They don’t want to be deceived into relationships with males that otherwise they would see they shouldn’t have. Not only would it be a bad thing to reward badness by having these relationships, but also deceptive males are the most unrewarding and unpleasant (in the real sense) males for girls to have sex with. With any girl having sex there are likely to be many fears that keep her from being as lustful and sexually trusting in a relationship as she otherwise would be. Typically, these are fears that the male is much worse morally than she thinks—that he is tricking her. Oftentimes a male having a sexual relationship with a girl will see that the girl loves him an excess amount that gives him a certain power over her. In this situation he can force the girl to be more trusting and lustful by making her realize that he won’t be as loving of her else, which almost certainly will work if it doesn’t scare her away, because girls really, really enjoy emotional love from males. And because, to the extent his estimation of her affection be correct, she loves him more than barely enough to sleep with him, he won’t expect to lose much by being thus demanding. (Unless she wants sex for pleasure’s sake and feels no love, which is unusual since in girls real sexual pleasure and love are close.) Why shouldn’t he use his power for the good thus by being controlling in such a situation? Really it becomes clear that it is a very moral thing to do to try to force the girl to be more trusting when one considers that the consequence of wrongly attempting to use such force is her fleeing him, a disaster especially to himself (since males like sex so much), whereas the consequence of rightly attempting to use such force is more sexual pleasure for both of them as she becomes more relaxed, tantric, and generally into the sex. The possible bad consequences are mainly to himself, whereas the possible good consequences are to both himself and his lover. Caring less for himself on account of his magnanimity, he therefore will see the appropriateness of forcing the girl to do what is best for both of them.

Of course, it could be argued that if it becomes morally acceptable for males to force girls into being lustful and trusting, it will make it easier for bad males to force girls into becoming trusting, thereby putting girls at undue risk. But I make two arguments against this assertion. First, bad males are very good at hiding their controlling tendencies. Many millions of males are controlling females with sodomy without the females even realizing it. And any male who varies his emotional love for a female according to circumstance is likely having a certain control over his mate (but this latter sort of control girls are better at picking up), which to a certain extent a male may be able to excuse with the rejoinder that his love varies as his feelings change. Second, and more importantly, the slavery I view as appropriate is basically involved with forcing lust and most importantly, authenticity. Bad males don’t really want to force females into being lustful or tantric, because they don’t want intraejaculate sperm selection to select for their most pathetic sperm, either. And only sometimes would they want a girl to be more true to that part of the girl the girl views as herself, and only when that part of the girl is not her authentic self (the authentic part of a girl pretty much never wants to have sex with a bad male or more especially a deceptive male). And of course, it’s not that guys should force girls into being trusting when girls are deciding to have sex, it’s that they (sometimes) should try to force girls into being trusting while having sex. It is only in this latter sense in which girls should at times be sex slaves.

It is interesting to note as possible corroborating evidence of my assertions and reasonings that one would expect that mothers of girls who are willing for their daughters to have sex with a male would tend to try to encourage the daughters to be more willing to be slavish to him. Indeed, mostly it is conformist fears that a virtuous male forces out of a girl (usually by forcing her into herself), and fears in sex are mainly good as defenses against especially bad males. And though girls rightly tend to not want their mother involved much in deciding about whether a guy assumed basically good be sexually pleasant or not, mostly girls rightly tend to depend on their mothers to protect them from very big mistakes and, in particular, the deceptions of especially bad males. But daughters tend to want their mothers to be more conformist in their evaluations of the dangers of particular males than mothers usually are. This is annoying to mothers, who want their opinions about dangers, etc., to be respected. In particular, if a mother decides a virtuous male is not particularly dangerous, as she willy-nilly will if she allows her daughter to have sex, she will want her daughter to believe her and to sexually trust the male more than the daughter is likely to do so, unless she be forced. So a mother who consents to her young daughter having sex will tend to especially appreciate the male (through sexual emotion) forcing her daughter to be braver and less conformist in sex with him when it comes to her fears.


When I say that males should at times force females into being themselves, I wish to make clear that I don’t mean something ridiculous or conniving. Of course, I don’t identify a female’s self with her will, since there is never a need to force a girl to do what she would do anyway. “I command you do to do what you would do normally,” a rather pointless sort of servitude to impose on someone. When I say “self” I mean the important part of oneself, that part whose evolution is important. To be clear of what I mean, it is helpful to think in terms of genes. Some genes are more important than others, and accordingly it would be a mistake to think that the fraction of a person’s real makeup coded by a particular gene can be measured by (say) the amount of size of the gene or (what amounts to the same thing) the amount of space it takes up on its chromosome. It could very well be, for instance, that a gene important in mating choice or intelligence could take up the same space as a gene coding for toenail characteristics, but the advantage of clean toenails notwithstanding, one could hardly say that both genes are equally important or equally determine the (genetic) self of the person the genotype codes for. That said, it could be that a gene in a junk or unimportant region could code for its needs just as importunately as a gene in an important region. E.g., the gene in the toenail region likely doesn’t care about its continued evolution very much, because it is not very important that toenails evolve into better toenails. Thus, in the unimportant region one would expect simple genes that tend to code strongly for conformity. Genes coding for copying themselves are (comparatively) unimportant. It doesn’t take any great skill or complexity to copy successful people. What I mean then, mostly, by being true to oneself, is living so as to make use of one’s most important and special qualities, rather than just copying what the majority or successful majority believes. In particular, a female can choose a boyfriend by figuring out for herself, using her own special faculties and innate tendencies exactly what she wants in a boyfriend and then evaluating using her own skills the extent to which particular males measure up to those wants, or she can just assume her natural wants are like those of other girls, determining them by copying them rather than by reflecting upon her natural tendencies, and she can take largely for granted that common opinion is an accurate reflection of what any particular male is like. These are, to say the least, vastly different approaches, and insofar as mate choice is concerned, the first approach is what I mean by a girl being true to herself, while the second approach is what I mean by her being a conformist. Because girls can be conformists, clearly it is not necessarily the case therefore that girls are true to themselves. But of course neither do I mean that a girl should accept at face value what a wannabe controlling mate of her says she should do to be true to her true self. I claim that a girl tends to know what her own true self wants; indeed, if she doesn’t know that, What would one expect her to know? And she would strongly tend to know (at least if she has bothered to think about herself much) exactly what that self would do were she not conformist. If a girl senses a man is trying to force her to do something incompatible with her true self, though she ought to have some allowance for misunderstanding her own self (misunderstandings she should evaluate carefully to determine whether it indeed be likely they are actual misunderstandings), she is perfectly at rights to reject her wannabe controlling mate. Indeed, nothing says immorality and unworthiness in a male quite like insensitivity in judging the character of others. The whole reason some people have evolved to be moral is that the strong association between sensitivity and morality allows the latter to be judged by judging something (sensitivity) that is easily directly judgeable. Indeed, it is much easier to judge whether someone is sensitive about your own nature than to judge directly whether someone is moral or not; many pretend to morality who are not at all moral.

