Tattoos and my not silly protection racket

(I don't want to say (it is a secret) one way or the other whether I feel I have the power over my young-female admirers to bring this off, or whether I feel I likely will have such power in the future, but in any case, this on some level rings true to me, and so here it is.)

I hate tattoos. It is very admirable for people to be true to themselves--to their own innate natural tendencies and what they abstract from them by means of their understandings. Especially is this so as regards romantic and sexual feelings. But my innate natural tendencies regarding sex involve naked female form. I do not have natural feelings so much about skin that looks more like a painting than skin. In short, tattoos on a female exacerbate the determination of one's natural sexual feelings about her. Tattoos are like clothes one can't take off.

Some people say that tattoos are about expressing oneself. However, I do not believe it. Much better at expressing oneself visually would be drawings, fashions, jewelries, etc., that one can change. True, tattoos don't wear out, but it's not really like tattoos are much cheaper than other ornamentation. There really isn't much saving of money there. If you can't afford fashion or jewelry, hey, it would still be cheaper than getting a tattoo on your arm and just as expressive to (say) buy a piece of PVC pipe and some paint and make a bracelet. But I am straying from the main argument. Tattoos are contrary to being true to oneself, they are tools of conformists.

Probably tattoos are worse on females than males, because males (it strikes me) more tend to judge matters visually. But it seems to me that the girls who like getting tattoos are so different from the girls that I would want or who would want me (or other decent clean males), that, basically, it is not so much of problem girls getting tattoos. I have noticed many more girls seem to threaten to get tattoos than to actually have the bad sense to obtain one. The problem is that girls who have encountered me or males like me realize that good males (quite appropriately) have a way of trying to force girls to be true to themselves (i.e., the important parts of themselves, which of course does not include the tendency to be afraid of being true to themselves). When girls get scared of males roaring and beating their chests to get them to be true to themselves, it is perhaps understandable that they might find a certain misplaced solace in males who make it so they can't (without much difficulty) force girls to be true to themselves. How can a female be very true to her own natural tendencies as regards sex with a tattooed male when her own natural tendencies about sex regard having sex with males who look like (naked) males as opposed to etchings of whatever? It's just not possible. Tattoos can't just be erased like an etch-a-sketch; apparently, it is a big deal getting rid of them.

With a girl who has sex with a male for pleasure, if she enjoys it enough, it is not hard to force her to be true to herself and to preclude her from finding tattoos attractive or acceptable. Just don't love her well to the extent she likes tattoos and the other conformist claptrap. This will train her to be more virtuously herself. But with a female who has sex mainly from love, it might prove more difficult. It's hard to force a girl like that to be more true to herself, but still, one looks for opportunities, and maybe the girl isn't sure that she won't have pleasures great enough that the male won't have certain (clean) powers over her, yeah. True, a female might be true to herself because that makes her love more dazzling and more attracting of other females to the male she loves (people like to please those they love), but maybe if the male has attracted other females she will instead sort of cede her position in the light, so her having contempt for her lover trying to force her to be true to herself won't appreciably affect what the male gets, and thus so her lover won't be much hurt. But this is not really acceptable. Is there anything the male can do about it?

Suppose you are some girl I love and you go into the background because you start admiring tattoos and commit other violations against the concept of being true to yourself. Because of your withdrawal and because you won't look as much like you are really being yourself (being so disrespectful of the concept) you will lose influence in the scene. The girls who allow themselves to be forced to be true to themselves will gain it. Suppose by somebody rumors were made to start--oh I'm just saying--I say, rumors might be made to come from these girls to the effect that maybe males with tattoos are not very desirable people really. Ooohhh! What a shame! These might be some of the very males who most listen to you. Mostly these might be nice males, just trying to do what you want. Ohhhh, how terrible... We wouldn't want them to, say, start losing all their girl admirers, now would we? What if no one shows up anymore at their concerts or their fashion shows? They'd lose their jobs and livelihood and girls might stop being nice to them. What a pity [i'm shaking my head back and forth]. Oh no--I'm not mean, I'm like yoo--...: I don't want them to get hurt. I have a proposition for you, girl, yeah,..., mayyyyybe I can help them. Because we really want to help them, don't we? We're nice people. Me, you, my girls, we're all nice people. I'm a nice person, and nice people don't like to see basically good people get hurt. There's nothing wrong with these males maybe except that they trust you and girls like you too much. Tell you what, Just stop making out like you like males to have tattoos and pro'ly I can keep my girls from doing over all the poor tattooed males.

The feelings mothers employ when considering whether their daughters should have sex presently with some particular male

It's an interesting question the extent to which mothers ideally should influence daughters' mating activity. In some cultures, e.g., those with arranged marriages being the norm, the daughter has very little control over whom she will mate, while in others, the mother has very little control. But of course, no matter what the laws, the person with legal control can for all practical purposes cede it to the other merely by deferring the decision to the other. Who should have control, though an interesting question, is not quite the question that mosts interests me or what I shall discuss here. The most interesting question, it seems to me, and what I wish to elaborate upon, is that of the extent to which a young female's sexual decisions should be influenced by her mother. Moral daughters tend to be in moral families that usually behave morally, and the most important thing is that moral daughters mate reasonably (in such a way as to encourage evolution of their useful and moral traits), which in these families who defer reasonably won't much depend on whether the laws that dictate control are reasonable. As discussed in a previous post, I believe that the main influence a mother should and does have over her daughter's sexual activity is to inform the daughter of the chances that such activity would be a large mistake. In reasonable families, the main control a mother can and does have over her daughter relationship-wise is that she can make the daughter afraid of a male or more comfortable with him, depending upon whether the mother is herself afraid or comfortable with him being intimate with her daughter. When a mother protects a daughter from what she sees as a big mistake, the chances that the daughter actually by nature (as opposed to from deception or nefarious controlling influence) really wants to do what she is contemplating are fairly slim, more especially because the daughter is half from the mother after all. Thus, there is not the least reason why a mother should think that protecting her daughter from a big sexual mistake with a male or encouraging her to feel more sexually comfortable with a male is otherwise than encouraging her daughter to be true to herself (and it is important that people are true to their innate natures when they mate, lest ideal virtuous mating tendencies not be selected for by evolution) and no reason why a daughter would view respecting her mother there as disrespecting herself or being untrue to herself. Accordingly, mothers have a tendency to specialize in evaluating danger, i.e., possibilities of daughters' large mistakes—it's what is and should be most influential. More especially do they specialize thus because such specialization and influence has caused mothers to evolve to be unusually effective (compared with daughters) at such activity. What I have new to say is that there are a couple mistakes mothers tend to make.


When a mother vicariously considers whether a particular man is the right sort to be intimate with her daughter, the part of herself that she puts into the consideration is largely that part of her that deals with safety and danger. When she fantasizes about her daughter having sex with a male, the pleasure tends to go up and down depending upon her present particular intimations and impressions of how safe her daughter would be with him. Insofar as her imagination is concerned, the mother's impression of the pleasure that a male would give her daughter should the male be not very much worse than he seems is something that she should and largely will judge mostly from what she feels her daughter thinks. My impression is that mothers on occasion make the mistake of believing that their own particular mental and emotional inputs that they use when judging a male are better and more important than those that their daughters would more tend to use. Just because a mother is more mature is no reason for her to think that the thoughts and internal feelings that are in her when she judges a mate for her daughter are better than the thoughts and feelings that are in her daughter when the daughter fantasizes more directly about a male. Mature approaches are not always better; it is often highly appropriate, in fact, that immature people behave immaturely. I'm not saying it is wrong for parents to be concerned for their daughters' sexual safety to a large degree (compared with their daughters' concern), I am saying it is wrong to slight the young daughters' tendencies to possess feelings of love and pleasure that just sort of assume that the male is safe (largely to the degree her mother thinks). The mature need to be mature, and the immature need to be immature. Girls need more than to avoid big mistakes—they also need to avoid little mistakes and to obtain rewards small or great, and the possibilities of the latter is what their immature selves are good at evaluating themselves, and what they should straightforwardly be themselves in fantasizing about and evaluating. Also, love needs not only that it not be thrown away on an utter villain, but also that it be given to him who is worthy or, better yet, very worthy. Because their childrens' safety is what mothers should tend to be most concerned about, and because mothers mistakenly think the children too should share the same concern, mothers tend to overestimate the importance of safety. A mother can play an important role in making her daughter feel safe when she is sufficiently safe and scared when she is in danger, but these matters are not particularly what daughters should be much concerned about, at least if the daughters can trust their parents.


