I thought I would give a few more vague impressions I have concerning Obama, relating to his sanity.
An effective manipulative technique to make an issue seem more of moment than it otherwise would be is to encourage the audience to view it as THE issue. People have the innate tendency to want to view one issue as THE issue. I.e., to view precisely one issue as so important that if you have the wrong opinion about it, well, you're screwed. This is because there is one issue that is always THE issue. Don't get addicted to oral or rectal sodomy, and congratulations, you're already half-way to virtue; at any rate, you quite literally are not screwed.
What strikes me about Obama is that he comes across as believing that his becoming president is THE issue. He has a way of projecting that if we only believe in him and put him in the White House, voilá, he will make our country pure again in the important sense. There are lots of people who try to manipulate thus. For instance, preachers will tell you that if you only believe in the Bible, you will be saved. Or financial gurus will try to get you to believe that if you only follow ther advice with sufficient enthusiasm and belief, money will sprout up all about you and you will get rich. Obama is a little different, though, from the Suze Ormans or the typical evangelical preachers. He doesn't so much play on fear for he seems to think our country (with at least one important exception, namely him) already is screwed-up; the only thing to fear would be more of the same, and most people just aren't very scared of that. But once he comes in, unifies the country and maketh THE GREAT CHANGE, we will be saved, he seems to think.
I could cynically say that Obama is being manipulative, but I actually don't feel he especially is that. My impression is that Obama actually believes that he can make THE GREAT CHANGE in our political system that will lead our country to pristine springs of prosperity and togetherness. Obama is crazy, I'm inclined to think. What is very strange about Obama is that notwithstanding he is crazy, his opinions are fairly normal. Most crazy people rightly feel that THE issue, i.e., the issue to be obsessed about, is always the craziest, weirdest issue imaginable. In a society with correct opinions about sodomy, THE issue is not important, and in other societies, THE issue will tend to be the issue which seems most insane--the issue which the issues of crazy people most tend to resemble--because largely people become crazy to find it. At least in a comparatively pro-sodomy society such as ours, the typical crazy person will be wise enough to believe THE issue is about the bizarre. But Obama does not seem to have done so. What he seems to be saying is that if we just do the typical things liberal Democrats have been suggesting of late, e.g., pull out of Iraq, make the taxes a little less regressive, make health insurance somewhat easier to get, Wow! we will be saved as he parts the Red Sea of disunity before us ennabling our trip into the great promised land of THE GREAT CHANGE.
It is very hard to convince people that THE issue is THE issue, because THE issue (sodomy) is something people laugh at, and because many have addictions that make them feel THE issue is not the issue. What Obama asks of us is easy. He just wants people to believe the standard things that democrats have been saying for years. It is much easier to get people to believe normal opinions. After all, people with self-doubt want to believe in normal, and since Obama comes across as wanting us to believe we are all screwed up, his remedy of normal has a certain appeal. It's a help he has a booming, powerful voice. Zombie people like to be rescued by the strong. The big help to Obama, though, is that he actually believes. Sincerity is hard to fake, and I'm not inclined he has to.
I can imagine how Obama might have become crazy. I have read that in much of his childhood he was separated from his mother. Very possibly he viewed the separation as caused by something screwed-up. In a situation like that it can very easily seem emotionally that not succeeding here, not succeeding in defeating whatever caused his mother to be away, is a defeat by screwing-up forces equivalent to his own self getting screwed up. This can lead to an obsession. What is most peculiar about Obama is that whereas almost any normal crazy person would view his loss as having been caused by extraterrestrials from a planet orbitting Arcturus, or his mother secretly having pledged herself to the rules of the gypsy council, or some other bizarre such theory and that the answer lay only in deciphering the secret codes she has given him that lay all about him, instead he just seems to have decided that the answer to preventing such problems is the most conventional one.
Don't get me wrong. I am not against Obama because I think him a little crazy the way he comes across as believing himself on a mission. On the contrary, craziness rather suggests anti-sodomy characteristics I want in a leader. The craziness itself can be annoying and even disabling if excessive, but it says so much good about character, I can live with it. What bothers me is not that Obama is crazy, but that he is not looney enough for a crazy person. Given his craziness, such absence of looneyness doesn't suggest effective anti-sodomy characteristics, and rather undoes what his craziness suggests about his character. Accordingly, his personality doesn't suggests to me one way or the other whether he is virtuous. And the craziness itself will be a disadvantage, especially since he doesn't appear looney enough to profit from it. I don't know why he is so crazy without being looney. I suspect these traits are in his makeup. It's a very strange combination, I am inclined to think, and can't offer any explanations other than that combinations with small chances can happen, especially in a huge world like ours.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why Obama makes me uneasy.
I end up watching a great deal of CNN and MSNBC because my mom is very much into the election and likes to keep up with the election drama not very differently I think than from how I used to keep up with sports when I was a kid (only she is even more into it), and so the television often tends to be on and tuned to those stations. We both agree the coverage is awful--the shameless emotional manipulations to make it seem like every bit of news is the most important thing to know about since the invention of the wheel. It is just not a restful thing to listen to for me, and so I'd rather get my news from the internet. Anyway, what we notice is that these networks are very much pro-Obama and anti-Hillary. Right from the get go I could tell they had decided they want Obama to win. That, if nothing else, makes me not want to vote for Obama, since it makes me wonder whether there be some corruption causing the media's slant. In the debates Obama really doesn't say at all precisely what he is going to do, and though he speaks about change as though he has some original different ideas, I suspect that if he had these original ideas to a significant extent, he would tell us what they are.
Conspiracy? Has Obama bought off the MSM somehow? I doubt all that. Some of it I think is pure sexism. Obama is OK at giving emotionally dramatic speeches, that's probably his main skill. And it is a skill of presentation not unlike the skill that would make one television personality more fit to squabble and make dramatic political pontifications than another personality. If Obama gets idolized, the male television personalities probably figure they will end up getting idolized too, which might make them get sex easier. But that's all rather obvious, the same sort of thing that makes television full of shows about entertainment personalities nobody with sense who doesn't want to go into the entertainment profession would ever hardly care about. I also think there is something more subtle going on concerning Obama's mixed race.
The main reason I am uneasy about Obama is that I think he has an extremely high opinion of himself that is not justified by what he seems to be, judging from his debates and his declared opinions. I suspect he is extremely conceited. What's more, I don't think people are realizing just how conceited he is because they don't understand the significance of mixed race. Many people are prone to judging one's opinion of oneself by judging how pious one is; thus the expression, "holier than thou." This is mostly very reasonable. If a male thinks he is great, especially in the moral sphere, he will tend emotionally to postpone to future generations the crossing-over of his DNA in his gametes, because postponing this so, by creating in himself a spirit of holiness and piety, will make him in this generation more sexually attractive to females, which on some level is what he feels he needs to do, because he be unusually great in his own estimation. Obama comes across as being rather pious in aspect, which in ordinary circumstances would seem a little excessive considering how he comes across on television. But it would not appear so very excessive I should think it terribly excessive except for the consideration of his mixed race. The whole point of genetic crossover is genetic mixing. In no person is genetic crossover more relevant and appropriate than in a person with parents of differing race. Obama has done pretty well for himself. If he is what he presents himself as, there would appear to be a fairly harmonious new combination of DNA there in his person, a harmonious combination that just won't exist much anymore in his descendants unless he is more lustful than he is, because it is a new harmony. Males of mixed race (and more especially and precisely males whose parents are of different race) should be a great deal more lustful than males not of mixed race, and I really think that is their (appropriate) tendency mostly. That Obama comes across as pious makes me think he is either a remarkable faker or that he is extremely conceited (probably the latter). There are other possibilities, I guess. E.g., he could be very much into girls, who especially appreciate piety (this would actually make me want to vote for him, but I don't think that is the most likely explanation). Or he could idolize his wife an extreme degree or be extremely hen-pecked by her (I wouldn't be surprised if both of these possibilities might apply somewhat, but I think them less significant possibilities than his conceitedness). And a president who thinks too highly of himself could be quite a dangerous thing that I don't want. Especially since apparently he used cocaine previously.
I am really quite certain sons of parents of different races should be more lustful and less pious and holy than sons of parents of the same race. Indeed, a few years ago when I was on a train, I was pleased to sort of eye flirt during most of the trip with an extremely pretty girl whose parents were of different races (her mother was white, and her father was Asian--Filipino or (less likely) Thai I guessed). I would look at her all holy and pure and innocent, and she just really tried so hard to get me to look lightsomely at her like that was how I would feel about her if I liked her--not so much in a seductive way like she was temporarily adopting seductive emotions to destroy misplaced guilt in me, but like she figured with emotional lightness all around is how our physical love and attraction if it ever came to that (I don't wish to indicate whether I think it already came to that in her) would be. It's as though it never occurred to her that I could physically love her in a holy way or that holiness could ever have anything to do with anything but priggishness. And I deduced from having looked at her and (a great deal less) at her other family members what the deal was. Her brother also was a very special person (though I didn't look at him much, duh, since his sister being so pretty and of the opposite sex was of course much more interesting to me), at least he looked that way, and his sister probably loved him and their family so much that she definitely didn't want him to have the holiness that would be inappropriate from the point of view of producing lasting genetic connections between her mother and father. She sensed that her brother, a lovely son in a beautiful interracial family, will need when dealing with females to be emotionally lightsome and not very all-serious like, and that's how she just sort of assumed all males should be. That is something else that is weird about Obama. He says that he believes in making one America (a very good and effective political goal, which if I recall by the way was Edwards' stated goal four years ago before he apparently decided to change this time around and run mostly using the standard rich-are-evil-wicked-people platform), but if he believed that emotionally, Why wouldn't he emotionally be lightsome like cream (the girl somehow reminded me of cream or creamy smoothness, or maybe some sort of ideal healthy vegan creme since I mostly avoid milk products), since in some sense that would bring his parents together? (Of all my biological theories, my one concerning males being able to regulate genetic crossover in gametes should be the most obvious. It just doesn't make sense to anyone who thinks for himself that such a tendency wouldn't evolve given the ease with which such control could occur and the usefulness of it to evolutionary survival.)
I prefer Hillary to Obama. I am also OK with McCain. The Republicans seem to be getting better, and the Democrats seem to be getting worse. The Democrats have the cowardly wrong position about the war and they are too pro-sodomy. The Republicans are too much for the wealthy and tend to be too much in line with the evangelical fanatics. McCain comes across as less for the wealthy and the evangelicals than the other Republicans, and he has the best war position of all the candidates. Believe it or not, what bothers me especially about McCain is that he has been (and I guess still is) very much against Amtrak. I have always loved trains, and with today's energy crisis, they make more sense than ever. How could anyone be against trains? I'll probably vote for Hillary over McCain and McCain over Obama.
Conspiracy? Has Obama bought off the MSM somehow? I doubt all that. Some of it I think is pure sexism. Obama is OK at giving emotionally dramatic speeches, that's probably his main skill. And it is a skill of presentation not unlike the skill that would make one television personality more fit to squabble and make dramatic political pontifications than another personality. If Obama gets idolized, the male television personalities probably figure they will end up getting idolized too, which might make them get sex easier. But that's all rather obvious, the same sort of thing that makes television full of shows about entertainment personalities nobody with sense who doesn't want to go into the entertainment profession would ever hardly care about. I also think there is something more subtle going on concerning Obama's mixed race.
The main reason I am uneasy about Obama is that I think he has an extremely high opinion of himself that is not justified by what he seems to be, judging from his debates and his declared opinions. I suspect he is extremely conceited. What's more, I don't think people are realizing just how conceited he is because they don't understand the significance of mixed race. Many people are prone to judging one's opinion of oneself by judging how pious one is; thus the expression, "holier than thou." This is mostly very reasonable. If a male thinks he is great, especially in the moral sphere, he will tend emotionally to postpone to future generations the crossing-over of his DNA in his gametes, because postponing this so, by creating in himself a spirit of holiness and piety, will make him in this generation more sexually attractive to females, which on some level is what he feels he needs to do, because he be unusually great in his own estimation. Obama comes across as being rather pious in aspect, which in ordinary circumstances would seem a little excessive considering how he comes across on television. But it would not appear so very excessive I should think it terribly excessive except for the consideration of his mixed race. The whole point of genetic crossover is genetic mixing. In no person is genetic crossover more relevant and appropriate than in a person with parents of differing race. Obama has done pretty well for himself. If he is what he presents himself as, there would appear to be a fairly harmonious new combination of DNA there in his person, a harmonious combination that just won't exist much anymore in his descendants unless he is more lustful than he is, because it is a new harmony. Males of mixed race (and more especially and precisely males whose parents are of different race) should be a great deal more lustful than males not of mixed race, and I really think that is their (appropriate) tendency mostly. That Obama comes across as pious makes me think he is either a remarkable faker or that he is extremely conceited (probably the latter). There are other possibilities, I guess. E.g., he could be very much into girls, who especially appreciate piety (this would actually make me want to vote for him, but I don't think that is the most likely explanation). Or he could idolize his wife an extreme degree or be extremely hen-pecked by her (I wouldn't be surprised if both of these possibilities might apply somewhat, but I think them less significant possibilities than his conceitedness). And a president who thinks too highly of himself could be quite a dangerous thing that I don't want. Especially since apparently he used cocaine previously.