Why is it so important for good people to be themselves? Looking at the matter from a genetic point of view, it is clear that unless something subtle be involved, people won’t care near so much about encouraging evolution in their own genetic material as is in the interest of good people as a whole. If a gene in a good person influences behavior so that people containing the gene are more true to themselves than otherwise, this will on average encourage evolution of the behavior genes in an individual by making survival more dependent on the qualities the behavior genes code for. But the advantage from a gene evolving mainly will be to distant generations, which a person has little reason to care about since these distant generations are but very slightly related. But a person should care greatly about distant descendants, because goodness tends to mate goodness. A good person cares about the genetic material in his descendants that is not his own, because this genetic material also will tend to be from good people inasmuch as good people tend to mate good people. Unfortunately, the ordinary methods by which evolution selects for moral traits, i.e., what I call idealism selection, just won’t work at all well in selecting for unselfishness toward distant descendants. And so, unless something else be involved, people as a whole won’t care sufficiently about evolving fast and well. In particular, if something subtle isn’t involved, people won’t care sufficiently about being true to themselves, about mating early, or about valuing authenticity in others. I have already explained what tends to cause females to mate good males early, i.e., what I call nymphetal philokalia. A consequence of this phenomena, in my opinion, is that lustful young females during sex tend to affect the genetic material of good males in an especial way that allows special genetic material in males to be different epigenetically than non-special genetic material. This difference allows really useful genes in males to be more coded for than not particularly useful genes, and so when males are true to themselves, they can be especially true to that part of their genetic material that is especial in the sense that it is the sort of genetic material that is well-loved by young lustful females. Good males, therefore, if my theory is correct, have a great inducement to be true to themselves, because when they are true to themselves, they are especially true to that part of themselves that is good at attracting young females. A pretty young female just makes a good male want to be true to himself.

But what about females? Is there something that encourages females to be true to themselves a more appropriate degree than one would expect from the simplest evolutionary considerations? I don’t think one has to look very far to see that, at least with young females, there is such a thing, though it be rather curious because the reason it works is precisely that girls sometimes do tend to not think for themselves. Let us suppose that in fact girls are conformists mostly. This is actually a good thing in a way, because for nymphetal philokalia to work well it is important that good males who are especially good at attracting young females be well-rewarded sexually. And to the extent young females copy one another, well, getting one girl in bed would tend to mean getting lots of girls in bed, and so genetic material that in ancestors often mated other ancestors who were girls would indeed tend to be very studly and sexually successful with girls. But it is to do conformist girls a discredit to suppose them so simple and idiotic as to merely evaluate a male by how many girls like to sleep with him. For if conformity in girls is commonplace, it could very well be that his first girl was a rather random matter (or the advertisers pushing him pushed him for rather random reasons), and that the other girls he got he got just because girls copied one another in a sudden fad. Just because a guy has attracted numerous females to him, it doesn’t follow that any of these females actually put any of themselves into evaluating him or their own tendencies to desire him or no. If mostly they all just copied one another, that scarcely gives girls any reason whatsoever to think that the guy has an especially great ability to attract girls. Oftentimes, simple conformity and media manipulation together can create a fad that temporarily could make girls throw themselves at a guy, but if there isn’t a base of girls who want the guy because their own true natures really wants him, after a while the more cool girls who do think more for themselves will by expressing their doubts or by collectively not falling for him cause the sudden star to lose his glitz and his fall from fame could be almost as quick as his rise was. He will be so yesterday. And there’s very little reason at all to think that his genetic material succeeded at attracting girls because of characteristics in it that were especially good at attracting girls—his success in attracting girls was likely all pretty random, mostly.

Here is the thing, then. If a virtuous male sexually attracts a girl to him, that’s great for him, of course, but it’s a great deal better for him if he can make her have sex according to her own true nature. If the girl or girls having sex with a guy are true to themselves in wanting the sex rather than just being true to whatever the scene says a girl should be true to, the girls in the scene, likely being mostly conformist but not in the simple idiot sense, will be much more likely to just ooooh and aaah and find him altogether irresistible. A man is way more impressive if girls are having sex with him because it is obvious their own true natures want it than if girls are having sex with him because girls are mindlessly copying one another, so it is more likely to induce girls to copy the girls having sex with him. And a scene queen who has sex because her own true nature wants it is a better example to scenesters than one who had it for more random reasons. A virtuous male, being sensitive, will tend to know what a girl’s true nature be, and thus whether it be likely that her true nature would want to have sex with him or not. And because there be nothing deceptive about him, a girl’s true nature is much more likely to want a virtuous male than some bad one. At any rate, good males will tend to try to force girls into being true to themselves, not for any profound unselfish reason, though indeed, perhaps good males will to a slight extent try to force good females into being true to themselves just because they find it beautiful and what God or nature would want—even good males are not that good enough. No, the main reason good males will tend to force girls into being true to themselves sexually is simply that good males, like all males, want sex with scads of females, and by girls being true to themselves in bed with him, that will sexually attract to him the girls who are not true to themselves, who according to his ability and the particular nature of each girl, he can also try to make true to themselves once he attracts them into sex, thereby attracting more girls, etc., etc.. Yes, the reason virtuous males want girls to be true to themselves in bed is because it increases his chancing of obtaining a many-many female (one-male, sober) orgy.

Actually, though, girls really are pleased more-or-less by being especially true to themselves when in bed with a male. Probably what happens, I’m thinking, is that female lust is a little different and more selective of exactly the sperm that a girl most wants to be fertilized by when the lust is made authentically, as a result of the girl obeying her own true feelings. This makes sense, of course, because as just explained it is much more impressive if the girl lust in a (multi-girl, one-male, alcohol-drug-and-sodomy-free) orgy arises from the authentic feelings of the girls, i.e., from feelings that reflect the true natures of the girls and not from conformist feelings. Accordingly, girls could just voluntarily be true to themselves; however, that is not really what they want. A girl fancying getting fucked wants her lover to force her to be true to herself by his demanding on threat of punishment (i.e., by refusing to emotionally love her else) that she be so. Roar! A man who demands that a girl having sex with him do so for authentic reasons of her own on the one hand is a man sensitive enough to realize what he can get away with—he correctly evaluates what her real self is and in consequence can determine what it is he can demand of her sexually that constitutes a subset of that (and if in the rare case he demands something else that it is not in the girl’s nature to do, he can preface his demand with a disclaimer to the effect that, “yeah, maybe this is not something you want, but by your leave I beg pardon to demand it anyway”). It’s something she ought to find prudent the testing of, and of course if she love him enough that he can force her so, her love is more. And what’s really even much more important, a man who tends to force (young) girls sleeping with him into being themselves is a man whose ancestral genetic material is likely to have demanded the same authenticity of girls when it fucked them. Therefore, when a (young) girl has sex with a male who demands authenticity, her youth is selecting via intraejaculate sperm selection for that genetic material in him that is not only especially good at fucking girls, but also especially good at fucking authentic girls, which is very much more what she needs for her own sexual pleasure. And not only does her youth select for it, but the authenticity of her lust selects for it even more precisely. What’s more, though it be less important probably, the ancestors who forced girls into authenticity could force the girls into authenticity without the girls running away, a more impressive feat than merely accepting girls as they come. Girls having sex with a virtuous male who want to be authentic mostly don’t want to be authentic because they have to decide to be so, they each want to become authentic because he forces each separately to be so, because his wanting this authenticity that desperately is important to her sexual pleasures, and she tends to find it prudent to test for that.

It is interesting to note that one would expect (if my theories are correct) that much as male authenticity attracts females, female authenticity would tend to make for beautiful, better sex. Since girls are most authentic when having sex (that’s mostly the only time males would be expected to care enough about it to try and force it upon them) it is especially important to the survival of a gene expressed when a female is authentic that it code well for great sex.

As good evidence for my theories one can consider the extreme concern that in many ways conformist girls have to appear original. Some girls who mostly get things don’t seem to understand totally that guys tend to want girls to be authentic mainly because the guys want orgies. They just sort of assume that guys find that girls who decide of their own free will to be authentic are especially beautiful and attractive to them much like girls find authenticity in males beautiful. True, because authentic girls are better at sex, men can want them to be authentic for that reason, but logically that seems a secondary reason. Anyway, it seems kind of overdone to me how girls will fight and claw one another in an effort to be seen as authentic and the real mover and scene queen.