The other mistake mothers tend to make is that they misinterpret their feelings of safety. When a mother vicariously fantasizes about a male having sex with her daughter, it is hard to say exactly, but my impression is that the physical pleasure which varies depending on how comfortable she feels about the male being safe is a sort of all-over-the-skin tingly comfy feeling. That it is an all-over feeling presumably protects the mother (and it's usually mothers who think so much of safety) from thinking the fantasy is probably about wanting sex herself. I think a mother might confuse this feeling with the comfortable feelings she might have about the male's ability or desire to provide materially for his daughter, which would after all tend to make the daughter more safe (from other things, like starvation). I leave it to females to determine what exactly this latter feeling is like, but presumably it is different from a feeling that a male is safe in the sense it's not at all likely he's much worse than he appears.


This confusion, when together with the confusion of the preceding paragraph, only tends to aggravate in mothers the tendency to overestimate the importance of money, a conceit, of course, mostly held by older people. (Older people hanging around mainly older people, and older people tending to have the most money and thus the most to gain selfishly by making money seem extra-important, the tendency for old people to overestimate the importance of money would exist even without the confusions mentioned.) Also, it might make mothers overestimate the ability of a virtuous (and thus totally safe) male to be a provider, creating unrealistic expectations.


Another consideration, it occurs to me, is that a female lusting is a dangerous (though potentially quite rewarding) phenomenon to her. As females age, they have less-and-less capacity to lust, mostly because lust is not rewarding to older females as it can be to younger females (not that lust is not more dangerous for younger females, but that is besides the point) (my theory is that female lust is significant mainly because it encourages intraejaculate sperm selection after being absorbed by a male). Anyway, too often as women age they mistake their decreased desire to lust as an effect of wisdom; it has nothing to do with wisdom, just maturity. Women's bodies are such they can't select for sperm especially suited to fertilizing young females, and so largely they have no use for lusting (an important exception being if other females, and more especially other young females are also involved). There is a tendency for women to believe the widespread lies of vile males, who mostly tend like the Taliban to view female lust as evil or stupid, and to consider their decreased lust as proof that females lusting is not only immature but stupid, to be quickly dismissed away as just a kind of immature “raging hormones” or whatever. This sort of tendency goes hand in hand with their tendency to think danger too important. I strongly do not think, however, that in practice this general disrespect for lust that women have discourages mothers from wanting their daughters to lust. A woman may and often does think female lust foolish, but once she encounters a male she thinks sufficiently safe whom she knows her daughter from her own (the daughter's) nature is very much sexually in love with, all those abstract considerations get thrown out the window. A mother in a situation like that very quickly realizes her not wanting to feel lust for sex is not an effect of mature wisdom, because though she isn't much keen on lusting for own sexual activity, she definitely will emotionally appreciate the pleasure of her daughter having lust, which will make mockery of her theories about how female lust is foolish on account of it being something only immature females with their immature brains could want. Why would she want to hurt her daughter? Indeed, the extent to which a girl should lust when having sex depends heavily on how safe the sex is; if a male is virtuous, a girl should be lustful, else there is no benefit to having sex young; but if the male is a deceptive villain, her feeling lust is a disaster, and will select for the most pathetic sperm imaginable—it's way worse than randomness. What really makes a (young) girl want to feel lust for a male during sex is her impression of her sexual evaluations being safe. A mother who wants her daughter to have sex wants her daughter to feel safe and comfy (in the sense of the sex not being dangerous as opposed to the sense of feeling the male will likely be a good provider for her), because she wouldn't want her daughter to have sex if she didn't think the sex is safe. Since mothers tend to specialize in evaluating danger and this comfyness effectively, a mother soothing her daughter when the mother actually wants to the daughter to have sex goes a very major way to making the daughter feel more safe. And a particular reason a mother wants her daughter to feel sexually safe, beyond that it can make the daughter want sex, is that it can make the daughter feel the sex is safe for lust. So it's only among mothers who haven't much experienced situations in which they wonder whether their young daughters should have sex who view their incapacity to lust as just another proof that girls need safety especially much. When mothers actually encounter males they want their daughters to have sex with, the reality of their desire for their daughters to feel lust is so strong (even compared with what the daughter herself is feeling), that disillusion is likely to be more-or-less immediate and in all likelihood more than sufficient. But it is pretty unusual for a girl to meet someone she should feel so sure about that she should have sex with him presently rather than later or not-at-all, and thus for a mother to want her young daughter to have lustful sex; so unfortunately, though women's underestimation of the specialness of female lust doesn't in practice much discourage women from encouraging their daughters to take risks for the sake of lustful pleasure, yet it makes the general social climate toward girls taking risks for their sexual pleasure and more particularly the risk of girls lusting for their own sexual pleasure a much more inimical one than it should be.


One might have noticed one could argue in reverse that girls, denying their parents' modes of thinking, tend to underestimate the importance of safety. It may be true that girls tend to underestimate the importance of safety and the danger of danger, but I don't think the reasons are entirely analogous. Parents can't always be there to protect girls; girls have no choice but often to put themselves into judging whether a male is safe, which to a certain extent they should do regardless (but probably not quite to the extent they should respect their parents' views there if they respect their parents and their parents' abilities as much as they do themselves and their own abilities). Accordingly, all the aforementioned arguments apply significantly more weakly in the reverse direction. But there is another consideration. Namely, the part of a girl that she does not share with her mother wants just like the rest of the girl to be safe, but it isn't attracted to her mother's considerations on account of her mother being like her (though it might to a certain extent especially value her mother's considerations on account of her mother having less reason to want to behave selfishly toward her). On the other hand, the part of a mother distinct from a daughter shares no pleasure or pain in the daughter making a particular choice, it being unrelated to the daughter; it is at worst indifferent. And so, as I mentioned in a previous post (with perhaps too much allusion toward statistics in it, it seems to me now), girls will undesirably tend to rely on general impressions of how safe a possible relationship would be and whether such safety be important, whereas they would do better (on average) to more respect their parents' opinions and to less encourage their parents to be more normal and less weird.

Caricature of myself

The other day I was re-reading the poems I have written in the past few years, and noticed an interesting one I had completely forgotten about. According to the word processor, I wrote it July 11, 2006. I don't believe I have heard of anybody named Leilna and have no particular interest in hang gliders. And I am far from being able to identify all plants. Still, the main character sort of reminds me of me.

He swam across the sea

He swam across the sea
to meet her
on the field
in Nimjabaroombom
for it was written,

"At half-past-six and ten-till-two
she’ll come flying by,
riding upon a giant shrew."

He opened his arms
at six-twenty-five,
AM,
hoping to meet her.
Into the wind he turned
for that’s how birds like to fly
when landing.
“Right”,
he thought,
and turned around.

There she was,
above the horizon,
her shrew was flying,
using the latest in bird-suit technology,
replicating free fall in computer-assisted ways
deemed safe.

Her mind was obvious
full of sparkling imaginings,
of things deemed too safe
for those who can’t take boredom,

He lowered his head upon the
dirt
and made obeisance
with his heart
“Oh, great Leilna, I have come to give
homage
to thy glorious presence
and don’t know if you would have the time
to consider me properly,
but I here right now
do give thee the chance
especially considering
that tomorrow
is the fourth of July,
and I wasn’t sure you would
fly that day.”

He quite hidden was
in the tall grass
his arms outstretched
she never really noticed him
and as he bowed down before her
she wandered off
with her bird suit
and unusual pet
and walked back to the pickup point.

Right then
he noticed a movement in the grass
Temporarily forgetting his purpose
for the greater good
he observed a grasshopper
It jumped.

Then, from the other side,
his left,
(when facing Leilna putting the hang glider in the pickup truck)
he spotted it.
What seemed like one thing
actually was another!
No fern that,
here in the dry place,
but a new kind of plant,
one he had not seen before!
Quick,
“zavazravroom”,
“click”,
the for-all-eternity-fixing machine
fixed it
for his later study.
Perhaps this plant is what I need to understand,
he thought,
to understand Leilna.

He wandered to his home,
his mother asked him what he was doing.

Oh, looking at the hang-gliders and
taking pictures of plants.
I found one plant I hadn’t seen before.

OK. But stay away from the cliffs.
And watch out you don’t get landed on!
And could you fix lunch,
your dad is getting hungry.

A right good lunch he fixed,
pea soup
and broccoli,
just what nutritionally
everyone needed.

Off again, he thought,
to the meadow where the pretty girl
will land
today
at 1:50 pm.

Over the creek
he jumped
up the hillside
to the landing zone
he stood tall

Girls, dizziness, and trust

Except for a dozen or so words of editing, I wrote the poem ending this post a couple days ago. It is not very poetical, but perhaps it makes up for it sufficiently to be worth posting from it being informative. Lately I have been thinking that pretty much there is no chance of being understood by people who are very much afraid of being wrongfully shamed by me. Unfortunately, pretty much all girls who would be interested enough to think about me tend to look like they are that way. I can't say that I deserve this; it's just something that follows from my being wise enough to know how to make a girl ashamed of herself. There is no way one can be wise enough to understand properly how to discriminate between depraved behavior and innocuous behavior without being looked upon as some sort of dangerous individual. If I were to tell a girl she be a skank, my having thought carefully about the exact characteristics of skankiness would make my opinion sting greatly. Why I would do such a thing unless I really believed it, I don't know, but it is just a part of being who I am that I must deal much more than usual with that fear.