I am really quite certain sons of parents of different races should be more lustful and less pious and holy than sons of parents of the same race. Indeed, a few years ago when I was on a train, I was pleased to sort of eye flirt during most of the trip with an extremely pretty girl whose parents were of different races (her mother was white, and her father was Asian--Filipino or (less likely) Thai I guessed). I would look at her all holy and pure and innocent, and she just really tried so hard to get me to look lightsomely at her like that was how I would feel about her if I liked her--not so much in a seductive way like she was temporarily adopting seductive emotions to destroy misplaced guilt in me, but like she figured with emotional lightness all around is how our physical love and attraction if it ever came to that (I don't wish to indicate whether I think it already came to that in her) would be. It's as though it never occurred to her that I could physically love her in a holy way or that holiness could ever have anything to do with anything but priggishness. And I deduced from having looked at her and (a great deal less) at her other family members what the deal was. Her brother also was a very special person (though I didn't look at him much, duh, since his sister being so pretty and of the opposite sex was of course much more interesting to me), at least he looked that way, and his sister probably loved him and their family so much that she definitely didn't want him to have the holiness that would be inappropriate from the point of view of producing lasting genetic connections between her mother and father. She sensed that her brother, a lovely son in a beautiful interracial family, will need when dealing with females to be emotionally lightsome and not very all-serious like, and that's how she just sort of assumed all males should be. That is something else that is weird about Obama. He says that he believes in making one America (a very good and effective political goal, which if I recall by the way was Edwards' stated goal four years ago before he apparently decided to change this time around and run mostly using the standard rich-are-evil-wicked-people platform), but if he believed that emotionally, Why wouldn't he emotionally be lightsome like cream (the girl somehow reminded me of cream or creamy smoothness, or maybe some sort of ideal healthy vegan creme since I mostly avoid milk products), since in some sense that would bring his parents together? (Of all my biological theories, my one concerning males being able to regulate genetic crossover in gametes should be the most obvious. It just doesn't make sense to anyone who thinks for himself that such a tendency wouldn't evolve given the ease with which such control could occur and the usefulness of it to evolutionary survival.)
I prefer Hillary to Obama. I am also OK with McCain. The Republicans seem to be getting better, and the Democrats seem to be getting worse. The Democrats have the cowardly wrong position about the war and they are too pro-sodomy. The Republicans are too much for the wealthy and tend to be too much in line with the evangelical fanatics. McCain comes across as less for the wealthy and the evangelicals than the other Republicans, and he has the best war position of all the candidates. Believe it or not, what bothers me especially about McCain is that he has been (and I guess still is) very much against Amtrak. I have always loved trains, and with today's energy crisis, they make more sense than ever. How could anyone be against trains? I'll probably vote for Hillary over McCain and McCain over Obama.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Is dancing adult?
Is dancing adult?
For the past few months or so I have had in the back of my mind the question of why some girls like to dance. It seems innocent enough, dancing, and yet some girls seem to be quite determined in viewing it of an importance to themselves beyond whatever I could imagine it being to me. And I don’t think dancing has anything to do with young female sexuality. So I have been trying (duly purposivelessly) to understand it. I shall first give a poem about dance I wrote a few days ago (making a few edits along the way) and then make some clarification and also comments about further impressions I have concerning the matter.
Silly Doodle Poem
Don’t know what I’ll say.
Am saying it for myself
I love to dance
For someone else
But not myself
It doesn’t do much for me
in the capacity
of just me.
Dancing is sexy
When its purpose
is seductive.
When girls giggle
They go
To-and-fro
Arms too
Up and down
A drill
If it looks like
The girls will feel
more comfortable
Doing it.
But just as a dance,
(And Why would a girl dance for me
for any other reason?)
A dance really pretty conservative is.
It’s mostly about play—
Playing at being an adult.
Yeah, that’s about right,
that’s my inference.
Women move when they have sex.
Women behave sexually like responsible adults
Because when girls, they played at it.
Girls like being still,
quiet and music-free
When they have sex.
And if they didn’t,
somehow a Gregorian chant or such-like
sacred hymn would please them best
loved, I imagine.
But girls wonder, I’m sure, what it’s
like to love like an adult.
To most girls,
the girls who wait
to have children,
it’s really pretty much the only relevant concern.
Sex absolutely still is weird.
A girl want to see if stillness and quiet and peace
really is what she wants now.
And how is she to know that?
Without experimenting—play.
For a girl, dancing is the opposite of sex.
But dancing can be seductive to males less wise than I.
Which in a way can make it seductive to me,
I mean given what that implies about her general attitudes.
For no such dance will ever be for me.
To me a dance with me or about me is just silly.
SILLY
I don’t like music.
At least, it has no relation to my thoughts for her.
They’re best most absolutely still
And yet,
I would go along,
for her,
not seriously,
but just because it’s fun to see her have play—
to help her see dance not really
very relevant is to anything I feel and
yet if she were to wait and get normal
I could do normal OK too, but Why
really would she ever want that?
I’m not that sort of person.
I would never claim that.
I think she’s obsessed with it—
Being able to dance,
yeah, in her music,
if my understanding of custom be accurate, and she does as custom dictates,
She throws her head about violently
thrashing like dance is what it is all about
and frustrated wall-banging would be a natural consequence of
ever getting rejected when wanting it.
Sometimes people obsess
At singular frustrations.
Seduction not what she is after.
And it’s not what I want from her,
Yet I keep coming back to that, Why?
To some guys,
Guys who don’t feel as good about themselves as I,
a dance can be so seductively light
With laughter
And clean movement
there Can be conveyed the notion
A mere instant of pleasure
Can amount to more than a month
of sexual love.
That’s OK, it’s normal, it’s what women give normally
When they want to give.
Losing oneself in a song
like some other losing oneself?
No way, I’ll stay myself
and so won’t really take dancing too
seriously. I won’t be into the music, but you.
I could do that,
I’m pretty sure.
Love dawdles, it seems,
More than I had expected,
I don’t actually seem to be very fast or forwards
When it comes to actually communicating with females.
She is too scared:
The simplest inference I can make
from my tendency not to do anything.
On some inner level I can’t reflect well upon
I have evolved to have considered her scared given the data.
But that’s just a guess
I’m more sure that what I’ve evolved to feel
as the right speed probably is.
Glacial it is,
Until I feel otherwise.
I could make her less afraid
By dancing with her
Or just enjoying the spectacle
Of her movement.
I don’t have to make it more than
it is
Because it won’t be about me on any fundamental level.
It is not important to me,
Just to her
Maybe about me as much as someone else,
but as to the last point, it makes no difference,
Whatever..., I like dreams even if just dreams.
Back to seduction
Girls can make a male want to sexually enjoy her
In no still tantric way.
Innocently they do this to the
men they want
to value pleasure
more than guilt.
Girls aren’t fools
Lots of desirable guys don’t get it.
I didn’t get it.
Neither did anyone else,
male, female, or neutral.
A girl setting out to please
Can make
A moment of bliss
That leaves one awestruck.
Really what’s the point?
The more religious the girl
The more one wants to tell her to remove the crucifix from about her neck,
Because she needs to be herself
And devoid of vampire fears
To enjoy
Great sex and make it enjoyable.
How could I have determined
Without lengthy derivation
When throwing away the crucifix is
What I wanted her to do
That I should be as holy and sacred
As I ever possibly could be.
It’s easy for me now to see this
but I really didn’t see anything
except from a standard direction
then, back yonder,
The words,
the WAY OF PHRASING THE QUESTION,
they weren’t my own
I thought I was my own man
I wasn’t yet man.
I knew I loved my holiness more
even though I loved them both.
Try to seduce
And many people will (unjustly) try to spit on you
Try to dance
And some people will (unjustly) think you are trying to seduce
They will hate you for it,
Others will find it dull
or that it is not quite preferable to what they wrongly see as its only alternative.
Or, as I would probably be if I were as vulnerable to music as I was at your age,
that they aren’t up to the risk of letting their feelings for you
be controlled by a song.
I think I can dance.
The depraved pedantic
Don’t want women to remember
How they had thought they would love when older.
The play of their childhood is what the fallen women remember of themselves,
and it could make them pure.
But it would require too much understanding
for the wicked
to behave with such cunning.
Bitter men,
when the bitterness tastes bad,
they believe girls dance because they be natural sluts.
THE END
OK, now for a clarification. When I was speaking of “back yonder” I was referring to my high school days. A long time ago indeed.
Now I feel I should more-or-less list my other impressions about dance and music, some of which I haven’t developed as highly.
I really do feel dance is more of an adult thing. For instance, one would think, given my attraction to young females, that high-school cheerleaders would be more attractive to me than (say) professional cheerleaders that one sees at sporting events, and yet not so. High school cheerleaders when they leap around all over it’s unappealing to me. But maybe partly it is just that the aesthetic when it comes to makeup, facial expression, etc., that one sees on high school cheerleaders nowadays who make it to television has been twisted by ESPN, the event organizers, coaches, or I don’t really know because I hardly care, blah, blah, blah. If they would stay still, they could be prettier, probably, but then that wouldn’t be cheerleading, I guess. There are doubtless many pretty high school cheerleaders (there were a fair number when I went to high school) and gymnastics is quite interesting to watch. Not that I am particularly attracted to professional cheerleaders—I really am not into movement—but mostly they are prettier and sexier to me than high school cheerleaders on television, at least when they are cheerleading.
Dance if it is slow and ballet-like can have a kind of gracefulness about it that is appealing and beautiful. It has a way of showing off balance. And balance is related to bipedalism, an important anti-sodomy defense.
Dance can be an interesting way for females to express strength and distaste. For instance, Paula Abdul was cool when she danced about cataloguing her frustrations about males she might otherwise want to be still with. Like I said, dance is the opposite of sex. But presumably females in a spirit of having been inspired by a male would have more interesting things to express than those in a spirit of contrariness, the attractiveness of female strength and/or coyness notwithstanding.
Some songs probably have a slightly addictive appeal. These would be the catchy songs. Songs if at all catchy (and perhaps the majority of popular songs are catchy to some degree if not just plain boring) interfere with my sense of poetry and can make concentration (e.g., when doing math) difficult. And there are catchy songs which are not at all pretty. The most prominent example I can think of would be “Wreck of the Old 97”. It is a very catchy song that is dreadfully ugly; you can take my word for it, or if you are fairly invulnerable to catchiness, you can listen to it yourself and see my point. So the ugliness makes it quite clear to me that catchiness isn’t just something in my mind saying that there is something profound in the song I need to listen to. The young are probably most vulnerable to this catchiness. And I should point out that whereas catchiness might be something one normally can accept somewhat (it is a very mild addiction probably to most people), a male is very hesitant when he is being taken as expressing his feelings for a girl to risk having his feelings corrupted by a catchy song that he fell into. I would be very reluctant to dance in a spirit of seriousness with a girl. Danger, danger: Nothing I could seem to be feeling she should take seriously as the authentic me. If I wrote the song myself, perhaps I might feel somewhat different, but that is not my talent. But what about the expressiveness of music? How does it compare with poetry, for example, in importance.
Music can be useful as a way of clarifying the sense in which something is meant to be taken. For instance, in movies, when a movie is trying to make some subtle point, music can be an effective means by which to clarify the intended meaning or sense of a scene. Music can make the expression of the movie more compact and efficient. Oftentimes, however, music in movies only serves by way of trying to force the viewer to feel an emotion with a strength it is not natural for the viewer to feel; frequently it is manipulative. Can’t create a sympathetic treatment of a character? Create a sympathetic song to make the audience feel more like crying than the underlying meaning of the movie itself would. There is a subtle difference between using music to help the viewer find the meaning of the movie and using music to manipulate the viewer into believing the meaning of the movie by means of warping the audiences’ emotions so as to find the truth of the meaning more plausible; but there is a difference.
I do think girls somewhat attracted to the expressiveness of music. Girls, being young, don’t have as many impressions to deduct from as older people do. In a way, I feel this might make logic less useful to them compared with emotion. But then a rational outlook is very useful to girls when it comes to avoiding sodomy. And in some ways girls seem to be fond of deduction. Just look at the popularity of the Nancy Drew books (which I enjoy reading myself). And words come from society whereas notes might appear more naturally authentic and God-given. But I look at it this way. Music is mainly about expression if it is not addictive. And if there are no words, well, what is there useful to be expressed? Music is important mainly in the sense that it should be important in movies—as secondary to the meaning rather than primary to it. (I tend to prefer songs with words in them.) If it tries to be more than that, I think it mostly ends up being less than nothing.
Hmmm, vaguely it seems like I had a few other mostly less interesting things I was going to say about music/dancing that I might have forgotten. But I can't remember whether I forgot something. If I do remember that I forgot something and remember what it was, I’ll jot it off in a suplementary post before I forget. No need to wait about posting what I have written so far.
For the past few months or so I have had in the back of my mind the question of why some girls like to dance. It seems innocent enough, dancing, and yet some girls seem to be quite determined in viewing it of an importance to themselves beyond whatever I could imagine it being to me. And I don’t think dancing has anything to do with young female sexuality. So I have been trying (duly purposivelessly) to understand it. I shall first give a poem about dance I wrote a few days ago (making a few edits along the way) and then make some clarification and also comments about further impressions I have concerning the matter.
Silly Doodle Poem
Don’t know what I’ll say.
Am saying it for myself
I love to dance
For someone else
But not myself
It doesn’t do much for me
in the capacity
of just me.
Dancing is sexy
When its purpose
is seductive.
When girls giggle
They go
To-and-fro
Arms too
Up and down
A drill
If it looks like
The girls will feel
more comfortable
Doing it.
But just as a dance,
(And Why would a girl dance for me
for any other reason?)
A dance really pretty conservative is.
It’s mostly about play—
Playing at being an adult.
Yeah, that’s about right,
that’s my inference.
Women move when they have sex.
Women behave sexually like responsible adults
Because when girls, they played at it.
Girls like being still,
quiet and music-free
When they have sex.
And if they didn’t,
somehow a Gregorian chant or such-like
sacred hymn would please them best
loved, I imagine.
But girls wonder, I’m sure, what it’s
like to love like an adult.
To most girls,
the girls who wait
to have children,
it’s really pretty much the only relevant concern.
Sex absolutely still is weird.
A girl want to see if stillness and quiet and peace
really is what she wants now.
And how is she to know that?
Without experimenting—play.
For a girl, dancing is the opposite of sex.
But dancing can be seductive to males less wise than I.
Which in a way can make it seductive to me,
I mean given what that implies about her general attitudes.
For no such dance will ever be for me.
To me a dance with me or about me is just silly.
SILLY
I don’t like music.
At least, it has no relation to my thoughts for her.