To conclude, the authenticity that exists in females largely exists because good males force (using threat of emotional punishment) girls in sex to be authentic to themselves. This force is beautiful, and girls in love mostly like to be forced thus. Also, as mentioned before, it is appropriate for a virtuous male to try to force girls having sex with him to be less afraid than otherwise. There are senses then, in which it is good for girls to be slavish, and a sense even in which girls like to be thus slavish. Girls really do tend to be sex slaves more than women, but that's not a bad thing; girls being willing in a way to be slavish is largely what makes for what authenticity that exists in females. So in fact, those hypocritical proponents of sodomy who would make young female slavishness to males fucking them a kind of red herring to wave in the faces of those opposing their foul perversions, well, they are only the more immoral (than less hypocritical sodomites) for having attempted to spread error in two spheres rather than just one.

Society and young female sexuality, part I

I started writing this a few weeks ago. I shall not have occasion over the next week-and-a-half to do much if any work work finishing it, so I figure I might as well post what I've written so far, now.



The forces encouraging people to think ill of young female sexuality.
First, we must understand the forces encouraging people to think ill of female sexuality in general. Males tend to have more opportunity than females to procreate without having to care for the offspring produced. In many species, the only part the father plays in the lives of his children is in the sex that helped produce them. Humans are not that way generally, but still, it is more normal and natural for a father to create a child he has no intention of caring for than it is for a mother to do so. Accordingly, if a male loves a female very well, it is generally unselfish and good of him to spend time caring for her and their offspring instead of chasing females to fuck (by which I mean neither more nor less than sex entailing no caring responsibility). Caring benefits both himself and his mate, while effort spent trying to fuck benefits mainly just himself. Rightly, most people see that the pleasure males take from caring for their children tends to be a more unselfish pleasure in the male than the pleasure males take from fucking. But what most people don’t seem to see, is that since this unselfishness is unselfish because it benefits beloved females, the situation is exactly the opposite from the female’s point of view. Exactly as it is more unselfish of a male to want caring pleasure than sexual pleasure, it is more unselfish of a female to want sexual pleasure than the pleasure of having a male care for her children. A male is unselfish largely to the extent marriage and his caring for his wife is more important than the pleasure of fucking. For the same reason, a female is unselfish largely to the extent the pleasure of fucking is more important to her than the pleasure of her mate caring for her. True, since if a girl is unselfish she has the advantage that unselfish males will more tend to love her, which especially might cause her to not need to fuck since someone she would be willing to fuck would marry her and care for her offspring produced by the same great sex anyway, still she is mostly unselfish because by nature she is more willing to fuck—to choose sexual pleasure over the comfy pleasure of gaining a grip on resources if she had to make the choice.

The reason sexual pleasure is in general derided in comparison with the pleasure of caring for children has to do with money more than anything. People with money naturally gain from an ethos which claims that it is better and more noble that consideration of money should determine sexual behavior. And people with money, having money, tend to have not only money but power also, and in particular the power to popularize the notion that money and the caring it affords is so important that a female shouldn’t have sex unless she can get it from her mate. Rich males tend to try to encourage females to more have sex with rich males; it’s in their own selfish interest to do so. But to say that male sexism is what derides female sexuality is rather sloppy. Indeed, it is selfish females, having a selfish need to deride fucking, who are probably most responsible for deriding female sexuality, and more particularly, female sexual pleasure. But in a way, a particular set of males, namely rich males, are in fact in some sense to blame for the ethos against female sexual pleasure. Were it not for them, the selfish interests of selfish males and selfish females would tend to cancel each other out, and that is the sense in which male sexism could (with more sloppiness than is appropriate) be blamed for the ethos against female sexual pleasure.

That money is associated with deriding sexual pleasure is suggested by considering societies where males can have many wives. Being able to buy many wives makes it even more selfish for rich males to deride female sexual pleasure, and so one gets the extreme derision of female sexual pleasure that one sees in some Islamic polygamous cultures, for example, which allow multiple wives but disallow husbands to fuck (or what amounts to almost the same thing, executes the females caught expressing interest in getting fucked). In the west a rich husband if really sexually desirable, not being much allowed to easily buy other females or to try hard to fuck them, may occasionally still value significantly his ability to fuck them, which fucking sometimes can happen without much of the effort that would be the main loss to his wife. Well, the main loss if he hasn’t been brainwashed enough to think that if he has loving, sexually unselfish feelings for girls he fucks or wants to fuck that those feelings hurt his wife or are some sign of infidelity or of dishonestly giving the girl the wrong impression about his lack of caring feelings for her. A wife tends to suffer from her husband having unloving unholy sexual feelings, and so if a wife may have sex in the next few months with her husband, she won’t want him to have such unloving feelings for other females, just as she won’t want him to have such feelings for herself.

Anyway, much of the widespread contempt for young female sexuality is a consequence of the somewhat less widespread contempt for female sexuality (more precisely, female sexual pleasure and lust) in general. Especially because, assuming an especially worthy mate, young females tend to be more lustful and to have greater capacity to experience sexual pleasure than older females. But mostly it is young female sexuality that people think is bad, especially if it is directed to older males. I wish to demonstrate the particular reasons that encourage the contempt with which their sexual desires are held by the majority.

Part of the problem occurs because young females are more allowed to have sexual or romantic relationships with boys than men. There are at least two basic ways a male can try to sexually attract a female. On the one hand, he can use his brains to (truthfully or otherwise) argue his case and make himself seem desirable. On the other hand, he can use addiction to addict his target into thinking himself more attractive than her natural feelings would indicate. This addictive phenomenon, though alcohol and addictive illicit drugs proper may be involved, typically mainly involves sodomy. Semen would appear to contain addictive and enslaving chemicals (e.g., enslaving chemicals that increase sensitivity to pain, making the torture of physical abuse more effective). These chemicals, when put into the digestive system via sodomy, addict or terrify the female into desiring sex. Young males are presumably just as addictive in their sodomizing than men are; what’s more, they may well be more physically fit and able to rape and forcibly sodomize victims than older males. People peak physically when they are young. But intellectually, people peak later, like in their fifties or even sixties (if they keep their minds exercised, are fairly cardiovascularly fit and don’t get Alzheimer’s). Intellectually, older males can compete very easily and effectively on an intellectual level with males of any age who seduce via depraved addiction. But boys who are rational and not depraved have a hard time competing with the addictive depravities inflicted on girls by their depraved peers. Boys just aren’t smart and wise enough yet to typically know how to do it. So since girls mainly just are allowed to have relationships with boys, they are especially vulnerable to disgusting addictions; the males competing with the disgusting males don’t tend to be wise and knowledgeable enough to effectively counter the seductions of their addicting peers. If society were such that girls mainly found it convenient to have sex with older males, virtuous males would not be intellectually handicapped in attracting them as they are now, by being forced to do so only when young. True, girls would be more exposed to more developed and cunning intellectual seductions, but since these seductions would be balanced by being more exposed to wiser counterarguments from the often virtuous men competing with the seductions, it is not at all clear that girls would in fact be tricked intellectually more often. What is absolutely clear is that because girls are more discouraged from having sexual relationships with older males than younger males, they are put at extreme risk of falling prey of becoming addicted to being sodomized, i.e., to becoming skanks.