It's mainly females who behave dishonestly with each other as regards what is shameful or not. They can be quite manipulative about it (e.g., in making male desires for sex seem shameful, especially if such sex is not accompanied by marriage) with both sexes. Making a female feel like her behavior is shameful has a way of making her want to be more asexual and nun-like--the last thing a male would want. Males aren't often as manipulative that way as females. Of course, there might be a selfish tendency for males to make girls feel their relationships with other males are shameful, so they'll get more sex themselves. But really, females more judge males from the opinion of other females; and really it isn't necessary for a male to tell a girl whether a male is corrupting her or not; it suffices merely to point out what corruption is. And there are hellfire preachers who manipulate with shame to make their congregations bigger, but I am not especially trying to recruit a church.

As regards me, what girls seem to fear more, I feel, is my not really appreciating them very much. They will not especially take seriously what I have to say as long as they think I might be trying to manipulate, mock or trifle with them. Yes, I don't tend to bulldoze through obstacles or overcome external difficulties in relationships as though I be in a Sherman tank. I settle for what is possible. I already am mostly free, and to the extent I am not, well, it's not because depravity has me by the hindquarters, so I doubt whether I should get too perturbed about it. Unlike almost everyone else in this world, I have my own notion of what is depraved and what isn't. In particular, I actually think there is a distinction between humiliating someone by doing something depraved and humiliating someone by pointing out that one is addicted to depravity. If that makes me too dangerous to take me seriously, well, love is not an adequate recompense for sin, so it's not like I'm going to lie about what I believe just for the sake of making me more pleasant to deal with. I guess the main reason I'm slow and not particularly fast as regards females is that usually I mostly have no choice--they have to trust me enough to think about my opinions before my opinions will have any effect other than making me seem pushy and manipulative. And then if they do trust me sufficiently, if I don't get all excited and quick or like I'm fighting Pickett's charge when difficulty arises, maybe that is just because I believe getting all excited won't accomplish anything except to freak out everyone's family and close friends so much that the freedom we both probably mostly have will disintegrate. Yes, that makes sense. At least, I do not interpret my lack of enthusiasm as lack of love. (But she reminds me of electron physics, and I still don't have a clue why (or any well-thought out coherent theory of electron physics or intellectual reason to think I might obtain one), so it's not as though I understand what I am feeling, which has some dim subtlety about it.)

The morning of the day I wrote the poem below, a strange phenomenon occurred to me. I awakened with an extreme dizziness that lasted several hours. It was an extremely miserable feeling, as though I was dying. But the dizziness went away almost as suddenly as it came, and I survived after all. This got me to thinking, Why is dizziness such an extremely wretched sensation? I don't seem to be any worse for the experience. And then it occurred to me that perhaps semen contains chemicals that via sodomy can cause dizziness. That would also explain why dizziness tends to cause vomiting (fortunately I hadn't eaten in twelve hours, so all I vomited was a little water I had drunk)--vomiting is an obvious defense against oral sodomy. Clearly if a sodomy victim is dizzy, that might be expected to tend to make the victim easier to deal with, rape, control, etc. Even when dizziness is not caused by sodomy, the brain probably has evolved to behave as though the dizziness is likely caused by sodomy, which would explain the extreme miserableness and emetic nature of it. (I'm not sure what caused my dizziness. The day before I thoughtless ate I think an excessive number of dates, perhaps on account of being agitated at the Treasury Secretary's preposterous proposal to lend money to people to buy toxic assets, enriching bank investors at the expense of people losing their jobs and going hungry, but I don't know for sure if the dates had anything to do with it.) A girl especially probably would be prudent to play so as to have a good understanding of her natural propensity toward dizziness. And if she is unusually sexually pleased she naturally might tend to shake her head violently by way of comparing her then propensity toward dizziness with that which she had examined during play dance. I think that this might explain why girls (especially apparently) often thrash their heads about in dancing--they're experimenting with their dizziness levels, by way of seeing what these levels are ordinarily or when unusually sexually excited, checking in the latter case to make sure the dizziness levels aren't excessive--and why (I have noticed) that girls who tend to do this thrashing can be unusually clean and attractive looking. I must admit, though, I wonder whether it is often overdone--people can be very black-and-white about anti-sodomy things--leading in this case to excessively sore necks or rattled brains, I imagine.


What I want
I want to be with her.
I want to be able to talk about anything I want.
And be listened to.
And disagreed with when she disagrees.

I want freedom
And so does she
Rescuing each other from the same thing a little illogical.
I am already free,
mostly,
And so is she,
mostly, I guess.

I want to be more sacred in my eating habits.
I chow down way too much without even realizing it
Until it is too late.
I don't really know what else I need to be more disciplined about.

I need to be more lazy
in opposition perhaps
more than anything.
I get too focused on fighting the bad,
my health gives way and I eat a dozen dates without realizing it
and get more sick.

Everything I eat I must eat with sacred due consideration
of its probable effects. I'd prefer always to eat a little less than what I am hungry for.

I wish I could be with her.
But what can I do?
But take more care in my eating habits.

I see death in haste.
Maybe we'll have a child and all three starve.
More probably, what she is brave enough to play with
won't matter as much as what people would think.
I'm odd.
Nothingness all I'd get if I tried.
I don't know why
families would make a commotion,
and win somehow,
they would
unless I don't see this as obtaining freedom.
We're already free.
Emotionally, I don't want to approach this with a running start.
Passion?
Yawn.
I could cover your hand, though,
and look at you,
and say things that I happen to be thinking.
And if you are dispassionate enough, maybe I won't really care
what I say
except that it is true
and interesting
and something you might not have thought of before
in exactly that way.

Females can be sort of strange about pride.
She can make the mistake of thinking what I say matters
not only whether it is true,
but whether it makes her feel good about herself.
To tell a girl her faults to make her feel pain,
a very strange desire
it would be hard to imagine any male possessing
except from a kind of immature anger.
And yet,
I would make a girl feel ashamed of herself if she deserved it.
Reform matters.
And I don't really think girls should respect me if I didn't think so.
What a girl really wants is a male not to emotionally dwell on her faults.

I don't expect a girl not to want to take pride in herself.
I have my own opinions about what is depraved and what is not.
I don't care much what others think beyond their proofs and to the extent I do,
criticize me.
It's perhaps too much for me to hope to find a girl who has her own opinions there.
I don't expect or even want to be trusted,
there.
I want a girl who will mostly trust me,
before very long,
in that I won't try to manipulate her into feeling bad
about things she ought not to feel bad about.
I'm not trying to turn you into church lady.
Not going to make you feel guilt so you'll go to my church.
I don't have a church.
Not going to make you feel guilty about a him just so
you'll sleep with me instead.
Or if I don't believe you should.
I mostly have freedom,
but not enough trust
that I can say things
to someone who will listen and think.
If I had that from you,
I wouldn't need much of any other trust,
since you'd want me yourself,
or move on.
More than what anyone else can give me,
I can imagine from you,
though not for any particular reason
I can understand.

Various Ideas about Girls

I thought I'd post various ideas I've had lately abut young females, but haven't much yet fit into the whole. Actually, I haven't had much insight about females lately, mostly because I haven't been around them much of late or otherwise had much new data about them, and partly because I have instead been thinking about mathematical logic (and the Silly Logic paper that I've been retouching as I am typesetting it in LaTeX). But even in uninhabited icy plains things can on occasion occur to me. Also, I've been thinking somewhat carefully lately about intellectual and economic snobbery, but what I want to say there is intricate and not yet polished, so it may take a while before I post about it.

1. As I have mentioned earlier, there is something pretty about a girl trying to jolt a male away from guilt by making the latter experience an internal lust in a sort of light way. Males can get in a vicious circle where guilt leads to lack of piety and lack of piety leads to guilt. A girl can jolt one out of that, and good for girls who do so. True, when a girl looks like she is trying to tease the priggishness out of a male there is something seductive about that, probably because men often need to be seduced into something so contrary to the prevailing lies from mercenary females. Anyway, I've mentioned this before. What I haven't mentioned is that when an older female tries to seduce a male by causing him to play with a lust she doesn't plan to be willing to accept, it not only doesn't work, somehow I have an inexplicable feeling it ages the female. It might be relevant that unlike girls, women should be smart enough to be able to use intellectual persuasion as a foil to misplaced sexual guilt in the males they admire.