They’re best most absolutely still
And yet,
I would go along,
for her,
not seriously,
but just because it’s fun to see her have play—
to help her see dance not really
very relevant is to anything I feel and
yet if she were to wait and get normal
I could do normal OK too, but Why
really would she ever want that?
I’m not that sort of person.
I would never claim that.
I think she’s obsessed with it—
Being able to dance,
yeah, in her music,
if my understanding of custom be accurate, and she does as custom dictates,
She throws her head about violently
thrashing like dance is what it is all about
and frustrated wall-banging would be a natural consequence of
ever getting rejected when wanting it.
Sometimes people obsess
At singular frustrations.
Seduction not what she is after.
And it’s not what I want from her,
Yet I keep coming back to that, Why?
To some guys,
Guys who don’t feel as good about themselves as I,
a dance can be so seductively light
With laughter
And clean movement
there Can be conveyed the notion
A mere instant of pleasure
Can amount to more than a month
of sexual love.
That’s OK, it’s normal, it’s what women give normally
When they want to give.
Losing oneself in a song
like some other losing oneself?
No way, I’ll stay myself
and so won’t really take dancing too
seriously. I won’t be into the music, but you.
I could do that,
I’m pretty sure.
Love dawdles, it seems,
More than I had expected,
I don’t actually seem to be very fast or forwards
When it comes to actually communicating with females.
She is too scared:
The simplest inference I can make
from my tendency not to do anything.
On some inner level I can’t reflect well upon
I have evolved to have considered her scared given the data.
But that’s just a guess
I’m more sure that what I’ve evolved to feel
as the right speed probably is.
Glacial it is,
Until I feel otherwise.
I could make her less afraid
By dancing with her
Or just enjoying the spectacle
Of her movement.
I don’t have to make it more than
it is
Because it won’t be about me on any fundamental level.
It is not important to me,
Just to her
Maybe about me as much as someone else,
but as to the last point, it makes no difference,
Whatever..., I like dreams even if just dreams.
Back to seduction
Girls can make a male want to sexually enjoy her
In no still tantric way.
Innocently they do this to the
men they want
to value pleasure
more than guilt.
Girls aren’t fools
Lots of desirable guys don’t get it.
I didn’t get it.
Neither did anyone else,
male, female, or neutral.
A girl setting out to please
Can make
A moment of bliss
That leaves one awestruck.
Really what’s the point?
The more religious the girl
The more one wants to tell her to remove the crucifix from about her neck,
Because she needs to be herself
And devoid of vampire fears
To enjoy
Great sex and make it enjoyable.
How could I have determined
Without lengthy derivation
When throwing away the crucifix is
What I wanted her to do
That I should be as holy and sacred
As I ever possibly could be.
It’s easy for me now to see this
but I really didn’t see anything
except from a standard direction
then, back yonder,
The words,
the WAY OF PHRASING THE QUESTION,
they weren’t my own
I thought I was my own man
I wasn’t yet man.
I knew I loved my holiness more
even though I loved them both.
Try to seduce
And many people will (unjustly) try to spit on you
Try to dance
And some people will (unjustly) think you are trying to seduce
They will hate you for it,
Others will find it dull
or that it is not quite preferable to what they wrongly see as its only alternative.
Or, as I would probably be if I were as vulnerable to music as I was at your age,
that they aren’t up to the risk of letting their feelings for you
be controlled by a song.
I think I can dance.
The depraved pedantic
Don’t want women to remember
How they had thought they would love when older.
The play of their childhood is what the fallen women remember of themselves,
and it could make them pure.
But it would require too much understanding
for the wicked
to behave with such cunning.
Bitter men,
when the bitterness tastes bad,
they believe girls dance because they be natural sluts.
THE END
OK, now for a clarification. When I was speaking of “back yonder” I was referring to my high school days. A long time ago indeed.
Now I feel I should more-or-less list my other impressions about dance and music, some of which I haven’t developed as highly.
I really do feel dance is more of an adult thing. For instance, one would think, given my attraction to young females, that high-school cheerleaders would be more attractive to me than (say) professional cheerleaders that one sees at sporting events, and yet not so. High school cheerleaders when they leap around all over it’s unappealing to me. But maybe partly it is just that the aesthetic when it comes to makeup, facial expression, etc., that one sees on high school cheerleaders nowadays who make it to television has been twisted by ESPN, the event organizers, coaches, or I don’t really know because I hardly care, blah, blah, blah. If they would stay still, they could be prettier, probably, but then that wouldn’t be cheerleading, I guess. There are doubtless many pretty high school cheerleaders (there were a fair number when I went to high school) and gymnastics is quite interesting to watch. Not that I am particularly attracted to professional cheerleaders—I really am not into movement—but mostly they are prettier and sexier to me than high school cheerleaders on television, at least when they are cheerleading.
Dance if it is slow and ballet-like can have a kind of gracefulness about it that is appealing and beautiful. It has a way of showing off balance. And balance is related to bipedalism, an important anti-sodomy defense.
Dance can be an interesting way for females to express strength and distaste. For instance, Paula Abdul was cool when she danced about cataloguing her frustrations about males she might otherwise want to be still with. Like I said, dance is the opposite of sex. But presumably females in a spirit of having been inspired by a male would have more interesting things to express than those in a spirit of contrariness, the attractiveness of female strength and/or coyness notwithstanding.
Some songs probably have a slightly addictive appeal. These would be the catchy songs. Songs if at all catchy (and perhaps the majority of popular songs are catchy to some degree if not just plain boring) interfere with my sense of poetry and can make concentration (e.g., when doing math) difficult. And there are catchy songs which are not at all pretty. The most prominent example I can think of would be “Wreck of the Old 97”. It is a very catchy song that is dreadfully ugly; you can take my word for it, or if you are fairly invulnerable to catchiness, you can listen to it yourself and see my point. So the ugliness makes it quite clear to me that catchiness isn’t just something in my mind saying that there is something profound in the song I need to listen to. The young are probably most vulnerable to this catchiness. And I should point out that whereas catchiness might be something one normally can accept somewhat (it is a very mild addiction probably to most people), a male is very hesitant when he is being taken as expressing his feelings for a girl to risk having his feelings corrupted by a catchy song that he fell into. I would be very reluctant to dance in a spirit of seriousness with a girl. Danger, danger: Nothing I could seem to be feeling she should take seriously as the authentic me. If I wrote the song myself, perhaps I might feel somewhat different, but that is not my talent. But what about the expressiveness of music? How does it compare with poetry, for example, in importance.
Music can be useful as a way of clarifying the sense in which something is meant to be taken. For instance, in movies, when a movie is trying to make some subtle point, music can be an effective means by which to clarify the intended meaning or sense of a scene. Music can make the expression of the movie more compact and efficient. Oftentimes, however, music in movies only serves by way of trying to force the viewer to feel an emotion with a strength it is not natural for the viewer to feel; frequently it is manipulative. Can’t create a sympathetic treatment of a character? Create a sympathetic song to make the audience feel more like crying than the underlying meaning of the movie itself would. There is a subtle difference between using music to help the viewer find the meaning of the movie and using music to manipulate the viewer into believing the meaning of the movie by means of warping the audiences’ emotions so as to find the truth of the meaning more plausible; but there is a difference.
I do think girls somewhat attracted to the expressiveness of music. Girls, being young, don’t have as many impressions to deduct from as older people do. In a way, I feel this might make logic less useful to them compared with emotion. But then a rational outlook is very useful to girls when it comes to avoiding sodomy. And in some ways girls seem to be fond of deduction. Just look at the popularity of the Nancy Drew books (which I enjoy reading myself). And words come from society whereas notes might appear more naturally authentic and God-given. But I look at it this way. Music is mainly about expression if it is not addictive. And if there are no words, well, what is there useful to be expressed? Music is important mainly in the sense that it should be important in movies—as secondary to the meaning rather than primary to it. (I tend to prefer songs with words in them.) If it tries to be more than that, I think it mostly ends up being less than nothing.
Hmmm, vaguely it seems like I had a few other mostly less interesting things I was going to say about music/dancing that I might have forgotten. But I can't remember whether I forgot something. If I do remember that I forgot something and remember what it was, I’ll jot it off in a suplementary post before I forget. No need to wait about posting what I have written so far.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Speech against free speech being free maybe should not be free
I am inclined to think maybe our First Amendment Rights are too broad for their own good. The most important freedom of speech is freedom to speak about matters not concerning freedom of speech. It is offensive to argue against such freedom of speech, and so it is not unreasonable on the face of it to believe that such arguments should not be allowed, as allowing such argumentative speech dangerously weakens our guarantees of the most important free speech. Once a paricular type of speech gets banned, it is very difficult to legally argue the inappropriateness of the ban (as is typically necessary to change the ban), since to make a good case that a type of banned speech should not be banned mostly necessitates arguing in a way that is banned. Thus it is incumbent upon a nation that treasures such freedoms of speech to take measures to protect them from bans. Enshrining rights in a constitution or bill of rights is one approach. Another effective way to prevent such bans is to forbid (constitutionally or by statute) people from arguing for them. Hard to get a law passed if you can't argue for it! My proposal is for three new rules:
(1) Speech that isn't about freedom of speech is free speech.
(2) Speech against a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is not free.
(3) Speech for a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is free.
What makes me uneasy about this proposal is that I also think (as does our legal system) that threatening speech should not be free. And sometimes people should have the right to not be spoken to. So definitions probably would have to be modified somewhat for this to be a good idea. In particular, the line between threatening speech and non-threatening speech is not always a clear-cut one, and so it scarcely seems appropriate to put people in legal jeopardy for arguing exactly where such a line should be drawn. I thought my idea interesting, though. In particular, it is not at all self-defeating as would be the case if one enacted a law saying that speech against free speech (as opposed to a free speech) is not free (hard to enforce a law that is illegal to be spoken!).
Looking at my justification above, one can see there really is no harm in allowing speech for or against freedom of threatening speech. One doesn't have to be at all threatening to argue for freedom of threatening speech. Usually, though, the most convincing argument for the right to express an opinion A is in fact to argue the reasons why opinion A might be correct and of significance. There's some subtle philosophy underlying the right approach, probably.
(1) Speech that isn't about freedom of speech is free speech.
(2) Speech against a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is not free.
(3) Speech for a type of speech being free is free if and only if the latter speech is free.
What makes me uneasy about this proposal is that I also think (as does our legal system) that threatening speech should not be free. And sometimes people should have the right to not be spoken to. So definitions probably would have to be modified somewhat for this to be a good idea. In particular, the line between threatening speech and non-threatening speech is not always a clear-cut one, and so it scarcely seems appropriate to put people in legal jeopardy for arguing exactly where such a line should be drawn. I thought my idea interesting, though. In particular, it is not at all self-defeating as would be the case if one enacted a law saying that speech against free speech (as opposed to a free speech) is not free (hard to enforce a law that is illegal to be spoken!).
Looking at my justification above, one can see there really is no harm in allowing speech for or against freedom of threatening speech. One doesn't have to be at all threatening to argue for freedom of threatening speech. Usually, though, the most convincing argument for the right to express an opinion A is in fact to argue the reasons why opinion A might be correct and of significance. There's some subtle philosophy underlying the right approach, probably.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
How much freedom should parents give to children?
It seems to me that many parents are quite immoral in the tyrannical way that they try to go about controlling their children. Clearly if the important qualities of people are to evolve, it is best that one’s fortune be determined by these qualities, and not by the qualities of a parent or whatever. Where children have no liberty, their success will only half as much be determined by their own qualities, and so, all things equal, people will evolve half as well there. For this reason it is especially morally incumbent upon a parent that children be allowed freedom in making their own moral and relationship choices, since it is imperative for the greater goodness of humanity that these qualities evolve well.
What exactly constitutes appropriate discipline? There are some appropriate reasons for parents to try to force children to do things, and let us try to enumerate these reasons, which will give us an idea of the (limited) disciplinary rights that are natural and appropriate to parents.
The most important occasion in which it is appropriate for a parent to discipline a child is when she thinks that the child is behaving in an inappropriate manner that is not representative of the true nature of the child. This sort of discipline, when honestly given as a result of a correct judgment by a parent, does not reduce the extent to which the behavior of the child reflects the child’s true, innate self. It’s not a question of you getting your way or your child getting his way, it’s a question of you getting your way or whatever controls your child getting his way. Unless, perhaps, the child willingly and knowingly allowed herself to be controlled, but that happens rarely and is not the sort of thing that parents mind much except when they should. This sort of discipline is appropriate mainly in cases of addiction. If your child believes one thing and you believe something else, it is difficult to see why you should force him to behave as if you are right unless he believes what he does on account of some addiction forcing him to believe wrongly and against his nature. Another time this sort of discipline might be appropriate is if your child has been brainwashed as a result of having been exposed to stuff the child never wanted to get exposed to in the first place. But care, I think, should be exercised in disciplining the child in the latter case. It is very easy for parents to try to force a child to be what he is not by merely claiming the child has become deluded. Usually, it is presumptuous of the parent to determine for a child that a child is deluded when the child believes the parent is deluded, unless some addiction be involved. Even if vaguely or otherwise a parent feel peers are to blame for the child’s behavior, that is not in itself a justification for controlling a child unless it is also believed the child had no say in choosing the peers. It should be pointed out, though, that a fair number of things that don’t immediately seem like chemical addictions actually probably are such. E.g., skankiness is probably an addiction to getting sodomized, i.e., an addiction to chemicals introduced in the digestive system, and eating terribly is probably caused by addictive gut bacteria making one eat according as they demand it. Some might say, in excuse for parents having more authority over children, that parents being older are more likely to be wise. However, this is but a lame excuse. Maybe with respect to young children, parents are more wise than children, but to the extent this is the case, it is hard to see why children wouldn’t realize their greater ignorance, thereby deferring to parents. Children who don’t realize that with future reflection, experience and thought can come wisdom are likely to suffer to such an extent that one can’t really explain why children would evolve to be so stupid as to not realize that they might gain knowledge with age; it only makes sense that they have not evolved to be that stupid. Children don’t generally mind respecting parents for their wisdom when the parents are wise and not tyrannical.