Anyway, largely because what little sexuality allowed to young females is only allowed with males their own age, and partly because young females, being young, don't have as developed notions of their sexuality as older females, I will admit there are a fair number of young females who are in fact skanks. Of course, the depraved young males who profit by addicting young females to them via depravity naturally want people as a whole to think the behaviors they engage in are naturally what young females want. True, these depraved males don’t to a large extent directly deride skankiness, but by encouraging people to believe that young females are naturally skanky (so as to make the skankiness seem less unnatural and thus less worthy of being interfered with), in fact to the extent they are successful, they end up deriding young female sexuality among the masses, who still mostly tend to feel (rightly) that skankiness is not in fact something desirable in young ladies (or anyone else, for that matter).

But I don’t really want to give the impression that skankiness is something peculiar just to young females. Oh no. In fact, there are plenty of skanky older females, too. After all, the older a female is, the more time she has had to fall prey to depravity and embrace skank. But let’s not be too cynical. Oftentimes, a young women will realize that her life doesn’t appear to be going in the ideal direction. Maybe her screwed-up lifestyle is incompatible with becoming educated or making money. Or maybe her boyfriends are parasites bleeding her of money and interfering with education. Maybe when she was young she dreamed of a rocket scientist prince charming, and it is beginning to dawn on her that her boyfriend spends so much time chasing girls at bars that he probably won’t turn into anything near as respectable as that. Fine. She embraces change. And there are lots of men out there more than willing to help her embrace change. Oftentimes, though, the change they encourage is not the change they should encourage. After all, bad males rather like the idea of sodomizing their mates. True, a male doesn’t get the same ultra-addicting hold over a female from sodomizing her if he wasn’t the first to screw her up, but then there is an advantage in that it is much easier to talk a skank into skankiness than it is to talk an innocent female into trying such.

Let me be perfectly clear, however. The main reason older bad males tend to inflict their depravities on women rather than girls is not that they wouldn’t prefer to inflict their depravities upon girls, it’s because they can’t inflict their depravities upon girls. A girl who isn’t around older males won’t much have sex with older males, and if she is vulnerable to falling into depravity, will likely do so from a young male, anyway. And if a girl is allowed sexual freedom with older males, the virtuous males will so effectively compete with depraved males for her affection that depraved males won’t tend to bother. There is only one sort of bad male who will tend to go just for girls. That is the male so depraved and lacking of other attracting qualities that he must rely pretty much solely on sodomy in his seductions. He will tend to use forcible sodomy, torture (of the girls he forcibly sodomizes) and rape in his attempts to get females, and girls will tend to be preferable to him than women, since girls being comparatively unsophisticated and weak are more easily controlled by sodomy. But males that depraved and lacking of other virtues are rare. What is more, these rapacious molesters tend to be so stupid that they can’t communicate very coherently, much less make effective deceptions influencing society to encourage their behaviors. And what is yet still more, their behaviors are so hated, they mostly must hide their natures (and any pseudojustifications of their natures) so as to not make an intended victim or her protectors leery of them.

Anyhow, bad males who find it convenient to go after fallen women often find it convenient to account for a young woman’s mistakes by making young female sexuality a sort of red herring. They can’t after all blame skankiness since that is something they seek to further encourage. It strikes me there are two distinct approaches often employed by such men. On the one hand, a male can deride young female sexuality quite generally. Such a male might tell his young woman that basically “girls are stupid, and you had sex when you were a girl, that’s why your boyfriend was a jerk: you chose him when you were stupid, now you are wiser, wise enough to see you’d do better monetarily with me, so let me sodomize you instead.” This approach is what men tend to use when they feel they might feel the need in the future to not hide their desire to force their victim into fulfilling their selfish often depraved desires. It affords a convenient excuse for future controlling behavior. “No, I am sorry, the mistakes of your youth are still screwing you up, I must sodomize and beat you,” they might figure they might need to say in the future, so they really feel the need to make their victim’s youthful sexuality seem incredibly stupid and worthy of getting beat out of them. This is the more blameworthy of the two approaches commonly employed by depraved men when attempting to seduce fallen females, but it is not, I am inclined to think, the more common one nowadays, and thus in the aggregate probably does less harm. Mostly the modern seducer of fallen women is clever enough to take advantage of much of present society viewing depravity as basically no worse than just another piece of candy from the candy machine, and so he will be much more slick and hiding of his controlling tendencies. Compared with past societies, our present-day society is not at all anti-sodomy, and a cunning sodomizer takes advantage of that, by disassociating in the minds of his victims his sodomizing acts from the control that such acts tend to inflict. In fact, what he more than likely will try to do is to turn upside down his victim’s impression of his real desire to control her. He will attempt to control without even making her realize she is his insidiously obtained slave. To this end, he will make it seem that he thinks it immoral for males to control females, and more particularly, that her failures stemmed not from having become a skank, but from having had when young an unnatural willingness to become controlled arising from youthful weakness having been too weak to avoid cunning enslavement to some degree.

Young bad males, not being as intellectually clever, are not quite as talented in covering up their enslaving tendencies as bad older males are. But here is a point. It is hard to convince an innocent girl that screwed-up behavior is natural to her. But once a female has a long history of skankiness, she often wrongly comes to believe that maybe in fact she naturally likes skankiness more than she realized. Maybe she would have realized it earlier (she might figure) but for controlling tendencies of parents, etc., having warped her mind. Anyway, an older and somewhat more sophisticated depraved male can without a great deal of difficulty convince a fallen women that it is basically her own natural desire to want to be sodomized. In fact, when she feels ashamed of her disgusting behaviors, well, that is just wicked Christian fundamentalists or whatever trying to control her with shame by way of warping her from her natural wild dirt loving self in hopes she might convert her into a (tithing) regular church goer. “Sodomy is just an issue of gay rights, those who don’t think it American as apple pie are just bigots who have stereotypical understandings of masculinity,” they might say, if somehow the issue might come up. A desire to reform or a tendency to think something evil, they’ll make seem just a desire to control or force views on others, respectively. Notwithstanding the significance of sodomy is for control, and is in fact the most obnoxiously evil control employed by people in this world to any extent, these slick sodomizers will make out like they are actually better because they (supposedly) don’t want control. They won’t want to deride young female sexual feelings per se, in fact they are all for encouraging people to be true to feelings (sodomy, after all, works through feelings); they will instead assert that young females should be protected from being allowed to have sex because girls, being weaker, will almost willy-nilly be controlled. To be clear of the evil of their position, one must be clear how control relates to young female sexuality, and of the extent to which such control occurs and of the circumstances under which this control is bad.

Before getting into issues of control, it strikes me maybe my tone has sounded too misanthropic. Much of the error that exists in people is just that, namely error. So perhaps I should describe more clearly the common mistakes that basically good people make.

I agree with Locke that people don’t have innate ideas, but they do have natural tendencies. But it is not as though people have innate tendencies that continually motivate everything they do. For instance, when I am deciding to eat an orange, I am not tasting the orange because the orange is not in my mouth yet. So even when pleasure is not much removed from behavior, one can hardly say that an innate tendency directly motivates one to action. It is only because I understand that I can enjoy the taste of an orange by picking it up and putting it in my mouth that the orange tasting good would encourage me to eat it. And since I have come to understand that basically pleasure is associated with what is good for the survival of my genes, and more particularly, for the survival of myself, I won’t eat that orange if I have reason to think it might have too much toxic pesticide on it, even if the pesticide be undetectable to my senses. Indeed, I have abstracted from a long experience of examining my innate tendencies that I have innate tendencies of pleasure and pain that seem geared to my survival. And it seems beautiful to me that I should please myself when my doing so doesn’t make me feel bad about others, and so I abstract to think my survival is beautiful to me, unless I need to sacrifice my survival for the greater good, but I don’t thank that would be necessary or appropriate. So, even though lacking innate ideas, I can’t have the innate tendency to want to survive (the idea of survival being a very complicated concept), I yet have a tendency to want to survive that discourages me from eating quite possibly toxic substances—it is just not an innate tendency, but an abstracted one.