2. The more I think about it, the more I think there is something to my hypothesis that young girls can be made more fertile by being intimate with older females. The feelings which girls have for older girls are not really symmetrical. To the extent older girls have physical feelings for younger girls, it's mostly about increasing the former's sexual lust. The lust older girls can enjoy from younger girls often makes the former view their feelings for the latter as selfish, dark, and controlling. But it is not at all that way in the reverse direction. Young girls, if my theory about intraejaculate sperm selection is right, don't really have much to gain lustwise from older girls. To the extent younger girls have physical feelings for older girls, it's usually about becoming more fertile and thus having babies. I suppose it is as innocent-seeming as holding a baby doll to one's chest: it is the loving non-lustful sort of way girls are supposed to view physical attraction. The love young girls feel toward older girls is how girls are supposed to love, and so young girls all mostly feel very comfortable about it. I guess this would at least partly explain why preadolescent females tend to be so at ease with worshiping teen starlets like Hannah Montana, etc.

3. Another idea I have had concerns it being very appropriate that females love mainly through sex. Well, sort of. Obviously the caring of motherhood is an important female love. And just the general things females do to make the world a better place at their jobs or in public debates, in the political sphere, etc., are important as they are with males. Still, though, the love that females give through sex is so important and so often maligned that one kind of almost wishes females would think of themselves loving basically just through sex. Women who say love and sex are different and that therefore they aren't bad for being sexually selfish (say, by valuing money over love in their mating decisions) are so common and pernicious, that really it gets to the point one can just be a little fanatical and wish females would just love through sex. I think that is why there is just something attractive and appealing about females who are somewhat physical about their non-sexual affection. It is nice for girls to view affection short of sex as involving physical hugs, etc. And as for the love mothers feel for their babies, somehow that women have breasts makes it seem a more physical thing and as an outgrowth of the sexual love they had in producing the children. When affectionate women care from love, I suppose it is centered in their chest, which somehow seems appropriate, an encouragement however moderate to view their most important loving natures as physical.

It is interesting to consider how female maternal feelings develop. Very young girls, judging from their love of baby dolls, etc., typically seem to have much more maternal feelings than sexual ones. Very young girls not having much capacity for sexual feelings presumably protects them from deceptive feelings that might occur from abuse (sodomy). But near adolescence it is probably rather reversed. Adolescent girls aren't any more maternal than young females, for example, but they can be sexual (they are frequently maligned for “raging hormones”). It's more dangerous for females to have sex from love than pleasure, and somehow it strikes me that girls in particular are more likely to view love for a male as a maternal thing, as an incipient love for the babies that might be conceived than as a purely sexual thing, ie., as a loving desire to please a male sexually. This notwithstanding they have plenty of capacity to view their own pleasure as a sexual thing. So accordingly it might just be from prudence that girls are less maternal, it being unusually imprudent for them to be sexually loving. Also, it might be what I was getting at in my last poem might be relevant. I.e., maternal loving for a child, unlike sexual loving for a male, has a pleasing component to the female, on account of a mother's children being related to her and thus in some sense a part of her (whereas her mate is not related to her). So girls around the age of adolescence not being much by way of emotionally maternal probably protects them from dangerously thinking loving as pleasant (as opposed to thinking what is loveable as pleasant); it seems appropriate, therefore, that by nature, maternal feelings come less easily to them and are more awkwardly viewed by themselves.

Outline of poem

... that petered out one-tenth of way through, leaving remains which were vaguely poem-like:

Girl pleased by loving
Or pleased to have sex with someone she loves.
A distinction with a difference.
Love is no demand a worthy male need make.

So loving isn't pleasant
But a male being the sort that is loveable
makes him please
sexually
young girls.

Girls get older;
less afraid;
want love to be pleasant again.
Sometimes they throw themselves
at men who please
to the extent they are loved,
who make loving pleasant.

But it is not the same thing
as sex being pleasant
for a girl
because the male is loved
and thus,
in all likelihood,
truthful and good,
and thus,
what she needs.

Why the field of Psychology is destined always to be mostly rubbish

It is a mistake to study the field of psychology--not because psychology treats of a not interesting subject matter, but for the pedestrian reason that the field of psychology so long as it exists is and always will be replete with falsehood. It will never be a subject that on the whole is done well, and consequently is not a field that should be taught at Universities, etc., as a unified subject. Psychology should be replaced by Pscychologies. There should be a separate degree available about each person who possess towards the subject a view that students are interested in studying. E.g., instead one should be able to get a degree in the various thoughts corresponding to the various psychological outlooks people view as important. Better that Christian psychology, Shakespearean psychology, Lockean psychology, etc., should exist as entirely separate departments. Indeed, the danger of it being seen that there should be a field of psychology being so great, an even safer approach is to have separate degrees in Christian theology, the thought of Shakespeare, the thought of Locke, etc. Deceivers tend to be better at deceiving about general human nature than anything else, which tends to make it inevitable that Psychology, so long as it is viewed as a field that necessarily should be unified, will be dominated by the deceptions of deceivers and liars.

My own particular human nature is something that I am the most well-positioned to understand. I am the only one who can perceive my thoughts, emotions, etc., directly. Others can at best only make well-informed opinions of what my interior perceptions--my reflections, as Locke would say--really are. This is not just true of me, it is true of everyone. It is easier to judge one's own (interior) human nature than it is to judge the human nature of someone else, not only because one has more data that could be publicly accessible, but more importantly, because one has data that can't be publicly accessible, namely that furnished by reflection.

The character of a particular person's human nature, being so much more accessible to the person herself than to anyone else, furnishes an ideal touchstone against which she may assay the sensitivity of another toward her own character. I am not saying that it is at all easy to make someone think her particular nature is something otherwise than it is. However, it can be very rewarding for selfish people to succeed in such an endeavor. To see why, I shall first reiterate something I have discussed numerous times before, namely that, as is entirely reasonable, one tends to judge moral goodness in another indirectly by judging sensitivity towards one's own character.

There is a great deal of confusion about why altruism evolves. The so-called evolutionary psychologists pretty much all assume some sort of game-theoretic approach that assumes an altruistic nature can't be predicted except from inferences made by past behavior. This assumption is neither reasonable nor common-sensical. I daresay that just a look at a beautiful girl is often enough to give sufficient evidence that the girl I am looking at very likely has especially beautiful, good traits. Nor would it be anything but unreasonable to suppose that many people would have evolved a similar remarkable sensitivity, to various degrees. Indeed, this sort of sensitivity is mainly something people have in connection with mating. The most important unselfishness so far as the evolution of goodness is concerned is unselfishness towards a mate. And it's a good thing, too, because it is only there that sensitivity would be expected to go hand in hand with an unselfish nature. When a person tricks a mate into a love that is not just, the result will be extra offspring by deceived individuals. For example, a selfish fiend could succeed in tricking a female into thinking he is especially good and thus loveable, and thereby cause him to have more children than he otherwise would have, an evolutionary advantage to him; but what he can't at all easily do is trick females into having sensitive children with him, because he can only trick insensitive gullible females, the children of which will likely inherit her insensitivity. It follows that there will be a high correlation between insensitivity and the tendency to deceive about one's own character. And this correlation is extremely useful to virtuous individuals, because it allows them to judge unselfishness (not easy on the face of it to judge directly) indirectly by judging something easy to judge, namely sensitivity towards one's own character. Sensitivity is something moral girls cherish in prospective mates. Selfish females mostly want money and caring; unselfish girls, being just, want their beloveds to possess good, unselfish moral character, and thus, being unselfish, these unselfish females often consider it just to greatly reward virtue and those males possessing the most reliable evidence for it, namely sensitivity. Girls love most importantly by sex, and the girls who are willing to love by sex being virtuous and therefore just, they especially want to love sexually a sensitive male, and so sensitivity evolves. Sensitive males get more rewarding sex.

Sensitivity gets males into bed with extra-loving females. Selfishness also can be rewarding to males, because it makes unnecessary many sacrifices that otherwise a desire to be (unselfishly) just would demand. The problem for selfish people is that, as explained in the last paragraph, they tend to be very insensitive. So a common strategy of the selfish is to fake sensitivity. True, the difficulty of faking sensitivity is great, but then so are the potential rewards. Girls may let you fuck them (perhaps even in a reproductively meaningful way) just because your fake sensitivity might make them think you are nice. But here is the main point: Indeed it is intrinsically difficult to fake an understanding of the particular interior personal aspects of another, but it is not nearly so difficult to fake an understanding of the aspects of another that are held generally by people. I could not make up what a girl's personal tendencies, ideas, and reflections are and expect her to believe me if I'm clueless. But were I deceptive, I could with much greater chance of success make a girl interpret her interior thoughts otherwise than in the way that should make the most sense. General notions applicable to girls in general are just what the seducer needs to convince girls into thinking themselves as what they are not. And why after all should a bad male be any worse at coming up with deceptions as regards how a girl should interpret her own internal feelings than he should be at coming up with other sorts of deceptions? Indeed, one wouldn't expect him at all to be worse at coming up with deceptions so close to what he needs to convince girls that he be sensitive, the very deceptions he perhaps most needs to increase his sexual success.