It will be admitted that children often behave in crazy ways. However, the healthy way people come to understand their irrational feelings is by humoring them enough to realize their meaning and limited appropriateness and thereby allowing them to realize the limited spheres in which the emotions are useful. Not allowing children to live their own lives and thus to see exactly how their emotions relate (negatively or positively) to particular realities only serves to stifle the children’s emotional development. A child kept on a leash will not learn to live otherwise than on a leash, and it will hurt his/her emotional development. Moreover, a parent who takes away natural liberties from children often loses the respect of the child. Such a child is less likely to listen to a parent’s all important appropriate demands, i.e., freedom from addiction (and from addictive depravity) and will be less likely to respect the parents’ own right to liberty, etc. Parents may think they control their children, but children are not without power, and a parent shouldn’t be surprised if her inappropriate demands cause behavior in children that punishes. Ideally, people should not infringe on the rights of others, but it is entirely appropriate for a child to try to punish a parent if his/her rights are being infringed upon and all options have been exhausted. Everyone is at rights to seek remedy for injustices done against his person, and parents should not be surprised or angered at behavior of their children that could only be considered natural of anyone decent enough to love freedom and liberty enough to resist being tyrannized. Just believing that something your child believes or does is somewhat crazy does not give you the right to demand he be otherwise than himself.
Still, it does seem to me that if a parent feels extremely strongly that a child ought to be doing one thing he isn’t doing, then if the child doesn’t feel extremely strongly the other way, the parent might be excused for trying to force the child to behave according as how the parent sees fit. The parent, after all, is half like the child, and the differing views, differing in magnitude, are suggestive that the child would feel similarly to how the parents feel if only circumstance had occasioned different influences upon the child. The child might not even mind, especially if he is given the same right in reverse, i.e., to resist parents who are behaving in a way that he really dislikes. This sort of thing should be engaged in with moderation, however, or the child will become stubborn and indifferent, feeling his rights have been violated, for example, when they have been, thereafter not being at all willing to have his rights ridden upon.
Another case where it can be appropriate for a parent to demand of a child certain behavior is if the behavior of the child interferes with the rights of the parent to live his life in the way he sees fit. For example, it is a nuisance to a parent for a child to have to pick up after a child. And actually, it is useful to a child to gain the habit of putting things away when he is done with them—to constantly keep an eye toward his general surroundings looking out for stuff that should be put away, until such noticing and constant organizing becomes second nature and pleasant. Thus, it seems to me that a parent is not wrong to (good-naturedly) demand of a child beyond a certain age that the child clean up after himself, at least if the parents sufficiently put things away themselves that it becomes easily obvious when something is left in the wrong place. It is important, though, that the parent not make not cleaning seem as screwed up behavior. Gaining good habits of putting things away has nothing to do with being respectable and not screwed-up. Or if a family has so many chores that need to be done it is great stress for parents to do them all, it is not wrong to expect children to do some chores, which after all can be not particularly unpleasant to do in moderation. Exercise and basic life skills can be gained thereby. Another even more obvious example is that if a girl wants to get pregnant she shouldn’t expect her parents to be willing to take care of her children unless the parents want to help. Similarly, if a child is a nuisance to parents, the parents shouldn’t feel like they should have to take care of him after he is grown, unless they want to do so, of course. Parents also have a right to their freedoms, and just as it is inappropriate for parents to try to force children to be otherwise than what they are, it is inappropriate for children to try to control their parents, unless of course addiction or something similar is controlling a parent, in which case the child, like a parent would be with him, is at rights to try to force the parent away from that addiction to the extent it is in his power, which may be rather limited , say by trying to make the addicted parent ashamed.
Why do parents tyrannize children so much? Part of the problem is that power is not shared equally. Parents tend to have more power over children than vice versa, parents usually controlling the money and society giving them more rights. Not infrequently, men abusive to their wives will abuse children just to make controlling and tyrannizing seem more generally natural and appropriate than it is. Something similar occasioned no doubt the fierce opposition in the antebellum South to resisting attempts to abolish slavery. The Rebels were basically willing to fight a war over it. Probably, if one studied the matter carefully enough, one could demonstrate that child abuse and the belief in the appropriateness of tyrannizing children is more common in the South than otherwise, a remnant of the antebellum pro-slavery notions having held sway there less than 150 years ago. What I have noticed, is a tendency of parents who don’t believe shame has any purpose to be especially disciplinarian. Parents know that there is a place for controlling children. They should realize that mostly they should be disciplinarians only when addictions are involved, i.e., when shaming would be appropriate if necessary. Believe shame has no useful purpose (or is useful only as a weapon to get back at those shaming you), and you will not understand the sphere in which discipline mostly should apply, i.e., to behavior that deserves shame when persuasion won’t suffice to stop it. And presumably there are other people who try to make their children feel shame whenever they are trying to change their behavior; this too is inappropriate.
There are a few basic matters of politeness that also should apply when there are disagreements between parents and children. It is almost always wrong for parents to feel anger at their children. They should never scream at them unless screaming is necessary to be heard (e.g., on account of distance separating parent from child). Anger is only an appropriate emotion when you feel like you are fighting something trying to sodomize you, and it is not like children sodomize their parents (or at least, it is something extremely rare). And saying the same thing over and over to a child is a form of tyranny. True conversation contains thoughtful unfamiliar ideas likely to be of interest to the hearer. A parent explaining to a child why the parent feels the child is not being true to himself can be useful as a way of demonstrating to the child that whatever discipline meted out to the child is just. That would be useful conversation. Just saying the same thing over and over and over again is not useful conversation but will appear as underhanded punishments dressed up as something it isn’t for presumably wrong deceptive reasons.
What exactly constitutes appropriate discipline? There are some appropriate reasons for parents to try to force children to do things, and let us try to enumerate these reasons, which will give us an idea of the (limited) disciplinary rights that are natural and appropriate to parents.
The most important occasion in which it is appropriate for a parent to discipline a child is when she thinks that the child is behaving in an inappropriate manner that is not representative of the true nature of the child. This sort of discipline, when honestly given as a result of a correct judgment by a parent, does not reduce the extent to which the behavior of the child reflects the child’s true, innate self. It’s not a question of you getting your way or your child getting his way, it’s a question of you getting your way or whatever controls your child getting his way. Unless, perhaps, the child willingly and knowingly allowed herself to be controlled, but that happens rarely and is not the sort of thing that parents mind much except when they should. This sort of discipline is appropriate mainly in cases of addiction. If your child believes one thing and you believe something else, it is difficult to see why you should force him to behave as if you are right unless he believes what he does on account of some addiction forcing him to believe wrongly and against his nature. Another time this sort of discipline might be appropriate is if your child has been brainwashed as a result of having been exposed to stuff the child never wanted to get exposed to in the first place. But care, I think, should be exercised in disciplining the child in the latter case. It is very easy for parents to try to force a child to be what he is not by merely claiming the child has become deluded. Usually, it is presumptuous of the parent to determine for a child that a child is deluded when the child believes the parent is deluded, unless some addiction be involved. Even if vaguely or otherwise a parent feel peers are to blame for the child’s behavior, that is not in itself a justification for controlling a child unless it is also believed the child had no say in choosing the peers. It should be pointed out, though, that a fair number of things that don’t immediately seem like chemical addictions actually probably are such. E.g., skankiness is probably an addiction to getting sodomized, i.e., an addiction to chemicals introduced in the digestive system, and eating terribly is probably caused by addictive gut bacteria making one eat according as they demand it. Some might say, in excuse for parents having more authority over children, that parents being older are more likely to be wise. However, this is but a lame excuse. Maybe with respect to young children, parents are more wise than children, but to the extent this is the case, it is hard to see why children wouldn’t realize their greater ignorance, thereby deferring to parents. Children who don’t realize that with future reflection, experience and thought can come wisdom are likely to suffer to such an extent that one can’t really explain why children would evolve to be so stupid as to not realize that they might gain knowledge with age; it only makes sense that they have not evolved to be that stupid. Children don’t generally mind respecting parents for their wisdom when the parents are wise and not tyrannical.
It will be admitted that children often behave in crazy ways. However, the healthy way people come to understand their irrational feelings is by humoring them enough to realize their meaning and limited appropriateness and thereby allowing them to realize the limited spheres in which the emotions are useful. Not allowing children to live their own lives and thus to see exactly how their emotions relate (negatively or positively) to particular realities only serves to stifle the children’s emotional development. A child kept on a leash will not learn to live otherwise than on a leash, and it will hurt his/her emotional development. Moreover, a parent who takes away natural liberties from children often loses the respect of the child. Such a child is less likely to listen to a parent’s all important appropriate demands, i.e., freedom from addiction (and from addictive depravity) and will be less likely to respect the parents’ own right to liberty, etc. Parents may think they control their children, but children are not without power, and a parent shouldn’t be surprised if her inappropriate demands cause behavior in children that punishes. Ideally, people should not infringe on the rights of others, but it is entirely appropriate for a child to try to punish a parent if his/her rights are being infringed upon and all options have been exhausted. Everyone is at rights to seek remedy for injustices done against his person, and parents should not be surprised or angered at behavior of their children that could only be considered natural of anyone decent enough to love freedom and liberty enough to resist being tyrannized. Just believing that something your child believes or does is somewhat crazy does not give you the right to demand he be otherwise than himself.
Still, it does seem to me that if a parent feels extremely strongly that a child ought to be doing one thing he isn’t doing, then if the child doesn’t feel extremely strongly the other way, the parent might be excused for trying to force the child to behave according as how the parent sees fit. The parent, after all, is half like the child, and the differing views, differing in magnitude, are suggestive that the child would feel similarly to how the parents feel if only circumstance had occasioned different influences upon the child. The child might not even mind, especially if he is given the same right in reverse, i.e., to resist parents who are behaving in a way that he really dislikes. This sort of thing should be engaged in with moderation, however, or the child will become stubborn and indifferent, feeling his rights have been violated, for example, when they have been, thereafter not being at all willing to have his rights ridden upon.
Another case where it can be appropriate for a parent to demand of a child certain behavior is if the behavior of the child interferes with the rights of the parent to live his life in the way he sees fit. For example, it is a nuisance to a parent for a child to have to pick up after a child. And actually, it is useful to a child to gain the habit of putting things away when he is done with them—to constantly keep an eye toward his general surroundings looking out for stuff that should be put away, until such noticing and constant organizing becomes second nature and pleasant. Thus, it seems to me that a parent is not wrong to (good-naturedly) demand of a child beyond a certain age that the child clean up after himself, at least if the parents sufficiently put things away themselves that it becomes easily obvious when something is left in the wrong place. It is important, though, that the parent not make not cleaning seem as screwed up behavior. Gaining good habits of putting things away has nothing to do with being respectable and not screwed-up. Or if a family has so many chores that need to be done it is great stress for parents to do them all, it is not wrong to expect children to do some chores, which after all can be not particularly unpleasant to do in moderation. Exercise and basic life skills can be gained thereby. Another even more obvious example is that if a girl wants to get pregnant she shouldn’t expect her parents to be willing to take care of her children unless the parents want to help. Similarly, if a child is a nuisance to parents, the parents shouldn’t feel like they should have to take care of him after he is grown, unless they want to do so, of course. Parents also have a right to their freedoms, and just as it is inappropriate for parents to try to force children to be otherwise than what they are, it is inappropriate for children to try to control their parents, unless of course addiction or something similar is controlling a parent, in which case the child, like a parent would be with him, is at rights to try to force the parent away from that addiction to the extent it is in his power, which may be rather limited , say by trying to make the addicted parent ashamed.
Why do parents tyrannize children so much? Part of the problem is that power is not shared equally. Parents tend to have more power over children than vice versa, parents usually controlling the money and society giving them more rights. Not infrequently, men abusive to their wives will abuse children just to make controlling and tyrannizing seem more generally natural and appropriate than it is. Something similar occasioned no doubt the fierce opposition in the antebellum South to resisting attempts to abolish slavery. The Rebels were basically willing to fight a war over it. Probably, if one studied the matter carefully enough, one could demonstrate that child abuse and the belief in the appropriateness of tyrannizing children is more common in the South than otherwise, a remnant of the antebellum pro-slavery notions having held sway there less than 150 years ago. What I have noticed, is a tendency of parents who don’t believe shame has any purpose to be especially disciplinarian. Parents know that there is a place for controlling children. They should realize that mostly they should be disciplinarians only when addictions are involved, i.e., when shaming would be appropriate if necessary. Believe shame has no useful purpose (or is useful only as a weapon to get back at those shaming you), and you will not understand the sphere in which discipline mostly should apply, i.e., to behavior that deserves shame when persuasion won’t suffice to stop it. And presumably there are other people who try to make their children feel shame whenever they are trying to change their behavior; this too is inappropriate.