Anyway, people have innate sexual and romantic tendencies. But the greater part of a person’s sexual and romantic tendencies are presumably abstracted ones. They depend upon his understanding of his own natural tendencies and upon his understanding of the world in general. Take the tendencies of a male which lead him to want sex. If a male had never seen a female, he would be hard pressed to understand exactly what in the world he was feeling. He might, I don’t know, keep trying to masturbate in holes while writing poems about valleys, or maybe he would worship a tree with a hole in it, or who really knows how silly his understanding of his desires would be. It is only because he has had some acquaintance with females and the female form that he comes (rather quickly, usually) to understand that, yes, his sexual desires would seem to have to do with having sex with females. This understanding that shapes innate tendencies into abstracted ones is not automatic, and though in blatant cases it might be nearly universal that a particular abstracted tendency would follow from a particular collection of innate tendencies, often there is much occasion for differing understandings to produce differing abstracted tendencies. Now that we’re discussing how sexual fantasy influences understanding of sexual desire, and thus the desire itself, let us see exactly how understanding can affect people’s attitude toward the sexual fantasy that can familiarize one with his innate sexual tendencies.

Depravity, being addiction to sodomy, is very closely related to sexual desire. A depraved addiction to sodomy feels very much like sexual pleasure and love, apparently, which makes our emotions only too likely to confuse one with the other. Now, when a young person first comes to experience his sexual feelings and tendencies, he will observe, presumably, that masturbation (let this term include in its denotation sexual arousal that is not particularly orgasmic—i.e., tantric arousal as well as arousal that leads to orgasm) can be quite pleasant. If he sees masturbation as a kind of fantasy helpful in understanding a very complicated structure, namely the structure of his sexual tendencies and desires, then that he finds masturbation pleasant will not give him occasion for concern. But if his understanding suggests that sex is something simple and unworthy of much reflection—that all there is to sex is ejaculating in a female, say, then it will be all too easy for him to consider his strong tendency to masturbate as just some sort of depraved addiction, and further evidence that sexual tendencies in general and his own sexual tendencies in particular, are primitive and stupid. This belief will cause him to adopt a kind of severe attitude toward sexual fantasy—to view sexual pleasure as temptation—that will cause him usually to avoid thinking altogether about sex, which will prevent him from understanding that in fact his innate sexual tendencies are very intricate, reasonable, beautiful and deserving of his attention. Which is unfortunate, because the understanding that his sexual desires are not primitively stupid is the very reason he doesn’t explore them as much as he should. Many men I think are trapped in this Catch 22 situation. They don’t believe their innate sexual desires are intricate, beautiful and refined because they don’t take sexual fantasy and masturbation seriously, and they don’t explore their own innate sexual desires seriously, through calm reflected-upon sexual fantasy and masturbation, because they feel the desires are stupid—nay, worse than stupid, namely addictive.

There are in fact a good many groups that have a selfish interest which encourages males to think ill of sexual fantasy. On the one hand, you have religious groups that have a vested self-interest in encouraging the anti-Pelagianism that has characterized most Christianity since way back when. Religion is most properly for those too insecure of their own purity to feel confident otherwise than believing tested traditions. Screwed-up people, their own innate tendencies hidden amidst a flood of corrupting and deceptive experience, quite reasonably often just decide to fall back upon the standard dogma of their own cultural tradition, and to adopt traditional religion. Thus, a particularly effective way for a church to evangelize—to become larger, richer, and more powerful—is to excessively make people feel screwed-up. But it could be argued that the tendency for most ministers, etc., to be so anti-Pelagian at least partially has a less sinister cause. Because perhaps most of the churches that are soft on making innocuous tendencies seem sinful are only too willing to make vile wickedness seem “that’s ok”. In particular, a church that isn’t against depravity proper, i.e., sodomy, is mostly good for nothing except to dress up vile sodomy with tradition by way of making people feel less bad about it. It is only understandable that ministers looking at lax churches dressing up disgusting filth with tradition might get led by anger to excesses in the opposite direction.

And not all of the derision of male sexual tendencies comes from religions, either. For instance, there are certain dumb magazines and television shows that seem to pander to males with drinking problems that give the impression that men are merely simple brutish animals when it comes to sex. I suppose giving drunks the impression their drunken sexual tendencies are just normal male tendencies makes drunks feel better about themselves, which since drunks tend to think they deserve respect might make these magazines and shows more popular among drunks. Drunks might even feel better about themselves when they consider they prefer drinking to wanking, as is the preferred term for masturbation in these magazines and shows.

At any rate, the tendency for good males to feel bad about sexual fantasy is largely caused by their misunderstandings, but these misunderstandings are encouraged by people with selfish needs. This is a typical situation. Not all moral errors are asserted for selfish reasons—often errors are held by good people with good innate moral tendencies. But the moral errors which good (and bad) people hold are usually encouraged by bad people with a selfish interest in encouraging those errors.


And of course, then there are the men who (compared with other men) really do have simple primitive sexual tendencies. They naturally have a vested interest in making people in general think men have primitive sexual tendencies. Together with the panderers to drinking males, these males tend to cause people to think excessively that sex is mainly just for the sex, and not for procreation.

I remember thinking when I was in high school that maybe sex was mainly for some kind of expression or profound understanding, but with my present understanding, truly I can’t imagine desiring sex had for that. For instance, it honestly seems very incongruous and contrary to my desires to want sex involving birth control. How silly and pointless such sex would be! It is true that something very important that one can obtain from sex is expression and understanding, but it seems quite clear to me that the reason such expression and understanding occurs is that one is being true to one’s feelings. And my feelings for sex are for real sex, i.e., sex involving procreation, not fake sex. Once one sees the purpose of masturbation as being to fantasize about sex so that sex may be better and more beautiful, one is likely also to see that there should be a separation between fantasy and reality. How, if one masturbates on a female is the female to know whether the feelings expressed are real, or just fake? And how could one feel right about experimenting when fantasizing about something that turns out to be something one doesn’t really want would feel so disastrous, as it would feel if one is actually having sex? It is akin to writing a love letter. One is one’s normal mostly careless self when first writing draft, and it is full of lines crossed-out, impassioned sideways scribbling,, and in one’s normal fast poor handwriting, and so one files that away in the back of the closet and doesn’t show it until the courtship is long over. Having sex with a female to masturbate on is like sending a love letter that is a mistake-filled rough draft. Or it is like playing a computer game that is so real it is hard to be playful about it. As an adult with a mature understanding of myself, masturbating on a female, say, by having sex with birth control, would just seem no fun to me, as I imagine it would not seem fun to most males if they had more coherent less conflicted understandings of their sexual desires. But again, there is selfishness encouraging people to fail to realize what a little understanding of biology should make obvious, namely that sex is for reproduction. Selfish sodomizing males want females to experiment with sex, since females might be less hesitant to experiment with sex than to actually have children with a male, and yet experimenting with sex could be a very good justification for sodomizing a female, which of course tilts the experiment. Not that it isn’t appropriate to play with females about sex so as to better explore each other’s feelings, but kissing, etc., affords opportunity for that in a way that doesn’t so much resemble sex as to create the feeling that this activity is so much like sex it might be sex, and thus should not be a game. (Condoms don’t bother me the way that forms of birth control allowing absorption of semen do. One can’t do real sodomy and wear a condom simultaneously. But though I don’t think condoms should be illegal (as I am inclined to think the other forms of birth control should), I still think them stupid.