People are not born with many innate tendencies; most tendencies are what I call abstract tendencies, tendencies that arise because an understanding of one's other tendencies suggests that there is a pattern of tendencies into which the abstract tendency fits. I.e., one innate tendency is to adopt as tendencies those tendencies, the abstract tendencies that are abstractions from one's other tendencies in the sense that they seem to fit the pattern of the others as best understood from one's understandings of things in general. It is not at all likely that a seductive male or a manipulative woman would much be able to be sensitive towards an other's innate tendencies, but it is not particularly unlikely that a deceptive person particularly skilled at his deceptive craft can not infrequently make people (and members of the opposite sex, in particular) come to understand themselves in a way that more or less guarantees as a consequent a set of tendencies abstracted from error which may not only be understood by a seducer or manipulator, but predicted beforehand by him. Since it is not trivial to differentiate one's natural understanding of one's self from an unnatural imposed one based on error, and since most tendencies are abstracted to varying large degrees, this method of faking sensitivity by imparting erroneous understandings of general human nature is sufficiently possible that given its potential rewards one would expect evolution to cause in selfish people the tendency and faculty to deceive about general human nature to be refined to a degree far exceeding their other deceptive tendencies and faculties. With a cunning and faculty greater than about anything else, selfish people lie about what people are.

One must grudgingly have some respect for what bad people are skilled at and realize that any general field that deals in what bad people are best at lying about is doomed to be replete with lies and deceptions, and will mostly be dominated by the immoral. Since this general field is psychology, the study of general human nature, it's nothing but counterproductive for there to be such a field considered a curriculum. Even if somewhere psychology could be studied wisely, it can't really be expected for that situation to last very long. Of course, it is very important that good people be allowed to express the truths that are counter to the lies of psychology employed by the deceptive people, and in flavor, these truths also could (if one was imprudent enough to think the concept of psychology ontologically deserving) be called psychology. But they shouldn't be called psychology. For instance, I have much to say about human nature, and in particular how it relates to morality and sex. But I would not want what I have to say about it to be considered "psychology". No, if it ever comes about that my ideas get studied in the universities, it would in every way be preferable that my ideas be studied separately from the ideas of others, say as Meigsology. Psychologists so long as they are considered psychologists rather than students of some particular type of thought will always mostly be vile and not the sort of people I want teaching my ideas. Even evolutionary psychology bothers me, because it is psychology after all, and indeed one only need look at most of what goes by evolutionary psychology to see how ridiculous most of it is and replete with the same sort of errors that render psychology vile. There should be no general field of evolutionary psychology, just fields corresponding one-one with the individuals making inferences about human behavior (whether partly from evolution or otherwise), each individual being considered separately perhaps along with the people he respects who influenced him.

I am voting for Obama; and something completely different

I am disappointed that both Obama and McCain supported the bailout bill. But at least Obama is wholeheartedly supporting a stimulus package, which might make up somewhat for the stupid unfair bailouts. I figure the reason the economy didn't fall apart this summer largely had to do with the tax rebate checks, small though they were. And I have the impression that Obama has more of an upside than McCain. Obama, being young, is probably less set in his errors and more in a good way to learn.

I noticed as the campaign unfolded that Obama demonstrated the capacity to adapt. He didn't seem conceited in his speech before the Democratic Convention, as he earlier had seemed to me. It's as though he has the ability to understand and recognize his own irrational traits and work on correcting them, not an easy thing to do.

I am not entirely gloomy about the economic situation. True, few of our leaders have a clue about economics, but with time reality will knock some sense into them and perhaps encourage them to read economics textbooks, etc., and to think rationally about how to make things better. And with time, we voters can learn better which leaders are corrupted by financial interests. I plan to vote Republican for Senate and House, since my representative and my senator up for re-election this year each voted against the bailout bill, which is more than one can say for most Democratic senators and representatives.

There is a hint of an interesting idea in McCain's whole deification of Joe the Plumber. One could argue that there is something admirable in one who believes in choosing a path that will give him great gains should he succeed (at the expense of abysmal failure should he not succeed). Again, behaving so that one's success or failure more depends on one's innate abilities is something that encourages evolution, which people don't really care unselfishly about enough, since having highly evolved descendants mainly is of benefit to the mates of descendants, inasmuch as most of the genetic material in the descendants of some person is not from that person. People are especially selfishly indifferent when it comes to caring about (long-term) benefits to distant descendants. But just because it is admirable for Joe the Plumber to be this way, doesn't mean it is admirable for society thus to try to rev up natural selection by allowing excess income and wealth differences. E.g., maybe too much natural selection could interfere with sexual selection (which alone is mostly responsible for evolution of moral traits), maybe wealth doesn't correspond well to worth, and maybe evolution can go too fast (and thus too narrowly). I don't feel like it's something I have fresh clear insights into, though, especially the last part, so it is something I don't want to discuss until I do. Which is too bad, in a way, because vaguely I feel one of the main reasons some people are hesitant to take me seriously is they are scared by my attempts to connect evolution with morality. It's asinine that some people think "Hitler!" any time someone discusses morality and evolution together. They're kind of like people who think anyone who enjoys pondering nude females is a woot!-hole! person (probably the main reason females are afraid of nudity (as opposed to modelling in bikinis, say) is that they quite reasonably don't want to emphasize the hole-like quality of their sexuality, lest they be seen as trying to encourage woot!-hole! males, who typically are forever insidiously conflating holes). I refuse to let Hitler make me hesitant to consider evolution and morality together just as much as I refuse to let woot!-hole! males make me hesitant to consider female sexuality and the nude female form together. I am not afraid of becoming Hitler or a woot!-hole! male. What is the point of scaring people? Hitlers and woot!-hole! males will be what they are regardless, and so by encouraging people to take care lest they become one, one will only end up making scared and guilty the people who on account of their virtues should not be thus. I should point out that when I say someone is "woot!-hole!" I don't mean to imply enthusiasm, just behavior that mimics enthusiasm. Not that there's any depravity that should be suggested by real enthusiasm, notwithstanding enthusiasm can lead to nerdishness and is typically somewhat crazy.

It seems I underestimated the "stubborn cluelessness" of our leaders

In my last post, I wrote:

Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

Now this from the New York Times:

Foreign banks, which were initially excluded from the plan, lobbied successfully over the weekend to be able to sell the toxic American mortgage debt owned by their American units to the Treasury, getting the same treatment as United States banks.

The underlying problem as I see it is that rich society mostly deals with crap by pretending crap is of no significance. They look down on people who are concerned about getting their hindquarters screwed as merely vulgar, as not much different basically from those who think getting their hindquarters screwed is good fun. The evils of the banking system are so similar to the evils of getting sodomized that it very easily tends to make people emotionally paranoid about it. Elitists view the looming financial disaster with the same idiocy they view sodomy, just as some phantom phenomenon people go paranoid about. They know that the people who get scared are not the people who give the best pianoforte and violin recitals, and practically speaking, the nervous people, they don't give the best presentations at board meetings, and aren't the best public speakers, etc. Do you want someone leading our country who at dinner parties over tea, wine and caviar is so unrelaxed that he can't think easily with nice elegant transitions in his speech? Well that's the way people tend to be when they worry about things like sodomy or the financial system collapsing. The rich tend to agree with Captain Smith (of the Titanic) that icebergs are so rare it's vulgar to worry about them.

It is important for those arguing about the evil of the banking system to not emotionally identify our being impoverished by the idiocy and greed of our financial leaders with our getting sodomized. The powerful people will sense your uncouth emotion and any exaggeration that such uncouth emotion might engender, and consider that as evidence of your folly. They won't want to listen to you over tea and crackers if they sense any paranoid feelings. True, better to be emotionally a little paranoid than to just ignore the issue from the disturbing emotions it can produce, but best of all to very sanely hate the evils of the financial system. The current cast of characters leading our financial system are probably not the fascist sodomizing rapists, they are the people who later could cause the fascist sodomizing rapists seem a viable alternative as people emotionally sense that the latter at least feel depravity has some emotional significance.

Of course, there are some rich people who don't ignore strong emotions. They're the sort who listen to opera, who tend I'm suspecting to be the better sort of rich people. But they're not particularly very wise about their emotions, because after all, opera is for and by rich people, and so because rich people tend to be idiotic about these things, it just is not as informative about emotions toward screwed-up things as bluegrass music, for example (though bluegrass music has much dishonest and messed-up about it, because there is no particular reason to think people who like it are better than those who don't, whereas rich people who like opera are probably mostly better than rich people who like some other sort of rich peoples' music).

Ha, to go a little off topic, I am partial to the emotional insights of the model in this music slideshow video, purportedly shot in Hamburg, which video I discovered a few days ago. (The music is I guess also very good, but being a visual person, I prefer looking at it with the music off. The photos would be better without the occasional cigarettes, though.)