There are a few basic matters of politeness that also should apply when there are disagreements between parents and children. It is almost always wrong for parents to feel anger at their children. They should never scream at them unless screaming is necessary to be heard (e.g., on account of distance separating parent from child). Anger is only an appropriate emotion when you feel like you are fighting something trying to sodomize you, and it is not like children sodomize their parents (or at least, it is something extremely rare). And saying the same thing over and over to a child is a form of tyranny. True conversation contains thoughtful unfamiliar ideas likely to be of interest to the hearer. A parent explaining to a child why the parent feels the child is not being true to himself can be useful as a way of demonstrating to the child that whatever discipline meted out to the child is just. That would be useful conversation. Just saying the same thing over and over and over again is not useful conversation but will appear as underhanded punishments dressed up as something it isn’t for presumably wrong deceptive reasons.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Catch-22: Guilt corresponds to sanity, Masturbation corresponds to bombing
In recent posts, I have several times mentioned I believe I had been caught in a catch-22 sort of vicious circle in my youth. Well, I have never actually read the novel Catch-22, so even though I had a vague remembrance of it having been described to me what exactly the catch-22 was, I decided I ought to look it up, especially since I had doubts about the worthiness of the book (I think maybe I confused the book with Fahrenheit 451, the movie of which I decided to stop looking at after a dose of ridiculous firemen dressed up like sperm). So I looked it up in Wikipedia of course. The Wikipedia article (this version) described the catch-22 about as I remembered it, and for all of a minute or two its logical explanation seemed clever, but upon a not very closer examination, I thought, “How preposterous!” No one would view as fundamentally significant both A --> not B and B --> not A, because the two statements are trivially logically equivalent to each other! And yet, it did somehow seem right that the profundity didn’t rest just in both A and B being impossible because A implies not B. I.e., the catch-22 is more than insanity and an application to not fly on account of insanity (A and B) being impossible on account of insanity implying the impossibility of an application to fly (A implies not B) because insane people don’t make applications admitting their insanity. E.g., as mentioned early in the article, what is also relevant is that supposedly sanity implies not wanting to fly. (Which is similar to not A implies B.) After a reasonable amount of effort, I could not see that the catch-22 is really of any at-all-obvious logical importance, which suggested to me that its logical structure resonates because it has some psychological significance.
Since people feel guilty about masturbation in a sort of vicious circle that brought to mind catch-22, I naturally decided to try the analogy there first. After a day or so of struggling with my feelings about it, the analogy I found to work was to view guilt as corresponding to sanity and masturbation as corresponding to flying. So I wasn’t exactly caught by a catch-22, but by another sort of vicious circle. The catch-22 applies to those people who when they think that they are sufficiently guilt-free and that for them masturbation is not particularly reasonable, will make application to their wills, “I am guilt-free, feel good about myself, and can’t see masturbation has any useful purpose. Therefore, allow me to not masturbate.” The will should and often does respond, “No. I agree that it makes sense that guilt-free people, being reasonable, should not masturbate if they find masturbation not useful. But if you were truly guilt-free, you would find masturbation of a great deal more importance, so I am introducing this picture of nude female in your brain. Masturbate, it’s an order.” As for me, the loop I was in was like the loop of a pilot who was sane and didn’t want to bomb. What the article about Catch-22 doesn’t mention is the other vicious circle, namely that craziness not only is necessary to keep one from applying to stop bombing, but also that bombing causes craziness. In other words, sanity can cause one to not want to fly bombing missions, and not flying bombing missions causes sanity. So a general who wants crazy pilots who want to fly just flat out doesn’t allow applications to not fly from non-crazy people, the very people he scoffs at the most. Something analogous was applicable to me. I was like a sane person who didn’t want to bomb. The more sane a bomber is, the more he applies to not bomb, and the less he bombs, the more sane he gets. So the anti-will steps in to make sure that for sane people, applying not to bomb does not entail not bombing, so the vicious circle doesn’t happen. The same happened to me. The more guilty I was, the more I would apply to not masturbate, and the more I would not masturbate or disrespect the phenomenon, the more guilty I would end up being, because it would make my masturbation not profound. So the anti-will stepped in to make sure that when I felt guilty, applying to not masturbate does not entail not masturbating. I could not succeed in (wrongly) beating down my sexual fantasies.
Now if you’ve followed my train of reasoning, this all sounds pretty ridiculous, I can well imagine. Since now I claim to be not guilty and to have fairly profound sexual fantasies, I am essentially saying that I used to be like a sane bomber who didn’t want to bomb, but now I am like a crazy bomber who appreciates bombing, and that this is a good thing. So why does the catch-22 resonate as well as it does? Well, on the one hand, it might resonate because it makes the generals seem manipulative in a clever way, which could serve an anti-war purpose. But even if Heller’s book is anti-war, if that were all there were to it, one could scarcely say Heller was anti-war, because if he were, how could his having made crazy bombing seem like sane masturbation be seen as anti-war? So it wouldn’t make sense that he would on whatever level do such a thing. No, one has to look at another possible analogy and thus vicious circle. The reason people have a propensity to view seemingly purposeless masturbation as something to feel guilty about is that masturbation can cause feelings of intense sexual pleasure. This is only natural, because it is very useful from an evolutionary standpoint to understand one’s own sexual desires, and masturbation can be a help in gaining such understanding. Accordingly, theory suggests there is a kind of resemblance between the meaningless sordid pleasure obtainable via actively getting sodomized and the sexual pleasure of masturbation if there be no apparent meaning to the latter. Instead of viewing bombing as masturbating, suppose one views it as getting sodomized. Then one sees that crazy bombing is like without guilt getting sodomized, indeed a dreadful thing. The more guilty a sodomite is about feelings to get sodomized, the more he (or she) applies to not get sodomized, and the more he doesn’t get sodomized, the more clear-headed he becomes, which would make sodomy seem less profound and more worthy of being guilty about. It is a circle that is only vicious logically−not all positive feedback is bad. Indeed, viewing guilt as sanity and getting sodomized as bombing makes it quite clear that the loop between not bombing and not wanting to bomb is a very good one to encourage. The difficulty I had is that it was very difficult for me to decide what sort of loop I was in. Was I feeling guilty about sordid pleasures or unsordid ones? Was it a good loop (given the circumstances) or a bad one? Only understanding gave a solution.
But like I said, looking at the analogy in the first way, i.e., viewing bombing as masturbation, I wasn’t exactly in a catch-22. Or at least, I never was in a catch-22 for long. It might be of interest to see if for nothing else than artistic reasons what the catch-22 corresponds to exactly in questions of sordidness. I.e., What would an application to cease bombing from an insane person correspond to if bombing corresponds to getting sodomized and insanity corresponds to being guilt-free? Plugging things in, we see that it corresponds to an application to cease getting sodomized from a non-guilty person. Alas, those applications don’t happen either, and even if they did, the real danger of not enacting the catch-22 if the other analogy is the correct one (i.e., if what is thought sordid isn’t), would probably in no way make the will or anti-will or whatever listen to them. The sodomized and addicted need to feel guilt or they can’t be rescued.
What’s really clever about the catch-22, the one mentioned in the story, is that it is apparently necessary, in order to preserve the logical structure, to view craziness as analogous to not feeling guilt. Amazing, really, anyone would think of doing that, since intuitively craziness seems more akin to excess guilt than insufficient guilt. I sensed pretty early on yesterday after deciding to think carefully about the matter that this was the case, but just for the fun of it, I first tried to see if I could make an analogy with craziness corresponding to excess guilt, and as I suspected, I didn’t succeed. Another possible catch-22 analogy, more related to violence, would be to consider that guilt causes females to think themselves cruel, because when girls feel guilty they wonder whether their loving sexual feelings are of screwed-up origin, and a way to test that is to see whether they can have sadistic cruel thoughts while having such feelings, since if their feelings are just caused by sodomy chemicals having been applied into their digestive system, they will have a hard time not feeling love and sexual desire for everyone they think about, even wicked people of no or little beauty; being able to feel cruelty makes them feel better about their love, since it makes them know it is not just some sordid chemical phenomenon. But these cruel feelings may be misinterpreted as being something wicked that deserves guilt, which causes more cruelty in some vicious loop. The way to avoid superfluous clean cruel feelings is to stop being guilty about them, whereupon in most people they probably will seem not beautiful (and pointless). But the logical structure is I think slightly different inasmuch as sexual fantasy is always useful, whereas cruelty is only useful to the extent one might should feel guilt. And looking at cruel feelings instead as akin to uninspired masturbation may also make for slight discrepancies in the analogy (guilty people don’t apply to avoid uninspired masturbation, they apply to avoid masturbation). So the vicious circle of cruelty, though very much like a catch-22, probably isn’t as exactly like it as I’m thinking be those involving masturbation and addiction. I’ll guess though, as a lark, because ha-ha the silliness of it would feel about right, it might explain other things (e.g., how the author could have discovered something so strange as an analogy on some level between guilt and sanity) about the novel that would be clearer if I read the book. One of these days, I’ll probably try to read it.
It is an interesting observation that it is not just right-wing standard anti-Pelagian currents of thought that could try to make girls feel guilty about their sadistic sexual fanatasies. (Pelagius was a late-fourth- early-fifth-century monk from the British Isles who was declared a heretic on account of his trying to deny the doctrine of original sin and the concomitant excess guilt the church selfishly desired its parishioners to feel.) Nowadays, one sees what I shall call a kind of neo-anti-Pelagianism, very much against standard anti-Pelagianism. Sodomy being so common nowadays, an effective approach for a sodomizing male to take is to try to make his victim feel good about her allowing herself to be sodomized by him. And a way of doing this is to try to make people disgusted at females having innocuous sadistic sexual fantasies, because then his victim, unable to naturally have such fantasies, will feel like she is better than other females. He can behave as if such tendencies are suggestive of an innate tendency of some females to be evil wicked homicidal torturing creatures that isn't just in their heads. And more generally he can behave as if anyone who has cruel fantasies or who loves someone with such fantasies is screwed-up and should be ashamed. This also serves another of their purposes, namely to discourage people from rescuing others, which occasionally must be done with force, and which is to their purpose, might lead their own victims to becoming rescued. I don't think the neo-anti-Pelagianists realize that by making normal females more ashamed of their sadistic fantasies, it's only going to make them more sadistic; what is even much more scary is the neo-anti-Pelagianists' indifference to giving often violent sodomizers more control over their victims. It's not the neo-anti-Pelagianists themselves that are especially dangerous directly to people not presently victimized, it's the Hitler creeps that might arise afterwards in reaction to them. But then indirectly that makes the neo-anti-Pelagianists dangerous to everybody; and we don't need to look to the future. We should care right now about rescuing those who are subject to tyranny even if the neo-anti-Pelagianists say to do so is disgusting or presumptuous. There is nothing disgusting about the right thing. Hmm, but this post is long enough, so I quit for now.
Since people feel guilty about masturbation in a sort of vicious circle that brought to mind catch-22, I naturally decided to try the analogy there first. After a day or so of struggling with my feelings about it, the analogy I found to work was to view guilt as corresponding to sanity and masturbation as corresponding to flying. So I wasn’t exactly caught by a catch-22, but by another sort of vicious circle. The catch-22 applies to those people who when they think that they are sufficiently guilt-free and that for them masturbation is not particularly reasonable, will make application to their wills, “I am guilt-free, feel good about myself, and can’t see masturbation has any useful purpose. Therefore, allow me to not masturbate.” The will should and often does respond, “No. I agree that it makes sense that guilt-free people, being reasonable, should not masturbate if they find masturbation not useful. But if you were truly guilt-free, you would find masturbation of a great deal more importance, so I am introducing this picture of nude female in your brain. Masturbate, it’s an order.” As for me, the loop I was in was like the loop of a pilot who was sane and didn’t want to bomb. What the article about Catch-22 doesn’t mention is the other vicious circle, namely that craziness not only is necessary to keep one from applying to stop bombing, but also that bombing causes craziness. In other words, sanity can cause one to not want to fly bombing missions, and not flying bombing missions causes sanity. So a general who wants crazy pilots who want to fly just flat out doesn’t allow applications to not fly from non-crazy people, the very people he scoffs at the most. Something analogous was applicable to me. I was like a sane person who didn’t want to bomb. The more sane a bomber is, the more he applies to not bomb, and the less he bombs, the more sane he gets. So the anti-will steps in to make sure that for sane people, applying not to bomb does not entail not bombing, so the vicious circle doesn’t happen. The same happened to me. The more guilty I was, the more I would apply to not masturbate, and the more I would not masturbate or disrespect the phenomenon, the more guilty I would end up being, because it would make my masturbation not profound. So the anti-will stepped in to make sure that when I felt guilty, applying to not masturbate does not entail not masturbating. I could not succeed in (wrongly) beating down my sexual fantasies.
Now if you’ve followed my train of reasoning, this all sounds pretty ridiculous, I can well imagine. Since now I claim to be not guilty and to have fairly profound sexual fantasies, I am essentially saying that I used to be like a sane bomber who didn’t want to bomb, but now I am like a crazy bomber who appreciates bombing, and that this is a good thing. So why does the catch-22 resonate as well as it does? Well, on the one hand, it might resonate because it makes the generals seem manipulative in a clever way, which could serve an anti-war purpose. But even if Heller’s book is anti-war, if that were all there were to it, one could scarcely say Heller was anti-war, because if he were, how could his having made crazy bombing seem like sane masturbation be seen as anti-war? So it wouldn’t make sense that he would on whatever level do such a thing. No, one has to look at another possible analogy and thus vicious circle. The reason people have a propensity to view seemingly purposeless masturbation as something to feel guilty about is that masturbation can cause feelings of intense sexual pleasure. This is only natural, because it is very useful from an evolutionary standpoint to understand one’s own sexual desires, and masturbation can be a help in gaining such understanding. Accordingly, theory suggests there is a kind of resemblance between the meaningless sordid pleasure obtainable via actively getting sodomized and the sexual pleasure of masturbation if there be no apparent meaning to the latter. Instead of viewing bombing as masturbating, suppose one views it as getting sodomized. Then one sees that crazy bombing is like without guilt getting sodomized, indeed a dreadful thing. The more guilty a sodomite is about feelings to get sodomized, the more he (or she) applies to not get sodomized, and the more he doesn’t get sodomized, the more clear-headed he becomes, which would make sodomy seem less profound and more worthy of being guilty about. It is a circle that is only vicious logically−not all positive feedback is bad. Indeed, viewing guilt as sanity and getting sodomized as bombing makes it quite clear that the loop between not bombing and not wanting to bomb is a very good one to encourage. The difficulty I had is that it was very difficult for me to decide what sort of loop I was in. Was I feeling guilty about sordid pleasures or unsordid ones? Was it a good loop (given the circumstances) or a bad one? Only understanding gave a solution.