Another misconception males tend to possess concerns the purpose of holiness, and indeed emotional sexual love toward females in general. As I have explained elsewhere, the main significance of holiness is that its possession discourages genetic crossover during spermatogenesis. Looking back at my own past, I felt bad about my sexual desires because I knew I had non-holy sexual desires towards many sexy females. Somehow I seemed to identify holiness with cleanliness. But it is very important and appropriate that some males have unholy lust toward females. What especially makes for confusion is that the more a person is morally good, the more it is appropriate for him to be holy about everything, a state I call piety. People should be pious to the extent they think themselves better than others and thus deserving of more sex. Indeed, females and girls more especially get more pleasure from being fertilized by sperm containing little recent genetic crossover, and so being pious enables one to get sex more easily. And of course it is morally appropriate if you are a male who is morally better than others that you should get more sex. But males haven’t evolved to be pious in general, for though it is rewarding to any individual to be pious, it is not rewarding to the individual alleles that make a person up to universally encourage piety, since otherwise they would excessively tend to be stuck with the alleles (at other genes) that are linked on the same chromosome with them. Though they don’t need it every generation, genes need genetic crossover.

Anyway, I think there was in me as I imagine there might be in other good males another Catch 22. I didn’t think good of myself because a lack of piety made my sexual desires sometimes unholy, and the main reason I lacked as much piety as I possess now is that I didn’t think good of myself. Since of course when I loved a girl really greatly I had holy love for her, I for a while came to the conclusion that taking pleasure in having sex with girls one doesn’t want to marry is some sort of primitive vile emotion. I.e., I sort of believed there was a kind of war in me between the good holy part of me that felt sex should just be with a (well-loved) wife, but that also there was a bad unholy primitive part of me. But ultimately, I came to reject this explanation, because I was sensitive enough upon reflection to realize that the girls I really loved, the unselfish girls, more seemed to believe in free love than other girls. At first, I explained the difference by the consideration that girls could be greatly lustful and into sex in a beautiful way because it not being selfish for them to want fucking prevented them from evolving the primitive, selfish, fuck desires. It was not until 1991, that it occurred to me that the same reasons that caused unselfish males to view marriage as special would cause unselfish females to view fucking as special, and that symmetry and respect for unselfish females required me to consider fucking (in the clean sense) as being on the same par as marriage. I.e., a desire to fuck, like a desire to marry, tends to be selfish in the one sex and unselfish in the other. To view marriage as special because unselfish males would be expected to have more respect for it is basically just to be sexist, since one can equally as well argue that fucking is special because unselfish females would be expected to have more respect for it. This was such a sudden understanding that it created a deal of unrest in my mind, but I knew I was right, and after calming down have had a great deal of relief in my life in no longer feeling like a house divided against itself with temptation lurking all about and inside me. It is a great increase in sanity and freedom to not have emotions divided against themselves, and on the contrary to have innate tendencies that I can understand without having to throw some of them away.

I don’t know whether it happens with most males who excessively fall prey to the standard bias against fucking, but with me, it wasn’t so much that I felt badly of the girls and women who I couldn’t help lusting for, it was more I felt bad about myself for being unable to keep myself from having (not holy) sexual thoughts toward them. Still, I had tended, I think, on some level to view the lust as addictive. When people fall prey to sodomy, they usually hurt others more than themselves. Accordingly, when good people feel like doing things that are wrong, they tend to feel guilty. This is a noble tendency, especially in females, who more often fall prey to sodomy, hurting the males that they know justice and morality demands they should be having sex with instead of with the jerks who are sodomizing them. A good heart can go a long ways toward saving a girl should she fall. In clean people, guilt tends to be counterproductive (though we all have minor addictions to eating improperly, which I am not inclined to think ever go away, inasmuch as one can’t stop eating, and the more pure one’s eating habits become, the more probably the brain eases its anti-food addiction defenses to enable it to think better—I feel moderate guilt occasionally if I find myself eating bad). In ordinary circumstances, it doesn’t take guilt to stop a good person from doing wrong. A good person doesn’t like to do wrong, and if he sees that some error or whatever caused him to do something wrong, no problem, he just stops doing it because it is her nature not to do the wrong thing. And bad people do bad things because it is their nature to do bad things when they can selfishly profit thereby—guilt is irrelevant to them. I guess I on some level sensed girls would like sex better if I were pious, and so somehow I figured I must have some sort of addiction keeping me from being pious and thus from being especially nice.

Again, though the mistake I made was just an error, one can see that I had been influenced (though I hadn’t realized it) by people with selfish motives. For a false identification often made is that of purity with holiness. It is in fact very important that a male’s emotions about sex be pure and not involve anything reminiscent of sodomy or, more precisely, evocative of emotions that might increase sodomy chemicals in semen. For intraejaculate sperm selection can be a real phenomenon, and doubtless if sperm find themselves in a sea of wicked sodomy chemicals, intraejaculate sperm selection would be expected to select for genetic material that has sodomizing tendencies--a disaster. But this purity of thought is totally a different phenomenon from holiness, which has to do with discouraging genetic crossover in spermatogenesis. But one could see how selfish women, wanting to trick men into being holy for them, could encourage decent males into thinking lack of holiness be the same thing as impurity or wickedness of thought. Doing so might trick males who shouldn’t be holy toward them into having more holy thoughts.

The next mistake I made was somewhat in the opposite direction. I decided holiness was simply the emotion one had for a female one wants to marry, whereas unholiness was the emotion one had for a female one wants to fuck. Thus, upon encountering sexy females I felt I probably didn’t love enough to marry, it seemed natural I should lust for them. I guess I kind of figured lust was about communication. The female could see my lusting and thereby realize that I didn’t particularly want her in marriage. She would appreciate, I figured, my honesty and my not leading her on. So when I saw these pretty girls at a beach resort in Florida (one of the very few vacations my family ever went upon otherwise than for the purpose of visiting relatives), I was surprised that not long after lusting for a girl I felt I didn’t particularly love well enough to marry, lo, my feelings were filled with wondrous holiness and togetherness emotions I had assumed were just marriage emotions. It didn’t take me long (less than a week) to figure out what I now consider the truth, namely that holiness has to do with genetic crossover (and sexual togetherness “eternal love” emotion has to do with genetic crossover in gametes of female offspring). And that same trip I also figured out that sexual desire for females being young has to do with intraejaculate sperm selection. Truly, people are not born with innate sexual ideas that are their desires. People are born with innate sexual tendencies that they must explore by considering the opposite sex and that they must abstract from by understanding them, i.e., by determining the pattern in which they most seem to fit. A male can not understand his sexual desires without having occasion to consider females, and he can not understand his sexual desires without reflecting upon the innate desires elicited by those females and by deducing abstract desires from them in a process at once artistic and intellectual. I feel sorry for people who live in those countries in which females are covered with burkas, etc. There is nothing more special or beautiful in a good male than the refined feeling a beautiful female can elicit in him after reflecting with due consideration upon her beauteousness. What a shame it would be to not be able to explore those feelings until after marriage! And here in the Western world, I have great contempt for those would ban nude females/ females in skimpy bathing suits from television and the internet. We don’t need a world where males can’t easily explore their innate sexual desires. So what if some of the visual depictions of naked or almost naked females are dishonest or gross—the same can be said of verbal depictions of females in books, magazines, etc.