My impressions on the financial mess

Since January, when I realized that something ahistoric was happening with nonborrowed bank reserves, I have been examining our country's financial situation with much more than my usual attention. I realized something very dire was happening, and after then studying the matter for a week or so I came to the conclusion I still hold today, namely that there is only one reasonable way out of the mess. And the solution is not at all complicated or otherwise than straightforward. The banks loaned out too much money, as they have done numerous times in bubbles before, and so they should pay the consequences; more specifically they should be left alone, most of them (among them the worst of them) going bankrupt. This will destroy a great deal of fictitious wealth, making people less willing to spend, and thereby causing the threat of a deflationary spiral leading to horrendous depression. But President Wilson created the Federal Reserve and Roosevelt took us off the gold standard precisely so such depression would not be inevitable. All we have to do to cancel the deflation is replace some of the fictitious money created by debt with real money by turning on the printing presses (as we started out trying to do with the tax rebate stimulus checks, a wonderful idea that didn't go far enough). And of course, this money created will in a short while end up being deposited at banks, thereby lessening the banks' problems somewhat, though not sufficiently that many won't fail, probably. So some of the money the government will print would end up being printed to reimburse those with money in failed banks who have insured accounts. That's fine, this money will also go toward avoiding the deflationary spiral.

Houses and mortgage-backed securities (the latter being the fundamental investments created as a result of bundling mortgages together to create investments so banks can more easily unload loans in order to make or process new loans) were overpriced. It is rather like the tulip bubble in Holland; the owners of tulips at the height of the tulip-frenzy never really collectively had the wealth corresponding to the prices of the tulips; the tulip bulbs were not worth nearly as much as they were priced at; it was just a bubble. The same thing is true of today. Those who thought they were wealthy because they owned houses, mortgage-backed securities, stock in Wall Street banks, etc., were not actually as wealthy as they thought, for the prices of these items were all inflated as a result of the bubble, and more particularly, incorrect expectations that they would rise in price. The government should bail out those who deposited their money in federally insured bank accounts, and should let the others suffer for their folly. There is a reason some people put their money in bank accounts and treasury securities, etc., even though in boom times their return on investment is low. They know that when booms end, as they are ending now, they don't want to risk losing their money. It is not fair to those who put their money in safe investments to change the rules when the more risky investments are in a good way to fail.

What is really sinister about propping up mortgage-backed securities and the financial institutions, as our government disturbingly seems to be attempting, is that the average not particularly wealthy person does not invest in mortgage-backed securities, money market funds, hedge funds, investment banks, etc. Propping up financial institutions amounts to taking money from the average taxpayer and giving it to those (usually wealthy people) who have investments in the financial sector. It would be like the government of Holland after the tulip bubble burst buying all tulips at their peak prices, something they couldn't do in those days because money was tied to gold in those days, which kept them from printing it. It should be very revealing to naive people who have grown accustomed to hearing over-and-over like a broken record from the pillars of finance of the evil of government interfering with the financial system just how quickly these so-called pillars are willing to change their tune. What happened to laissez-faire? All of a sudden government interference in the economy is not communist anymore. Government redistribution of wealth apparently turns out to be just fine when the redistribution is to the wealthy people with stakes in the excessively influential real-estate and financial sector. There is talk of the government buying up mortgage-backed securities. This would possibly be a piece of legislation never exceeded in both its regressiveness and unjustness. Those who aren't heavily invested in real estate, investment banks, etc., including all poor people, will endure great hardship as a result of this. Fortunately, I'm inclined to think the government can't pull it off. Mortgage backed securities are largely owned by those overseas. Unless our government is so stubborn and clueless as to want to impoverish our entire country so much as to turn it into third-world status, there is no way they can bail out all the owners of mortgage backed securities, etc., just a subset of the American owners of mortgage-backed securities (e.g., those owned by certain banks and American investment funds). And I don't think foreigners are going to stand for just the American investors getting bailed out. We really do have a global economy, and I am hoping China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., will use the economic powers at their disposal to force our government to do the right thing (exactly what these powers might be, I am not entirely clear, but I believe they have them).

What our government should do:

1. Let investment prices, real estate prices, etc., reach their natural values. In particular, be fair and stop bailing out what the government hasn't promised to bail out. As banks and credit unions fail, reimburse those depositors with FDIC or NCUSIF insurance.

2. Print money to avoid deflation and the concomitant deflationary spiral. Technically, the way the government does this is that the Treasury Department issues bonds, and the FED keeps or buys them (crediting the treasury with money) rather than selling these bonds on the open market. Distribute the money created to ordinary people (and to those with Federally insured accounts which have failed), e.g., in tax rebates or temporary tax reductions.

3. For the rest of eternity, require banks to keep much larger reserves so this sort of vile thing doesn't happen again, and so that the underlying cause of the bubble is eliminated (and eliminate loopholes that allow banks to skirt reserves, e.g., as with banks selling loans for securitization). Actually, for many years it has been my belief that low bank reserves have been a huge drag on our economy. Low bank reserves amount to the same thing as easy credit. As long as banks lend like crazy, the amount of money people have in banks will be a little less than the amount they are in debt, and the average person (who is more likely to have his money in banks than in the stock market) is therefore destined to be poor. True, there should be some low level of bank lending. Loan sharks probably would arise when there are no banks lending. And I will admit that there is an advantage to encouraging people to buy houses rather than rent. But the financial industry has so manipulated the public and our government by extolling home ownership, that home ownership has become an idol. As those who haven't studied Economics 101 in college unfortunately don't tend to realize (along with politicians who were more concerned with drunken revelry in college than with learning), banks create money when they lend it. Most money that is created is created by banks lending it, and this money impoverishes the poor people even in economically stable times--every such dollar is a dollar someone in debt has to pay interest on. At least with ordinary busts there can be a kind of catharsis after the bust as lending gets contracted. Now it seems that our government is using its cleverness mainly just to avoid this catharsis. I am not inclined to think they will be able to put Humpty Dumpty (the fictitious financial capital) back together again or increase personal debt to former levels or beyond, but I do believe their efforts will cause great misery (more a prolonged torture-like misery than an all-at-once one), at least to those who are not wealthy and are without a stake in real estate or financials.

The best blog I have found discussing the current financial mess is naked capitalism; even the comments are usually insightful(and eclectic as one would expect from people necessarily on the fly trying to figure out what is going on as new rules get enacted most every day).

The Moral of the Story

Follow the link for a lengthy discussion in the comment section that I am having about metamorals.

Enjoyment of Female Lust

Mostly, there is nothing wrong with pleasure. Real pleasure tends to correspond to what one needs from an evolutionary standpoint. Virtue demands not an indifference to one's own pleasure, but balancing one's own need for (real) pleasure with others' need for (real) pleasure. Love is not sacrifice. Mostly, one should seek to please others more than one's self precisely when it is just to do so. E.g., on the face of it, if I love someone an amount equal to what I love myself, then when I have a choice as to whether I should please her or me, I should determine who would be pleased more, and act accordingly. But when having sex with lustful girls, it is different. The significance of the lust, in my opinion, as I have described elsewhere, is that it occasions intraejaculate sperm selection. Sexual pleasure from females is mostly automatic when having sex with females, and of course there is nothing to be ashamed of in receiving it—the more, the better. But one can go beyond mere enjoyment to a kind of reveling in the pleasure. One can allow the enjoyment to have a large influence in determining behavior: one can emotionally allow it to influence very directly one's behavior. Now, reveling in pleasure is a kind of emotion, and the thing about having sex that involves intraejaculate sperm selection is that emotions tend to matter. If a male revels in his own sexual pleasure, well, probably his reveling will tend to select for sperm whose ancestral genetic material was from males who reveled in their own sexual pleasure. Since selfishness is seeking pleasure for oneself instead of for others who justly deserve it, bad males may be expected to spend a larger time reveling in their own sexual pleasure, compared with good males. At the very least, good males couldn't spend nearly as much time reveling in their own sexual pleasure because they'd be spending some of their time emotionally swept up in sexually pleasing the loved girls they are having sex with, and just in general making the sex beautiful. So in fact, notwithstanding that one's own sexual pleasure may well be as important as that of the female one is having sex with, emotionally it is better for a male not to revel in his own sexual pleasure as much as he cherishes his loving and sexually pleasing her. In fact, as regards standard sexual pleasures, it is best for the male to avoid reveling in them.