But like I said, looking at the analogy in the first way, i.e., viewing bombing as masturbation, I wasn’t exactly in a catch-22. Or at least, I never was in a catch-22 for long. It might be of interest to see if for nothing else than artistic reasons what the catch-22 corresponds to exactly in questions of sordidness. I.e., What would an application to cease bombing from an insane person correspond to if bombing corresponds to getting sodomized and insanity corresponds to being guilt-free? Plugging things in, we see that it corresponds to an application to cease getting sodomized from a non-guilty person. Alas, those applications don’t happen either, and even if they did, the real danger of not enacting the catch-22 if the other analogy is the correct one (i.e., if what is thought sordid isn’t), would probably in no way make the will or anti-will or whatever listen to them. The sodomized and addicted need to feel guilt or they can’t be rescued.
What’s really clever about the catch-22, the one mentioned in the story, is that it is apparently necessary, in order to preserve the logical structure, to view craziness as analogous to not feeling guilt. Amazing, really, anyone would think of doing that, since intuitively craziness seems more akin to excess guilt than insufficient guilt. I sensed pretty early on yesterday after deciding to think carefully about the matter that this was the case, but just for the fun of it, I first tried to see if I could make an analogy with craziness corresponding to excess guilt, and as I suspected, I didn’t succeed. Another possible catch-22 analogy, more related to violence, would be to consider that guilt causes females to think themselves cruel, because when girls feel guilty they wonder whether their loving sexual feelings are of screwed-up origin, and a way to test that is to see whether they can have sadistic cruel thoughts while having such feelings, since if their feelings are just caused by sodomy chemicals having been applied into their digestive system, they will have a hard time not feeling love and sexual desire for everyone they think about, even wicked people of no or little beauty; being able to feel cruelty makes them feel better about their love, since it makes them know it is not just some sordid chemical phenomenon. But these cruel feelings may be misinterpreted as being something wicked that deserves guilt, which causes more cruelty in some vicious loop. The way to avoid superfluous clean cruel feelings is to stop being guilty about them, whereupon in most people they probably will seem not beautiful (and pointless). But the logical structure is I think slightly different inasmuch as sexual fantasy is always useful, whereas cruelty is only useful to the extent one might should feel guilt. And looking at cruel feelings instead as akin to uninspired masturbation may also make for slight discrepancies in the analogy (guilty people don’t apply to avoid uninspired masturbation, they apply to avoid masturbation). So the vicious circle of cruelty, though very much like a catch-22, probably isn’t as exactly like it as I’m thinking be those involving masturbation and addiction. I’ll guess though, as a lark, because ha-ha the silliness of it would feel about right, it might explain other things (e.g., how the author could have discovered something so strange as an analogy on some level between guilt and sanity) about the novel that would be clearer if I read the book. One of these days, I’ll probably try to read it.
It is an interesting observation that it is not just right-wing standard anti-Pelagian currents of thought that could try to make girls feel guilty about their sadistic sexual fanatasies. (Pelagius was a late-fourth- early-fifth-century monk from the British Isles who was declared a heretic on account of his trying to deny the doctrine of original sin and the concomitant excess guilt the church selfishly desired its parishioners to feel.) Nowadays, one sees what I shall call a kind of neo-anti-Pelagianism, very much against standard anti-Pelagianism. Sodomy being so common nowadays, an effective approach for a sodomizing male to take is to try to make his victim feel good about her allowing herself to be sodomized by him. And a way of doing this is to try to make people disgusted at females having innocuous sadistic sexual fantasies, because then his victim, unable to naturally have such fantasies, will feel like she is better than other females. He can behave as if such tendencies are suggestive of an innate tendency of some females to be evil wicked homicidal torturing creatures that isn't just in their heads. And more generally he can behave as if anyone who has cruel fantasies or who loves someone with such fantasies is screwed-up and should be ashamed. This also serves another of their purposes, namely to discourage people from rescuing others, which occasionally must be done with force, and which is to their purpose, might lead their own victims to becoming rescued. I don't think the neo-anti-Pelagianists realize that by making normal females more ashamed of their sadistic fantasies, it's only going to make them more sadistic; what is even much more scary is the neo-anti-Pelagianists' indifference to giving often violent sodomizers more control over their victims. It's not the neo-anti-Pelagianists themselves that are especially dangerous directly to people not presently victimized, it's the Hitler creeps that might arise afterwards in reaction to them. But then indirectly that makes the neo-anti-Pelagianists dangerous to everybody; and we don't need to look to the future. We should care right now about rescuing those who are subject to tyranny even if the neo-anti-Pelagianists say to do so is disgusting or presumptuous. There is nothing disgusting about the right thing. Hmm, but this post is long enough, so I quit for now.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Girls and Love
Something that annoys me is that to the extent girls are supposed to have sexual desires, they are supposed to be motivated by love rather than pleasure. Love is a dangerous thing—it involves being willing to sacrifice for the other person, a willingness that is imprudent if one lacks understanding. For the rewards of being loved being what they are, there are a great many who try to trick others into loving them, notwithstanding they don’t deserve it. It’s a rare girl who understands herself and others sufficiently for it to be prudent for her to give herself away from love. Evolution doesn’t select particularly well against girls loving for reasons unnatural to themselves because unlike being the sort of person who is willing to be unselfish, unselfishness is by definition not rewarding in a pleasant sense. The difference between a girl having sex because she is deluded into thinking it incredibly pleasant sexually and between her having it because she knows correctly that it actually is incredibly pleasant sexually is like the difference between hell and heaven—girls will be expected to be highly evolved in not making the wrong choice, because ones that do make the wrong choice especially die out along with their offspring of (usually) miserable brats, while those who do make the right choice tend to get awesome well-loved children tending to leave lots of offspring. But the difference between giving sexually from true love and giving sexually from having been tricked into love is only like the difference between hell and heaven insofar as its effects on humanity are concerned. So far as a girl is concerned, giving from love is unselfish and thus (by definition) not particularly rewarding either way. The only reason it could be expected for girls to evolve to be sexually unselfish from love would be if lovers or other people rewarded them for by nature being willing to be thus unselfish. But why would males or people in general reward girls well for being loving when loving for the wrong reasons can be such a bad thing for humanity that it is probably not really prudent for girls to be especially loving?
Girls just sort of assume that men would want them to be loving. This was something I was noticing just a few weeks ago when a family trip caused me to have to eat out more than usual. When I see an attractive girl at a restaurant or whatever, of course I look upon her nicely with my pious look. But doing this, it occurred to me that one girl was trying to convince me that she too was loving and gentle-like. She just sort of assumed that my being a more loving sort of pious person meant I believed girls should be that way, too. And all it did was make her afraid and feel like thinking of me while leaning on her dad I guess he was. And then the next time I had occasion to look all gentlemanly-like at a girl sitting across from me she just sort of looked like she was trying to convince me that I wasn’t smart not to realize it be funner to not try to be pious when considering girls. It’s as though when evaluating me she decided if she didn’t convince me to realize sex can be funner unholy and lustful, she wouldn’t have any fun, and she wasn’t optimistic because my piety was real. I think she wondered whether I must be one of those jealous Taliban sorts who of course don’t claim to like lust in sex (because they don’t want their wives to be tempted to stray). I won’t pretend those girls were irresistibly attracted to me sufficiently to have paid very close attention, and not that I studied them sufficiently to be certain of the subtleties of their expressions, but I can’t help wondering whether if there were some way I could evince my tendency to be loving and pious without particularly giving the impression I want girls to do otherwise than to seek their own pleasure, I might fairly be almost irresistible, which might be a cool thing even with laws being what they are. Most girls are just not discriminating enough to realize that men with holy feelings for them really don’t want the girls to be holy; in fact, the more unholy girls are, the more they inspire holiness, probably. It’s the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you error—an error born of a rule that doesn’t work when people have differing needs. Girls are not pleased by guys full of unholy lust screwing them in a way that is indifferent to their own pleasure, and so mostly they just sort of assume it be bad and selfish to desire a male in a mainly sensual and mostly purely pleasure-seeking unholy way. I wouldn’t care if girls be selfish when having sex with me; it’s sex, that’s great for males anyway one looks at it, and in fact, if they aren’t selfishly seeking their own pleasure, they are likely to get too afraid, thereby indeed decreasing the fun for everybody.
People tend to be not very clear in their head what exactly constitutes depravity. Most people lump together lust and depravity using the word “fucking” and assume that this makes them ghetto clever, the way some people do because they feel they are in the know because they watch shows on HBO where every third word is “fuck”. Well, no. If a girl “fucks” a male by giving in to her unholy lustful emotions and aggressively seeking for herself sexual pleasure in bed, she is not being unkind to her lover the way a sodomizer is unkind to a girl he might sodomize. She in fact is giving him something very special. Lives are well-nigh ruined by not appreciating what sexual love is. A husband has an affair with female; she’s full of lust but maybe (she thinks) just because she thinks she can gain something over him by “fucking” him. Husband comes to have holy-desiring emotionally loving feelings for mistress, maybe because she is worth it, or maybe because his wife is worth it. But most people don’t understand that holiness is a sexual emotion, and so husband just sort of assumes it immoral to feel holy feelings for more than one female, the way it is mostly immoral to care for several females, and so he feels he has to choose, and of course he chooses where his interests lie. It’s all pointless. The more a male is holy (unless chemicals from a woman force him to be otherwise), the more he is loving to anybody he has sex with—wife, mistress or whatever. Very possibly, the husband feels holiness for the mistress mainly because he loves his wife too much to be unholy; but it is not very possible he’ll be clever enough to realize this. And the wife? Oh, if she finds out, and if the mistress is pretty and young enough, likely the wife will have a sudden increase in lust. But she won’t interpret this as “yeah, now I can have the extra fun of sex in an orgy”. No, of course not, people are too stupid. She’ll just think she wants to fuck her husband and mistress’s brains out akin to the controlling way guys sodomize wives and those they cheat with when jealousy makes them feel like it; and she’ll assume her husband has holy feelings for his mistress because she fucked them into him. She’ll interpret her emotions as hateful ones and seek divorce. Meanwhile, a daughter, unless she figures out the truth, will not be quite sure whether fuck is some kind of wretched disease that has destroyed her family or whether it’s a fuck-or-be-fucked world out there; in the first case, she won’t be as affectionate as she should be and will tend to get in the way by way of “rescuing” people from fucking, in the second case, she’s not likely to make wise reproductive decisions.
What her own sexual pleasure demands of a girl is very close to what love demands of her (according to my theory of nymphetal philokalia). Her own love indeed is important to her, but mainly because if she feel no love, then for sure that is a strong sign her pleasure isn’t real. If a girl really wants to feel love, she should prudently be led by her sexual pleasure first, for that will likely lead her to feel more love than if she be led by her love first.
Girls just sort of assume that men would want them to be loving. This was something I was noticing just a few weeks ago when a family trip caused me to have to eat out more than usual. When I see an attractive girl at a restaurant or whatever, of course I look upon her nicely with my pious look. But doing this, it occurred to me that one girl was trying to convince me that she too was loving and gentle-like. She just sort of assumed that my being a more loving sort of pious person meant I believed girls should be that way, too. And all it did was make her afraid and feel like thinking of me while leaning on her dad I guess he was. And then the next time I had occasion to look all gentlemanly-like at a girl sitting across from me she just sort of looked like she was trying to convince me that I wasn’t smart not to realize it be funner to not try to be pious when considering girls. It’s as though when evaluating me she decided if she didn’t convince me to realize sex can be funner unholy and lustful, she wouldn’t have any fun, and she wasn’t optimistic because my piety was real. I think she wondered whether I must be one of those jealous Taliban sorts who of course don’t claim to like lust in sex (because they don’t want their wives to be tempted to stray). I won’t pretend those girls were irresistibly attracted to me sufficiently to have paid very close attention, and not that I studied them sufficiently to be certain of the subtleties of their expressions, but I can’t help wondering whether if there were some way I could evince my tendency to be loving and pious without particularly giving the impression I want girls to do otherwise than to seek their own pleasure, I might fairly be almost irresistible, which might be a cool thing even with laws being what they are. Most girls are just not discriminating enough to realize that men with holy feelings for them really don’t want the girls to be holy; in fact, the more unholy girls are, the more they inspire holiness, probably. It’s the do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you error—an error born of a rule that doesn’t work when people have differing needs. Girls are not pleased by guys full of unholy lust screwing them in a way that is indifferent to their own pleasure, and so mostly they just sort of assume it be bad and selfish to desire a male in a mainly sensual and mostly purely pleasure-seeking unholy way. I wouldn’t care if girls be selfish when having sex with me; it’s sex, that’s great for males anyway one looks at it, and in fact, if they aren’t selfishly seeking their own pleasure, they are likely to get too afraid, thereby indeed decreasing the fun for everybody.
People tend to be not very clear in their head what exactly constitutes depravity. Most people lump together lust and depravity using the word “fucking” and assume that this makes them ghetto clever, the way some people do because they feel they are in the know because they watch shows on HBO where every third word is “fuck”. Well, no. If a girl “fucks” a male by giving in to her unholy lustful emotions and aggressively seeking for herself sexual pleasure in bed, she is not being unkind to her lover the way a sodomizer is unkind to a girl he might sodomize. She in fact is giving him something very special. Lives are well-nigh ruined by not appreciating what sexual love is. A husband has an affair with female; she’s full of lust but maybe (she thinks) just because she thinks she can gain something over him by “fucking” him. Husband comes to have holy-desiring emotionally loving feelings for mistress, maybe because she is worth it, or maybe because his wife is worth it. But most people don’t understand that holiness is a sexual emotion, and so husband just sort of assumes it immoral to feel holy feelings for more than one female, the way it is mostly immoral to care for several females, and so he feels he has to choose, and of course he chooses where his interests lie. It’s all pointless. The more a male is holy (unless chemicals from a woman force him to be otherwise), the more he is loving to anybody he has sex with—wife, mistress or whatever. Very possibly, the husband feels holiness for the mistress mainly because he loves his wife too much to be unholy; but it is not very possible he’ll be clever enough to realize this. And the wife? Oh, if she finds out, and if the mistress is pretty and young enough, likely the wife will have a sudden increase in lust. But she won’t interpret this as “yeah, now I can have the extra fun of sex in an orgy”. No, of course not, people are too stupid. She’ll just think she wants to fuck her husband and mistress’s brains out akin to the controlling way guys sodomize wives and those they cheat with when jealousy makes them feel like it; and she’ll assume her husband has holy feelings for his mistress because she fucked them into him. She’ll interpret her emotions as hateful ones and seek divorce. Meanwhile, a daughter, unless she figures out the truth, will not be quite sure whether fuck is some kind of wretched disease that has destroyed her family or whether it’s a fuck-or-be-fucked world out there; in the first case, she won’t be as affectionate as she should be and will tend to get in the way by way of “rescuing” people from fucking, in the second case, she’s not likely to make wise reproductive decisions.