(to be cot'd.)

Snake

Last we saw the robin sitting on the nest was yesterday morning, about 12 hours after the last picture was taken. Curious and concerned, I went out today to look at the nest, and the nest was empty. No sign of broken shells or holes in the nest, etc. My guess is that the eggs have been eaten by a snake and become snake. I would have preferred the robin eggs to have become robins.

The robin nest

Here is the robin sitting on the nest that I tied in the tree after it fell on the ground. Supposedly the incubation period for robins is 13 days, so the eggs should be hatching any day now

More Journal

Friday, June 1, 2007:

The internet is broken today; Time-Warner will send out somebody tomorrow to fix it. Finished Book III of Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, mainly while I was waiting for a relative at a Doctor's visit. It's a little disappointing. Last year after having read the first book, I figured the rest would be equally as interesting. But notwithstanding the first quarter of the essay is remarkably important and ingenious, the next two quarters are much less inspiring. We'll see how the last quarter is (Book IV).

The robin nest was leaning again, so I put on a hard hat and my Dad's old army jacket and did tie another string underneath it to help prop it up again. I don't think any more string will be needed--it's getting to the point I am building a net underneath the nest. I think the birds have added more clay to the nest. I was going to punch a hole in the side of the nest and thread a string through the hole to tie it directly to a branch, but the nest has so much clay in it it's almost a clay pot which I might could fracture by trying to punch a hole in it with a screw driver, etc.

(Comment: apparently after five people in our neighborhood complained, the internet problems were declared an outage, which caused Time-Warner to fix the problem earlier. The internet came back on about 9pm today)

Sunday, June 3, 2007:

It occurs to me I neglected to mention in my entry of May 24 another phenomenon that scares girls away from their sexual feelings for other girls. If a girl is in love with a guy for the right reasons, the thought when it enters her mind of his having sex with another girl or girls while having sex with her will cause a sudden increase in the sexual pleasure she gets from lusting for him. It is all too easy for her to mistake this lustful desire for him as akin to the kind of depraved controlling aggressiveness a bad male is likely to feel if he becomes jealous. A wicked male especially tends to want to sodomize a girl when he feels like he needs to exert more control over her, which of course is what he is likely to view as more necessary if he has competititon. In fact, occasionally a skanky female if sufficiently sophisticated (in the idiot sense) about her skankiness will actually try to make a male jealous so as to try to provoke him, because she knows that will tend to make him more sexually aggressive toward her or to sodomize her more. But females that skanky are prety rare; in fact, perhaps more often females accused of this are actually just girls who flirt with other males because they want to leave whatever relationship they are in, which can tend to make the guy controlling her (quite possibly by sodomy) resort to Taliban-like ultra-accusatory behavior, or they are confused in the opposite way, namely they think that other guys will be a turn-on for the guy she loves just as other girls are a turn-on for her. But the (special, beautiful) lust for a male that the (special, beautiful) lust of other females can induce in a female has nothing to do with sodomy, but (imo) with intraejaculate sperm selection.

It looks like we are getting a good soaking rain today. We need it.

Oh, well, perhaps (to be exhaustive) I should mention that occasionally a girl who feels screwed-up will sort of feel like she wants to devirgin some other girl to make the latter girl more accepting and less critical of whatever disgusting things the girl thinks she is into. This is a pretty rare minor phenomenon, and virginity isn't that important, but still, it pays to realize that girls like that exist and should be guarded against. An innocent girl doesn't need other girls trying to make her feel not innocent and like she now has no choice but to accept depravity.

Of course, another thing that can happen is that girlfriends of the girl lusted for by another girl can also think the standard thing (mentioned a few weeks ago) that the lust of the other girl has to do with a desire to control her girlfriend, and since the girlfriend doesn't want this control to interfere with her being the girl's girlfriend, she might somewhat unkindly be against this lust. This probably isn't too serious; mostly if you're a good girl and a girl wants to be your girlfriend that bad, it's a pretty good sign about her, I mean her wanting to be your girlfriend so much.

Journal

Lately I have been writing something of a journal on my computer. Since most of the entries are about ideas anyway, I guess I'll just paste them into my blog periodically. Here are the first three:

Thursday, May 24:

So I thought I would start a journal. I have an inkling I too much only blog weighty stuff. My daily activities and less careful everyday speculations and thoughts might also be interesting. And writing a journal might take something of excess seriousness out of my writings, which I suppose is there at times.

So what happened today? Well, yesterday I noticed that sitting beneath a cherry tree just 10 feet from the road was a robin sitting on a nest which we had noticed a few days earlier had fallen down. She looked pretty silly, and yet was easy to feel sorry for. Upon approaching the nest, she flew away, revealing the two teal colored eggs in it. I decided to try to take a movie of her, but no go. Even though I left my camera on a tripod before the nest and walked away, I guess the tripod was too scary, and so she wouldn't sit on the eggs when the camera was there. I looked up on the net recommended procedure, and followed the standard advice to put the nest back in the tree and tie it down. That's what I did.

Anyway, yesterday afternoon we would see her all confused and anxious scratching about beneath the tree bewilderedly, wondering no doubt where the nest went to. It was in the tree! Just where I tied it. I figured robins hadn't much evolved to deal with the situation of nests getting lifted into trees. So I was pleased this morning when we noticed a tail sticking out beyond the nest, and sure enough, there was the robin on the eggs again. She had found the nest! I hope I tied it down well enough that it won't turn upside down dumping out the chicks or eggs, and that no chicks will get strangled in the twine.

This morning I thought slightly about how sometimes a girl looks like she want to fuck some other girl's brains out, but because this desire is associated with her desire for a male and is quite carnal, she figures her desire must be akin to a guy wanting to screw his competitors to keep them away from his girl. Girls are turned on sexually by sharing sex with other girls, it's just the way it is--these bisexual lust feelings don't really have anything to do with abuse. In fact, I think what sometimes happens is that a girl who is the object of such aggressive lust from another girl is more than likely (if indeed she likes the same male) to want to be totally at ease and seductive about it, or at least would be if she weren't afraid the aggressive girl might accuse her of using seduction to egg her on. I suppose it seems heartbreaking to girls to have their innocent sexual desires rejected or viewed as some wily seduction to be resisted. It's weird that girls can look like they are quite sexually turned on and in love with one another, and yet presumably be too guilty and frightened to do anything about it (e.g., sleeping naked waist-to-waist at sleepovers). A shame, but then it seems rather not very sacred for me, a male, to talk about purely female matters, so it's not something I particularly want to get into discussing much. And besides, it is not the biggest deal to girls, not as big a deal as a female being true to her more important and signifcant sexual desires for a male. Anyway, it strikes me girls often mistake sexual desires for other girls with jealousy. IMO jealousy is an overrated boring and mostly irrelevant phenomenon, probably relevant basically just in your evil people, e.g., sodomizers and rapists, blatant golddiggers, etc.

A couple days ago I was reading Locke and got to thinking about something quite different that was slightly interesting, but I don't remember what it was. Yeah, there are lots of little things I think about during the day that make me think, I should just go right ahead and write about that. But they not really being very significant and weighty, I forget about them enough to a few hours later fail to have a clue what I wanted to write about. Maybe this journal will correct that.