It is interesting and revealing that there is a kind of misconception that I fairly frequently see in girls about what a male reveling in his own sexual pleasure says about him. I am sure most decent males will have some experience with girls giving them that hussy look of “I like boys who are sexually selfish because they're such studs they can fuck girls even when they don't try to please the girls they are fucking.” In particular, I remember when riding the subway one hussy gave me just that look while her boyfriend was fidgeting all over her; a boyfriend I may add who was so dangerous looking I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised if his profession was drug-dealer or highway robber. On an intellectual (a word perhaps unjust to use in her case) level, I'm sure she thought me a naïve fool. Anyway, it is a totally preposterous logic. Sexual selfishness is what advances one's own sexual needs. A male behaving sexually selfishly by definition gets more from sex than he would if he behaved otherwise. If a female selects for genetic material from me that was sexually selfish in males, she will select for genetic material that might well have sexually succeeded because it behaved sexually selfish. Is it really easier to fuck a dozen girls at once if I choose not to be sexually selfish? I mean come on, what should girls think sexually selfish males use their selfishness to try to do? Maybe fucking a dozen girls? It sounds pretty pleasant to me. True, male holiness is unselfish, but then males who think they deserve more than what they have got have every reason to be holy; thus, you'd more expect to find unholiness (that comes from the male) from males who deep down know what success they have experienced is undeserved. In fact, it is considerably more impressive when a male who fucks fucks unselfishly. But this is not really the point. A male who fucks unselfishly is much more likely to be unselfish—that is the point. Girls hate having sex with deceptive males; and a male's virtue is her only guarantee of his not being that way. Sex with girls only selects for genetic material that is sexually pleasant to a female to the extent the genetic material in the male has not succeeded (in past generations) in getting sex from girls by deception. When a girl has sex with a deceptive male, the kind of genetic material her lust will select for in sperm will just be that genetic material so lame as to only succeed by deception (girls are more susceptible to deception than women are). For their own sexual pleasure, girls need sperm selection to select for sperm coding for virtuous, morally good traits. Lustful girls (and to a lesser extent, lustful women) need their male partners to be emotionally good and especially unselfish when they are having sex, because else sex will select for sperm coding for selfish traits like deception, and that is disaster so far as the girls' sexual pleasure is concerned.

As mentioned, female lust makes everything different. One might ask, then, whether enjoyment of female lust be different? Indeed, it is different. A virtuous male enjoys female lust because he too needs sex to select for his best genetic material. A male who is not virtuous, on the other hand, prefers girls not to be lustful, notwithstanding more than a few bad males might find it convenient to not much criticize female lust from the consideration that it might trick girls into thinking him the type of male girls would naturally lust for. One would expect there to be a strong correlation, then, between males possessing virtue and their appreciating female lust. Good males, then, would be expected more to revel in the pleasure given by the lust of the girls they are having sex with than bad males would. Bad males can't, after all, revel in something that isn't even pleasant for them. Accordingly, among the pleasures given by sex, the pleasure given by female lust or indeed anything that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, is something that is uniquely appropriate for a male to revel in. And indeed, reveling in female lust (which lust according to my theory possesses chemicals that get absorbed into the bloodstream through the penis, thereupon degrading cytoplasm bridges (syncytia) that exist between developing sperm cells in spermatogenesis, making sperm behavior more under haploid regulation than diploid regulation, effectively enabling intraejaculate sperm selection) is so indicative of virtue in males, that girls are very pleased by such reveling, as long as it is not carried too much to extremes. Indeed, one should be careful not to take these revelings to extremes. As Aristotle says, there is virtue in moderation. People have a tendency to be too black-and-white about things (except sodomy). And the enjoyment of female lust seems more than most things to be capable of tending to lead to that black-and-white insane tendency. Female lust is greatest, according to my theories, when many young females are involved. When lustful girls get their waists next to one another, there is a kind of allergic reaction that makes way more lust mucous, according to my theories. The youth inside girls selects for the sort of sperm females need from virtuous males, provided there is enough female lust absorbed by the male to make intraejaculate sperm selection relevant.. And sperm going from one lustful female to another (as can happen only when having sex with several females at once) selects in intraejaculate sperm selection for sperm able to survive such changes in environment, which necessarily would tend to possess stud qualities desirous to females. So, love of female lust is in a way close to loving extremes. It's not wanting just a moderate amount of females, it's (very close to) wanting a very large number of females (all at once). And it's not wanting females of a moderate age (for females having sex), it's wanting them very young. So a male should be careful to not let the insane tendency to not sufficiently appreciate moderation lead him to insanely want girls to infinity or beyond or to be so demanding of youth as to get him into trouble or to fail to appreciate sufficiently somewhat older females. Fortunately, life is not just sex, so any tendency toward immoderation that reveling in female lust might make a male feel more comfortable with will have a way of being corrected when dealing with ordinary matters. Actually, sex itself is one of those things one is apt to be insanely immoderate about. Get in a good way toward fucking girls, and that will make depraved men want to control you, probably (the tragedy of Robert Crane comes to mind). Emotionally, on some primitive level, males appreciate this, even if reason and understanding is a better defense against the dark arts. Emotionally, once you've resolved to try to fuck lots of girls, well, you'll probably wonder emotionally when (as there always will be) there are girls you want to fuck whom you haven't fucked yet whether your delay is on account of some monster having screwed your ass into thinking the delay necessary. And when dumb laws get in your way, you might feel you feel they are in your way because the authorities have screwed you, whereas they really might be in the way. (On the other hand, one might feel so powerless, gloomy and humiliated as to just totally give up even on what is allowed, but I don't think that is me.)

Yeah, but someone might say, I imagine, in response to my entreaty that males should not be reluctant to seek out the enjoyment of females lusting for them, that it would also be sufficient for a male to appreciate female lust from love. All he would have to do is ruminate on the consideration that when females have lust for him and behave with him in such a manner that makes intraejaculate sperm selection work better, the females get more sexual pleasure, as his love wants, of course. Simple love of making the sex better for the females could by itself make males appreciate female lust and sexual selection, inasmuch as good males tend to love the females they have sex with. Love all by itself could make males appreciate great sex. It is true that love of the girl one is having sex with is important in inducing males to want increased female lust and better sex. However, when it comes to female lust and intraejaculate sperm selection, I really think not only that the more inducement in the male the better, but also that his own needs are a better, higher inducement to correct behavior than her needs are. When female lust makes for a better intraejaculate sperm selection, that gives the girl having the sex with a virtuous male more sexual pleasure. But the pleasure is mostly short-term. After a few generations, only her DNA that is closely linked with his DNA will be able to profit from his DNA being more desirable. This linkage will decrease over time. In the short term, the male's pleasure from female lust is not quite as significant. When female lust selects for his best DNA, it does so at the expense of his less desirable DNA. The real pleasure for a male is long-term. Generation after generation the DNA that was originally passed down on account of the particulars of sex will be more successful merely from it being more fit. But in the long-term it won't mainly be his DNA that prospers. After many generations, only a slight amount of any descendant will be genetically from him. It will be the genetic material that is together with this material that mainly will benefit—material that comes from the myriads of spouses of descendants. And since virtue tends to mate with virtue, this is a very good thing. Those who have read somewhat carefully my writings concerning morality will realize that a major theme is that the idealism selection that selects for ordinary goodness just doesn't work very well when selecting for the tendency to want to evolve well. Caring about mating early, being true to oneself (so one succeeds or fails more according to one's own nature than according to the nature of whatever persons one has in conformity copied), appreciating others when they are true to themselves—none of these things are people good about to the extent it is in the interests of good people to be. Fortunately (as I have explained elsewhere), there are secondary considerations causing good people to take pleasure in these phenomena encouraging good evolution. Girls tend to want to have sex with good males while they are still young, because intraejaculate sperm selection makes it pleasant for them to do so. Similarly, they are pleased by authentic character probably as a result of female lust having certain epigenetic consequences that makes genes effected by these consequences especially expressed by those striving to be themselves. And males appreciate similar authenticity in girls having sex with them because such girls are the ones other girls are pleased to imitate. Mostly, males are not good enough to be very unselfish in desiring female lust from the beneficial effect that lust will have for distant descendants. These distant descendants just aren't related enough for it to have much force to evolve. If there is some pleasure in males in desiring intraejaculate sperm selection for the beneficial effect it will have on descendants, this should not be looked on as a bad thing. On the contrary, what a wonderful, higher, very beautiful thing. The only thing, perhaps, that can make up for the immoral tendency of people not to care sufficiently about the difficulties distant descendants will have. To care about distant descendants is a higher, more unselfish thing than to care about near descendants. Whether this caring is a result of pleasure or something else, it is beautiful and should be venerated and seen as something deep with possibilities to merge into some sort of higher obscure phenomenon. Males should be especially appreciated if they tend to revel in the pleasures female lust could give them. There is something akin to goodness, a higher goodness in which people are sorely lacking, in a male thoroughly enjoying and reveling in the pleasures female lust can give him in sex by way of its making intraejaculate sperm selection better. Accordingly, girls would be expected to find it quite pleasant sexually when a virtuous male they are having sex with does revel in their lust for him and when he wants that lust not just for their needs but more importantly for his own. They lust for his dick to long for the pleasure their lust can give it. Such girls are not hussies (or, alternatively, if you define hussy so inclusively that they are, then they are not bad hussies, but good, clean virtuous hussies). Indeed, emotions in males that suggest virtue in him, and more particularly, a higher virtue, do select for that sort of sperm girls want, yeah. Sometimes pleasures are so strongly associated with higher virtues, the pleasures are more strongly suggestive of virtue than the virtues people possess directly as a result of a willingness to be directly unselfishness.