What her own sexual pleasure demands of a girl is very close to what love demands of her (according to my theory of nymphetal philokalia). Her own love indeed is important to her, but mainly because if she feel no love, then for sure that is a strong sign her pleasure isn’t real. If a girl really wants to feel love, she should prudently be led by her sexual pleasure first, for that will likely lead her to feel more love than if she be led by her love first.
Guilt
A common misconception people make is that guilt is purely an emotion about having done something wrong. I would argue guilt is about having done something wrong contrary to nature on account of having become screwed-up. Many people behave as though there be some internal war between goodness and badness and as if guilt is the cry of goodness after badness has gotten the upper hand. But it doesn’t make much sense to me to suppose that people would naturally be divided thus inside themselves. If Abe Lincoln is correct in his assertion that “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, how much the more so in the case of a person. It is not very reasonable to suppose that the moral tendencies in people would not have evolved a kind of compromise as opposed to fighting each other in a conflicted never-ending distracting struggle. And if the bad part of a person prevailed at one time, well, I can’t see why that part wouldn’t likely prevail in the future too. Accordingly, one would expect that each part of a person’s makeup would have a small say in determining behavior, and the extent to which various parts of her have a say would be fairly steady with time, provided addictions aren’t relevant. When addictions are not involved, guilt doesn’t stop people from being bad, because they don’t have guilt, and neither does guilt then allow good people to be good, because being good, they want to be good anyway.
Girls in particular do too often, I think, consider guilt as being quite generally an important and useful help to goodness. After all, it is young females who are in most danger of getting screwed-up, they typically being the favorite targets of abusive males (and only males can sodomize). All too often females are insufficiently generous with members of their own sex. They can come to see morality as preferring guilt to a desire to sin. If a girl becomes a skank, she needs those of her own sex to help her reform. Instead, because other girls view the unjust meanness such skankiness can cause as merely immoral—as an act of selfish indifference to guilt as opposed to just a stupid act deserving guilt—the girl will more likely be hated by her own sex. Good guys are hurt unjustly by skankiness, but I don’t think skanky females deserve the hate they receive from their own sex (or the other sex, for that matter). And when males say vile things about fallen females like they have been hurt sooo bad by them they can’t help but be angry at them, I don’t think they deserve or need much sympathy. (To a female, sympathy from a male can be sexually pleasant, to a male from a female, it’s just advice or reassurance at best.) I have to kind of shake my head when I consider beautiful girls listening to misogynistic screaming music by boys railing about female disgustingness. Some of it, I see from the lyrics, is quite full of descriptions of violence against females. The problem with hating skanks is that skanks are not made skanks by nature, but by males, often through violence. And sure, those girls with more of a heart and more of a capacity for guilt can better free themselves from depravity, and females with those qualities are to be admired for them, but How can one hate females for depravity when it is the unselfish female who are the abusers favorite targets? It’s hard for a male to addict a female into being (unjustly) unselfish toward him when unselfishness is not a part of her nature. I would urge girls to be a little careful about angry angst-ridden guys—sometimes angst is fake and just an excuse for violence. Personally, I have never had a violent thought against skanky females. I don’t bother thinking much about bad females I obviously can’t rescue easily (and one rarely can rescue a bad female easily if she is screwed-up), and if I feel a girl is good, I have faith in that judgment no matter how mean or nasty she behave. Unless, of course, I end up feeling otherwise, but that’s not likely to happen to sensitive people, who can judge innate character better than anything else external. The importance of this faith is probably mainly what gives faith its religious significance to most people. Without it, it would be hard to believe that goodness would be strong enough to exist in this world, and you would turn into a selfish cynic. The faith is beautiful and good. And the faith is correct. That guys go insane because the faith conflicts with empirical “evidence” is not evidence of the error of faith, it’s evidence of the error of standard worldly explanations of female behavior, and the extent to which these explanations guide people, at least at the start. The wise person must go inside of himself, his feelings toward her, and nature as it is, throw away his worldly assumptions, and use his own faculties of understanding to come at the truth as I did (or, he can just read my antisodomy page, but even then he has to find reasons in himself to believe the truth more than standard dumbass dogma). Don’t get me wrong, standard dogma is a far cry from being as clueless about depravity as a skanky female is likely to be, but for all that, it is still pretty stupid—in particular, too stupid to give much protection against the insanity that a failure to comprehend can cause in a male for whom wisdom is so important mostly he would just march his brain right through hell if that be the morally upright thing to do by way of understanding what afflicts beloved females.
Ironically, it is largely religion that has caused guilt to be viewed with such general respect. Presumably, feeling guilty and believing in original sin (a notion that encourages continual guilt) encourage church attendance, after all. So I figure probably some girls like death metal too much (from the little I’ve heard it, it isn’t possible to like it too little) because their excess churchiness makes them excessively hate skanky girls who don’t feel sufficiently guilty about their disgusting behaviors. They don’t have the faith. (In fairness to girls, it is probably even more trying for them to rescue fallen females, because when the screwed-up girls throw shit back, it’s harder for girl targets not to feel defiled, even though of course they aren’t defiled, it being sodomy that defiles. My apologies to any girl hit accidentally by crap thrown at me.) Yeah, that must be it.
Girls in particular do too often, I think, consider guilt as being quite generally an important and useful help to goodness. After all, it is young females who are in most danger of getting screwed-up, they typically being the favorite targets of abusive males (and only males can sodomize). All too often females are insufficiently generous with members of their own sex. They can come to see morality as preferring guilt to a desire to sin. If a girl becomes a skank, she needs those of her own sex to help her reform. Instead, because other girls view the unjust meanness such skankiness can cause as merely immoral—as an act of selfish indifference to guilt as opposed to just a stupid act deserving guilt—the girl will more likely be hated by her own sex. Good guys are hurt unjustly by skankiness, but I don’t think skanky females deserve the hate they receive from their own sex (or the other sex, for that matter). And when males say vile things about fallen females like they have been hurt sooo bad by them they can’t help but be angry at them, I don’t think they deserve or need much sympathy. (To a female, sympathy from a male can be sexually pleasant, to a male from a female, it’s just advice or reassurance at best.) I have to kind of shake my head when I consider beautiful girls listening to misogynistic screaming music by boys railing about female disgustingness. Some of it, I see from the lyrics, is quite full of descriptions of violence against females. The problem with hating skanks is that skanks are not made skanks by nature, but by males, often through violence. And sure, those girls with more of a heart and more of a capacity for guilt can better free themselves from depravity, and females with those qualities are to be admired for them, but How can one hate females for depravity when it is the unselfish female who are the abusers favorite targets? It’s hard for a male to addict a female into being (unjustly) unselfish toward him when unselfishness is not a part of her nature. I would urge girls to be a little careful about angry angst-ridden guys—sometimes angst is fake and just an excuse for violence. Personally, I have never had a violent thought against skanky females. I don’t bother thinking much about bad females I obviously can’t rescue easily (and one rarely can rescue a bad female easily if she is screwed-up), and if I feel a girl is good, I have faith in that judgment no matter how mean or nasty she behave. Unless, of course, I end up feeling otherwise, but that’s not likely to happen to sensitive people, who can judge innate character better than anything else external. The importance of this faith is probably mainly what gives faith its religious significance to most people. Without it, it would be hard to believe that goodness would be strong enough to exist in this world, and you would turn into a selfish cynic. The faith is beautiful and good. And the faith is correct. That guys go insane because the faith conflicts with empirical “evidence” is not evidence of the error of faith, it’s evidence of the error of standard worldly explanations of female behavior, and the extent to which these explanations guide people, at least at the start. The wise person must go inside of himself, his feelings toward her, and nature as it is, throw away his worldly assumptions, and use his own faculties of understanding to come at the truth as I did (or, he can just read my antisodomy page, but even then he has to find reasons in himself to believe the truth more than standard dumbass dogma). Don’t get me wrong, standard dogma is a far cry from being as clueless about depravity as a skanky female is likely to be, but for all that, it is still pretty stupid—in particular, too stupid to give much protection against the insanity that a failure to comprehend can cause in a male for whom wisdom is so important mostly he would just march his brain right through hell if that be the morally upright thing to do by way of understanding what afflicts beloved females.
Ironically, it is largely religion that has caused guilt to be viewed with such general respect. Presumably, feeling guilty and believing in original sin (a notion that encourages continual guilt) encourage church attendance, after all. So I figure probably some girls like death metal too much (from the little I’ve heard it, it isn’t possible to like it too little) because their excess churchiness makes them excessively hate skanky girls who don’t feel sufficiently guilty about their disgusting behaviors. They don’t have the faith. (In fairness to girls, it is probably even more trying for them to rescue fallen females, because when the screwed-up girls throw shit back, it’s harder for girl targets not to feel defiled, even though of course they aren’t defiled, it being sodomy that defiles. My apologies to any girl hit accidentally by crap thrown at me.) Yeah, that must be it.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Love and gratitude distinct in their consequences
This morning I got to thinking how gratitude has differing obligations from love. There are girls in this world who have done me and humanity a service by teaching me about love—inspiring me to discover great truths I believe thitherto unknown by earthly creatures. I am very much grateful to them. In fact, I am more than grateful, I am obliged. Whenever someone does something so right to not only myself but to humanity as well, it would be wrong not to behave in a way so as to encourage such behavior quite generally. A higher justice demands that when it is in one’s power and province to reward someone for something kind and brave that she has done which greatly benefits not only you but the world at large, that one tries to do so. Accordingly, to such girls as have done such , I would always be more loving in emotion and attitude than my love suggests—it just would be wrong and inconsiderate of future humanity not to do so. A good man has something of an obligation to uphold the values that encourage girls (in all generations, present and future) to be less fearful and hesitant to behave toward a man in such a manner as to greatly benefit the greater good. How indebted I am for such girls having taken a chance on me, to the extent they did so more than typical! And yes, how indebted society is also, or at least they will be if they begin to take my discoveries seriously.
Oftentimes, unfortunately, stuff gets in the way that prevents relationships from occurring with girls when they ideally should happen. And the girls that inspire me are not the puritanical sort of girls, but those who allow their emotions more wildness. But as Locke says, “The greatest part of true knowledge lies in a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct. And some men give more clear light and knowledge by the bare distinct stating of a question, than others do by talking of it in gross, whole hours together.” In particular, often times a failure to possess a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct causes girls to view all the distinct varieties of wildness as being not distinct or fundamentally different one from another. A female might per chance come to view the innocent wildness of whatever emotion she had toward me when young as not being fundamentally different from the wild emotions characteristic of cocktail parties, bars and indeed the alcohol-lifestyle quite generally, and so I figure some of the inspiring girls who thankfully were especially likely to view the former set of emotions as innocuous may yet also view the latter sort of emotions as being the same sort of species of emotion, and thus come to view this latter species of emotions as innocuous. In short, it may well be that girls who loved me very well (compared with other girls) when they were younger, now don’t particularly love me at all—because they might adopt the standard drinking lifestyle, etc.. For indeed, it would be very difficult if not preposterous for me to imagine a female loving the drinking lifestyle and me at the same time, such a lifestyle being very contrary to my (obvious anti-addiction) sensibilities, as I would never pretend otherwise than to be the case. Rescuing someone from what she has come to want to be rescued from is one thing, but rescuing someone from something she doesn’t want to be rescued from is something altogether different; in particular the latter sort of rescue is typically a much more thankless and sacrificial task than the former. To the extent my concern for a girl stems mainly from love, I very well might be willing nevertheless to brave the humiliation, the shame, and the danger that she in her addicted state might try to inflict upon me, in order to make her feel the guilt that she can turn her life around with, if that appear the best chance of reform. Love is willing to sacrifice. But I doubt whether there is much point in sacrificing thus merely from obligation. If a girl (in her addicted state) does not want to be rescued and, more particularly, does not want to endure the shame and guilt such an attempt might cause in her, it seems doubtful to me that an effort on my part to inflict guilt upon her actually would by example encourage girls to be braver in loving and inspiring people like me. No, I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking, “Wow! If I drink and am wild quite generally, he will try to make me feel totally ashamed and guilty. Nowwww I see I feel like I should inspire him by letting myself go sexually wild when I’m about him.” Especially do I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking thus about a guy if the guy is even willing to make her feel ashamed when he doesn’t think it particularly likely he will succeed in his attempt at rescue. Much of the attraction girls have for good males really has to do with their being young (nymphetal philokalia); as females age, oftentimes the sexual attraction just isn’t enough anymore for her to want sex so much that there is much reason to think he can make her choose him over alcohol or whatever, even though you never know what’s possible.
So I guess my point is that if I am grateful to a woman because when she was a girl I became indebted to her, I would always be nicer to her (e.g., in bed, if she lets me in) than I would otherwise. In particular, just because she’s aged somewhat doesn’t mean I wouldn’t (sexually) want her and want her in a nice way. But on the other hand, if she gives evidence her lifestyle is screwed-up, and I don’t from my own nature love her extremely well, I’d probably just shrug my shoulders and forget about her, no matter if I’m obliged to her, I think because that would be my impression of what she as she’s become would want from me, namely, that which would give her the least occasion for guilt.