My logic ideas I'm working on are coming pretty well, I guess. The last two things I thought about were how to define quantification--I realized my previous way of looking at it was somewhat off--and a sort of trivial idea that unary logical operators should be written next to the binary operator that immediately includes them. For instance, instead of saying "not A and not B", better to say "A not and not B". That way, "not A and not B" can unambiguously mean not (A and not B). This way of reducing parentheses (awkward during oral logical discourse) is perhaps more readable than the Polish method (which with respect to binary operations basically amounts to replacing opening parentheses for "and" (resp, "or", "implies") with "both" (resp., "either", "then"), and then erasing end parentheses (and even the operators themselves, if easy readibility is not your concern). Ha, this method I am thinking about using is akin to chiasmus and rather makes math discourse sound more like looney poetry or political dialogue. I am glad I figured out to my satisfaction a decent way of getting around my mistake about quantification. When I do notice a mistake I have made in some math idea I believe in (it can be shown that any mistake in math, no matter how trivial, makes the entire edifice of mathematics contradictory, so yeah, it's always a big deal), I can get quite gloomy about it, gloomy in a way that has something profound about it, though--I have corrected an error, thus making me more wise.

Oh yes, political dialogue. This reminds me of a little new thought I had today. Maybe people actually should think about politics more than they do because politics is one of those things that brings insane emotion that people in their ignorance don't rightly know how to avoid. It is too easy to think when thinking about politics to think about what others will think of you as opposed to what your understanding indicates as being the case. This would explain to me the strange almost sacred cool appeal to me of subjects now of practically no interest to a signifcant number people, like the history of Byzantium, the Dutch school of English grammar in the early 20th-century, or spherical geometry. But maybe it's not so strange. Only the good people are probably looney enough to find solace in forgotten obscurity, which I suppose might make the few practitioners of such fields more likable than most. And a field so far as its productions should be studied is only as good as its practitioners, right?

Sunday, May 27, 2007:

This morning I noticed the bird nest was tilting drastically. I pushed it back to horizontal and added a few pieces of twine under one end to shore it up. It is still not exactly satisfactory. If I notice any more tilting, I'll probably use wire next time to give it even more support underneath. There are now three eggs in the nest.

Yesterday I bought two books at Barnes and Noble. All on Fire, a book on William Lloyd Garrison and The Metaphysical Club, a book about how American philosophy developed after the Civil War. Actually, I am interested in the latter precisely because I am struck by how bad American philosophical thought was during that era, and I want to know why. Why would anyone think William James otherwise than ridiculous?

Thursday, May 31, 2007:

Something I have noticed is that the few really cool girls I have observed tend to look very likable and upper class. Mostly money is overrated, but it would appear that being wealthy is useful when it comes to being cool. Somehow I don't understand this. One might equally think really cool girls would tend to be from families where parents have had to struggle. After all, one gains wisdom in how to stay cool by being experienced with how to stay cool in trying circumstances. This is why veteran soldiers can fight more coolly than new recruits. Anyway, occasionally one encounters girls cool and smooth as silky cream, and they mostly always look like they have had priviledged backgrounds, and even as though they went to private high school, etc. As for not particularly likeable girls, I can't really sense more coolness in girls raised poor than wealthy. I guess that suggests a partial explanation. There is a strong correlation in the rich between moral virtue and being clear-headed about what to fear, the tendency to look at poverty itself as disgusting having a strong association with a snobishness suggestive of moral shortcomings. It occurs to me now (hmm, I vaguely remember having had this thought maybe nine months ago) that having travelled greatly (which requires money, of course) is probably the other explanation; probably having travelled much to weird places and returned alive and unscatched gives a sense of perspective that encourages calmness. Or it may be something different, e.g., not having any reason to fear going hungry may encourage one to eat with greater sacredness and regard for taste, and fresh produce tends to be pricey.

Another thing I was thinking of is how high class glamour fashion in a way is better than fashion for poor people. Indeed, intrinsically fashion when it comes to clothes, etc., is about attracting people who don't know you well, who more tend to be people outside your social circle. Thus, fashion is intrinsically anti-snobby and something to be admired. But fashion for rich people in a way is better than fashion for the poor, because there is something unselfish about rich people who care about their appearance to those outside their social set--these would tend to be those more willing to not mate for money. But poor people who are into fashion may partly be into fashion because they want to attract rich people outside their social class, which could be less unselfish.

Models are cool, as is clothes fashion generally. The bad thing about fashion modeling is that it seems to attract many male homosexuals and people with addiction problems. Quite generally, people who go into artistic professions are at greater risk of getting sodomized, because sodomy affects the emotions and so sodomizers tend to go for that sort. Also males properly care less than females about how they look, probably because females tend not to make the first move in relationships and so they have less occasion for judging by appearance to be useful. Males are good at judging by appearances, though. I know what I like, but probably wouldn't be very good at thinking up a style or imagining what it would look like before it be made.

The other girly thing I can think of that I like that might make some people think me unmanly (tssk, tssk), is that I like the way girls exercise. When I exercise there is a sense I want to feel like a girl feels when she exercises--a very fit girl enjoying her springish efficient fitness-inducing movements. Guys tend to exercise in a brutish way that I can do without. The way most guys exercise, the way they feel and enjoy their workout, it is too gay (in a sodomizer way as opposed to a sodomized way) I sense--I like to feel like girls feel, the cool way. I have a difficult time explaining exactly what it is about how girls exercise differently from brutish males, but intuitively I sense the difference, and the girl way is the cool way worthy of imitating. I think this has to do with meiotic selection in the female. Probably some genetic material tends to get ovulated when a girl is fit and trim and other genetic material tends to get ovulated when a girl is not as fit or trim. The former genetic material is more desirable. And this sort of meiotic selection in the female I think is always relevant, e.g., there is no way for the male to be able to regulate the extent to which this meiotic selection occurs. On the other hand, meiotic selection in males basically only is relevant when he is having sex with very lustful females in tantric sex. So ordinarily, females probably don't care much about whether their partners are physically fit. Probably only when the female is full of lust will she care much sexually about her mate's fitness. But when she is lustful, she'll care a lot about her mate's fitness, maybe even more than males care sexually about female fitness. However, she won't get much if any real pleasure from a brutish kind of fitness in her partner because (a) there is an association between brutish fitness and rapaciousness (rapists and more particularly forcible sodomizers work through brute force) and therefore a tendency to sodomize, and lustful females are hurt enormously by sex selecting (haploidly) for anything suggestive of sodomizer traits, and (b) the most important meiotic selection as regards fitness in the general sphere occurs in females and so since in my opinion female lust probably introduces a kind of assymetry in sperm development, making the development more akin to gamete development in females (where many genes end up in polar bodies), the female would want the male to be physically fit in a way that best selects for material in fit females, where the selection has mostly occurred. Abdomen fitness would seem to be the most important kind of fitness, probably, since the abdomen is where gamete development tends to occur. Overall fitness also would be important. Swimming is probably the exercise I can get into the most, I'm guessing because it tends to exercise the abdomen muscles pretty well and pretty much the whole body. (Hah, hah, it is also the kind of exercise sperm have to do, which is however more doubtfully relevant.) I don't get much opportunity to swim, but when I do swim I like to look at fit girls swim and enjoy swimming while trying to feel in my musculature the exercise the way the girls seem to be enjoying it. Of course, it's also cool the way girls can be very graceful when they move, but that is more something I find beautiful to look at than something I tend to want to imitate much. Even if I were particularly athletic, I think it would be pretty hopeless and pointless and presumptuous for me to try to be more graceful than graceful females--I don't really think, being male, that I would have a great deal of ability to artistically inspire people that way. For the same reason, looking at males ice skate or do gymnastics--how dull--but beautiful girls skating, dancing or doing gymnastics--oh yeah--that can be beautiful and somehow can make me even more full of pure clean innocent feelings toward them.

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.