Oftentimes, unfortunately, stuff gets in the way that prevents relationships from occurring with girls when they ideally should happen. And the girls that inspire me are not the puritanical sort of girls, but those who allow their emotions more wildness. But as Locke says, “The greatest part of true knowledge lies in a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct. And some men give more clear light and knowledge by the bare distinct stating of a question, than others do by talking of it in gross, whole hours together.” In particular, often times a failure to possess a distinct perception of things in themselves distinct causes girls to view all the distinct varieties of wildness as being not distinct or fundamentally different one from another. A female might per chance come to view the innocent wildness of whatever emotion she had toward me when young as not being fundamentally different from the wild emotions characteristic of cocktail parties, bars and indeed the alcohol-lifestyle quite generally, and so I figure some of the inspiring girls who thankfully were especially likely to view the former set of emotions as innocuous may yet also view the latter sort of emotions as being the same sort of species of emotion, and thus come to view this latter species of emotions as innocuous. In short, it may well be that girls who loved me very well (compared with other girls) when they were younger, now don’t particularly love me at all—because they might adopt the standard drinking lifestyle, etc.. For indeed, it would be very difficult if not preposterous for me to imagine a female loving the drinking lifestyle and me at the same time, such a lifestyle being very contrary to my (obvious anti-addiction) sensibilities, as I would never pretend otherwise than to be the case. Rescuing someone from what she has come to want to be rescued from is one thing, but rescuing someone from something she doesn’t want to be rescued from is something altogether different; in particular the latter sort of rescue is typically a much more thankless and sacrificial task than the former. To the extent my concern for a girl stems mainly from love, I very well might be willing nevertheless to brave the humiliation, the shame, and the danger that she in her addicted state might try to inflict upon me, in order to make her feel the guilt that she can turn her life around with, if that appear the best chance of reform. Love is willing to sacrifice. But I doubt whether there is much point in sacrificing thus merely from obligation. If a girl (in her addicted state) does not want to be rescued and, more particularly, does not want to endure the shame and guilt such an attempt might cause in her, it seems doubtful to me that an effort on my part to inflict guilt upon her actually would by example encourage girls to be braver in loving and inspiring people like me. No, I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking, “Wow! If I drink and am wild quite generally, he will try to make me feel totally ashamed and guilty. Nowwww I see I feel like I should inspire him by letting myself go sexually wild when I’m about him.” Especially do I find it difficult to imagine girls thinking thus about a guy if the guy is even willing to make her feel ashamed when he doesn’t think it particularly likely he will succeed in his attempt at rescue. Much of the attraction girls have for good males really has to do with their being young (nymphetal philokalia); as females age, oftentimes the sexual attraction just isn’t enough anymore for her to want sex so much that there is much reason to think he can make her choose him over alcohol or whatever, even though you never know what’s possible.
So I guess my point is that if I am grateful to a woman because when she was a girl I became indebted to her, I would always be nicer to her (e.g., in bed, if she lets me in) than I would otherwise. In particular, just because she’s aged somewhat doesn’t mean I wouldn’t (sexually) want her and want her in a nice way. But on the other hand, if she gives evidence her lifestyle is screwed-up, and I don’t from my own nature love her extremely well, I’d probably just shrug my shoulders and forget about her, no matter if I’m obliged to her, I think because that would be my impression of what she as she’s become would want from me, namely, that which would give her the least occasion for guilt.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Seriously silly
After writing the next-to-last post, and before writing the last one, I almost was going to interrupt and write something about silliness and how that relates to the attractiveness of smiling not-sad girls, even though I prefer girls sad. There's a deal to this, and though I never got the details down smoothly, I could have perhaps thrashed out something interesting. But after having a more interesting extra idea about what I was going to originally write about anyway, I switched back to my original plan. Anyway, I have now made a poem about what I almost earlier wrote about in prose.
And to random people who haven't thought about me much, let me make clear that when my poem gets to "Incongruities/when not perverse/.../there is nothing really funny about them", please don't infer that I think perverse incongruities are funny.
Girls smile
The girls smile
The girl smiles
She looks right comely
Innocent as water
No mean reason
to be all serious
When there is so much play
to be had
and fun
beyond your imagination
sir.
Tra-la
la la-la-la
She splashes her friends aaanndd
her friend splashes her back
They laugh.
They could have had me take them right there
If no one lived in this town
who might know about it.
Say.
You like play.
I know you do.
Her friend twirls about
On one toe
like a ballerina
Only easier on her toes—
she’s in the water.
Every side of her prettiousness...
Revealed.
Come on,
this is boring
she tells her friend.
They get up,
lay down for an expected while,
not quite as jolly as they were,
Because I’m not.
Long time ago,
I should have done this.
Made realize girls I wanted them sad
to give them sexual pleasure
and not just because,
I don’t know,
that appeared the holy thing for them to be.
Let me look at these girls pointedly.
I rebuke you not,
ye darling so sexy most prettious lasses
for your smiles so seductive and meet,
I just want you sad
to give you more pleasure in bed,
that’s all;
I am sad
because sexually
I love you,
and not because
you don’t please me
or because I’m not glad to have had this occasion
of delight
and beauty.
You do not need to seduce me:
my willingness is total,
even if my opportunity isn’t quite.
Most guys,
I’m afraid it’s true,
need to be seduced,
or at least that’s about all that explains
why girls so smiling
so pretty are,
when I don’t want them that way.
Pleasure
Sexual pleasure
Men are afraid of having it
to the extent
and vastness
that it is possible
for fucking to give them.
Girls try to correct man’s error,
which is however not an error in me.
Loosen up a little,
have some fun,
there every action does suggest
fear of rebuke
for pleasure sought
from men who value
pleasure naught.
Or at least,
so the men themselves have been taught,
of themselves,
that pleasure had by fucking girls
is not
true
or anything a wise man
would pursue
But wise men good,
they love themselves,
they do,
even if also
they love others too.
Do not assume,
little girl,
that people
smile just
when they are having fun,
and that when they don’t,
they can’t enjoy themselves.
It’s what they teach on Sesame Street,
I know,
but it’s wrong.
You’re right,
I’d have to be a twit
not to enjoy the moments with you,
but it’s not relevant,
because I do.
Just because 99% of men
who look upon thee serious
are gruff
to the extent they aren’t happy
at what you are about
doesn’t mean I am gruff
for the same reason.
I am gruff
not because I refuse to be pleased,
but because I want to please you more
and can better do so
when you empathize with my desire
to give you greater sexual pleasure
than I could give
otherwise.
Besides,
I have a reputation to withhold,
or at least one day I might.
It is true, though,
there’s something else involved, too,
why a laugh,
disaster,
could bring smiles
when there is no particular reason
for it to.
Incongruities
when not perverse
(and truly, there be not many incongruities that actually are),
there is nothing really funny about them
even though they make us laugh:
ha (statememt)
in my silly logic
is tautologically equivalent
to the meet (logical and)
of statement and silly (statement).
The truth value of the ha operator applied to a statement
is silly precisely when the statement be silly.
Otherwise, its truth value is false.
One can prove things about “ha” just like one can prove things about other logical operators.
One can be serious about silly,
and still appreciate silly,
silly only the same thing as funny
when fear of silly
not only makes you a pedant,
but
keeps you from having fun
with girls.
Irrational denominator
equals
irrational bottom of fraction
equals
irrational bottom
equals
dirty bottom
equals
bad bottom;
the pedant equation of equivocation,
and the equation
justifying certain excesses in the tyrannical
homework graders wanting uniformly formatted answers.
I have proven that “ha” is idempotent: that ha squared be equal to ha,
that ha-ha means the same as ha.
So why can I imagine her saying ha again and again and again and again?
Perhaps there be more truth values than three.
Maybe investigators in the future
can make logic mooorrrreeeore silly,
maybe some year I’ll do it myself.
I’m not saying I have figured out laughter,
not that I’m anywhere close,
just that I’m beginning to have more of a precise understanding about it than typical.
I want you silly to the extent it makes you
less constrained,
more easy in thought
and feeling.
I want you silly,
it’s just I want us to be serious annnnd silly.
Serious about silliness
as about everything else.
It’s not that jokes are funny,
it’s that not not laughing destroys fun,
and so not understanding silliness destroys fun,
because then one doesn’t laugh as much,
so jokes are only funny to the extent they inform
about silliness.
I am not the genius yet to understand laughter,
maybe I’ll never be,
but if I were,
(which admittedly isn’t possible if there is no upper limit on how silly mathematical logic should be)
I figure I would not find jokes funny.
It is said good comedians don’t laugh at their own jokes.
But I don’t know, I can’t
particularly think of any
error in laughter,
nor any excess fear of the silly,
that would keep me
from letting sex with girls
be as fun as it should be.
So maybe I have fun when I laugh just because that’s what people do,
and I do what people do insanely because
I don’t really understand sufficiently precisely how to deal exactly with the incongruous.
I understand
I don’t want to really smile when I laugh.
Smiling is impious,
especially wrong with the girl I probably most love,
who is so beautiful silly.
And to random people who haven't thought about me much, let me make clear that when my poem gets to "Incongruities/when not perverse/.../there is nothing really funny about them", please don't infer that I think perverse incongruities are funny.
Girls smile
The girls smile
The girl smiles
She looks right comely
Innocent as water
No mean reason
to be all serious
When there is so much play
to be had
and fun
beyond your imagination
sir.
Tra-la
la la-la-la
She splashes her friends aaanndd
her friend splashes her back
They laugh.
They could have had me take them right there
If no one lived in this town
who might know about it.
Say.
You like play.
I know you do.
Her friend twirls about
On one toe
like a ballerina
Only easier on her toes—
she’s in the water.
Every side of her prettiousness...
Revealed.
Come on,
this is boring
she tells her friend.
They get up,
lay down for an expected while,
not quite as jolly as they were,
Because I’m not.
Long time ago,
I should have done this.
Made realize girls I wanted them sad
to give them sexual pleasure
and not just because,
I don’t know,
that appeared the holy thing for them to be.
Let me look at these girls pointedly.
I rebuke you not,
ye darling so sexy most prettious lasses
for your smiles so seductive and meet,
I just want you sad
to give you more pleasure in bed,
that’s all;
I am sad
because sexually
I love you,
and not because
you don’t please me
or because I’m not glad to have had this occasion
of delight
and beauty.
You do not need to seduce me:
my willingness is total,
even if my opportunity isn’t quite.
Most guys,
I’m afraid it’s true,
need to be seduced,
or at least that’s about all that explains
why girls so smiling
so pretty are,
when I don’t want them that way.
Pleasure
Sexual pleasure
Men are afraid of having it
to the extent
and vastness
that it is possible
for fucking to give them.
Girls try to correct man’s error,
which is however not an error in me.
Loosen up a little,
have some fun,
there every action does suggest
fear of rebuke
for pleasure sought
from men who value
pleasure naught.
Or at least,
so the men themselves have been taught,
of themselves,
that pleasure had by fucking girls
is not
true
or anything a wise man
would pursue
But wise men good,
they love themselves,
they do,
even if also
they love others too.
Do not assume,
little girl,
that people
smile just
when they are having fun,
and that when they don’t,
they can’t enjoy themselves.
It’s what they teach on Sesame Street,
I know,
but it’s wrong.
You’re right,
I’d have to be a twit
not to enjoy the moments with you,
but it’s not relevant,
because I do.
Just because 99% of men
who look upon thee serious
are gruff
to the extent they aren’t happy
at what you are about
doesn’t mean I am gruff
for the same reason.
I am gruff
not because I refuse to be pleased,
but because I want to please you more
and can better do so
when you empathize with my desire
to give you greater sexual pleasure
than I could give
otherwise.
Besides,
I have a reputation to withhold,
or at least one day I might.
It is true, though,
there’s something else involved, too,
why a laugh,
disaster,
could bring smiles
when there is no particular reason
for it to.
Incongruities
when not perverse
(and truly, there be not many incongruities that actually are),
there is nothing really funny about them
even though they make us laugh:
ha (statememt)
in my silly logic
is tautologically equivalent
to the meet (logical and)
of statement and silly (statement).
The truth value of the ha operator applied to a statement
is silly precisely when the statement be silly.
Otherwise, its truth value is false.
One can prove things about “ha” just like one can prove things about other logical operators.
One can be serious about silly,
and still appreciate silly,
silly only the same thing as funny
when fear of silly
not only makes you a pedant,
but
keeps you from having fun
with girls.
Irrational denominator
equals
irrational bottom of fraction
equals
irrational bottom
equals
dirty bottom
equals
bad bottom;
the pedant equation of equivocation,
and the equation
justifying certain excesses in the tyrannical
homework graders wanting uniformly formatted answers.
I have proven that “ha” is idempotent: that ha squared be equal to ha,
that ha-ha means the same as ha.
So why can I imagine her saying ha again and again and again and again?
Perhaps there be more truth values than three.
Maybe investigators in the future
can make logic mooorrrreeeore silly,
maybe some year I’ll do it myself.
I’m not saying I have figured out laughter,
not that I’m anywhere close,
just that I’m beginning to have more of a precise understanding about it than typical.
I want you silly to the extent it makes you
less constrained,
more easy in thought
and feeling.
I want you silly,
it’s just I want us to be serious annnnd silly.
Serious about silliness
as about everything else.
It’s not that jokes are funny,
it’s that not not laughing destroys fun,
and so not understanding silliness destroys fun,
because then one doesn’t laugh as much,
so jokes are only funny to the extent they inform
about silliness.
I am not the genius yet to understand laughter,
maybe I’ll never be,
but if I were,
(which admittedly isn’t possible if there is no upper limit on how silly mathematical logic should be)
I figure I would not find jokes funny.
It is said good comedians don’t laugh at their own jokes.
But I don’t know, I can’t
particularly think of any
error in laughter,
nor any excess fear of the silly,
that would keep me
from letting sex with girls
be as fun as it should be.
So maybe I have fun when I laugh just because that’s what people do,
and I do what people do insanely because
I don’t really understand sufficiently precisely how to deal exactly with the incongruous.
I understand
I don’t want to really smile when I laugh.
Smiling is impious,
especially wrong with the girl I probably most love,
who is so beautiful silly.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)