Alas, almost all females seem to be very confused about their sexual feelings toward other females, and this confusion is associated with confusion about the respectability of a male wanting to revel in female lust. Sophisticated girls know that when a disgusting male gets jealous of other males, that is when he is likely to especially want to do disgusting things to her. Skanky sophisticated females even sometimes stupidly exploit this to encourage males to sodomize them more. The more jealousy in the males screwing them, the more controlling, disgusting, and sodomizing the males screwing them will be, they figure. Indeed, bad males become even more controlling when they are especially given to feel as though if they are not controlling they will be displaced by someone else. A clean girl with her big heart doesn't want to be that way, even if she is quite comfortable with changing her mind about her evaluations and not particularly worried about her general friendliness giving some fussy males a (false) argument that she leads males on for foul reasons. She understands the evil of the situation, and so when a thought of her lover having sex with someone else ignites her sexual pleasure and lust to new levels, as one would expect from sex that is shared being so much more sexually pleasant and lustful than ordinary one-female/one-male sex, it is only understandable what interpretation she is likely to put on her sudden increase in the lustful carnality of her desires for him which other girls can induce in her. She will think that her newly awakened sexual desires are a result of jealousy. Female lust, like all lust, is frequently (and wrongly) identified with depravity. If she comes to want him more when something gives her occasion to imagine him in bed with another girl, she will think maybe that jealousy is causing her to want to be more addictively controlling and carnal in bed. “Fuck you,” she might say in her new lustful abandon, something after all there is a kind of appropriateness to her saying when fucking. But she'll probably say it like it is a bad thing, that competition with other females has given her the need to control him with lust before other females do, whereas of course he needs her (and lots of other girls) to fuck him in the carnal lustful way. Her being all carnal and lustful when having sex with him is just what he needs, and his wanting to take pleasure in it is not some sort of bad addiction, but a higher , more beautiful emotion even more respectable probably than his appreciating her lust from his love of her. And something similar happens when she interprets the newly awakened sexual desires for other girls that a desire for increased lust can cause in her. When she thinks about a female sharing her would-be lover in bed, it makes her want to get all lustful and carnal not only for him, but also for the girls sharing him in bed. She will of a sudden have homosexual desires! Well, we all know how pathetic people are at asking the wrong questions. It is sodomy (semen in the digestive system) that is properly disgusting. Male homosexual behavior is wrong because basically it means sodomy. Males sodomize males to control just as they sodomize females to control. Jealousy leads males to sodomize males and thus to homosexual behavior—girls know this intuitively. So girls figure that if they of a sudden have sexual desires for other girls caused by mutual love for a male, well, what underlies this sudden homosexuality may well be the same thing that can make a male want to sodomize a competitor—jealousy. In a way, it might be surprising girls would be so quick to think badly of themselves, but remember that when girls become addicted to depravity, they behave unjustly in a way that hurts other males. When a girl feels like maybe she wants to hurt others, as she might feel if she of a sudden wants to screw with lustful carnality in a way suggestive of jealousy in her, she doesn't need to think that she is fundamentally a bad person. All she has to think is that somehow she is under some sort of addictive influence. She will probably think on some level that her new found sexual desires for females are an addiction. She will wonder about herself similarly to how she wonders about the male she loves. She will wonder whether the desire for sex with limbs all intertwined in a bed full of young lustful wet females has addicted her just as it has addicted him, even to the point of wanting to use her lust to addict all of them and her lover to her as well. It is all the more easier for her to feel bad about herself because she knows she doesn't want her lover's own lust, and he's not the sort of person that in bed with them would make in himself his own lust, anyway. It might seem that she want to addict him to her even though he is so good he doesn't want to addict anybody to him.

The feelings girls have toward other girls tend to differ depending on the degree of intimacy involved. At first, I think girls are mainly afraid of the pleasure they feel toward other girls. But upon intimacy, the increase in the lust and its concomitant pleasure that this intimacy brings, not being something willed, is a great deal more innocent feeling than internal lust that was willed would be (especially, perhaps, if sunbathing be involved). Once intimacy occurs between them, this probably makes girls much more comfortable with the sexual pleasures they take in one another. But I would expect this would feel like a sudden increase in love that itself would be scary, especially since it would seem to have to do with chemical effects of lust mucous on one another's waists (sodomy, after all, has its effects chemically). So I think at first sexual fears in girls toward other girls have more to do with fear of false pleasure, and then later more to do with fears of false love. (Perhaps on rare occasions things can occur totally backwards; a girl can be in love with another girl first or more surely, and then interpret increased sexual desire for a male occasioned by thoughts of the other girl having sex with him as a desire to keep the male away from the girl lest he take her away from her; this would be a likely explanation for one girl suddenly making another girl feel very contrary toward some male who indicates he wants the former girl, even when such contrariness is not deserved.)

Sometimes it can be hard to determine from girls' behavior what exactly it is that girls think they want. For example, a girl can give the impression she likes music in which males scream and rant about how terrible lustful girls are. But it may well be that she doesn't like the music because it expresses her true feelings so much as it is relaxing to her that she can appreciate emotions so contrary to the feelings she mostly feels are more her own, but which she be afraid of. If she be worried that maybe some addiction has caused her not to sufficiently appreciate males who are skeptical of female lust, well, she will find it relaxing and suggestive that her emotions are real that she can emotionally appreciate males screeching about sluttish girls feeling lust (girls sometimes do actually feel lust for sordid reasons). Or maybe she be worried that her heart will be broken if the male she would otherwise want to love beautifully and cleanly make it impossible on account of his being addicted (as though that be possible) to the desire to absorb female lust chemical through his penis; a female wanting sex with scads of males is a pretty sure sign she be screwed-up, maybe she wrongly figures males don't naturally want sex with scads of females, and that accordingly there be something swinish in a male about him desiring quantity in his mates, even if he is very careful about protecting himself from venereal disease. (Actually, the more males think about maybe having sex with lots of females, the more careful they would tend to be about avoiding venereal disease and appreciating virginity, as makes sense inasmuch as the more females one has sex with, the more harm that will be done from getting such a disease.) If a girl is worried whether she be wrongly willing to let some other girl screw her over in a bad sense, and whether she be crazy for loving a man who is perfectly comfortable with it, it may well be relaxing to her if almost at the same time she is lusting for what might screw her over, she also can appreciate males criticizing girls for breaking other girls' hearts. Usually, girls straightforwardly like to explore emotionally what rocks their boats. But maybe if a girl is sufficiently afraid, the emotions she plays with tend to be the opposite of the ones that she mostly lets hold sway.

Advice to Members of the Various Social Classes

I wrote this post a little over a month ago. The tone of it I didn't like, and so I didn't post it at the time thinking I would later improve it. But I don't see myself revisiting the matter any time soon, and so I decide now to post it. It might get people to thinking more correctly about the main idea even if it has an imcompleteness and a black-and-white rich vs. poor quality about it I didn't intend.

Snobbery is a bad thing. I don't think many would deny that. However, sometimes the various classes have certain peculiar capacities for virtue that, to the extent interactions between classes occur, are more likely to be encouraged from within than from without. Take the wealthy. The wealthy I'm afraid do not tend to be particularly discriminating when it comes to discriminating depravity from innocent wildness. Why? Partly because it is to a certain extent in their interest to encourage people to have sexual relations from money rather than sexual abandon. Having money, rich men are very capable of attracting females with money, but, relatively speaking, not perhaps as especially capable of attracting females with sexual abandon. But I would say that it is a great deal more in the interest of the rich for them to discriminate between depraved sexual abandon caused by depravity (sodomy) and innocent sexual abandon caused by great sex than they realize. If a woman leaves a wealthy man because she quite innocently thinks it beautiful or pleasant to get fucked by some less wealthy man, well, chances are if she had the choice she'd still probably leave the wealthy man, anyway. I'd even bet that in all likelihood she wouldn't have trouble finding a wealthy man whom she would also prefer to get fucked by than to remain in her present situation. And no matter how great the stigma against such unbrotherly behavior toward members of one's own class, men being what they are, it's going to happen no matter what the level of snobbery. And of course, more than occasionally poorer females can fall in love with richer males and have (free) sex with the latter--fucking between the classes goes both ways, and isn't always just prostitution one way any more than it is always just depravity the other way. Here's the thing, though. Rich people do tend to be cleaner than the poor. Not for any unselfish reason, but from a kind of snobbery. The less females have sex from the depraved addiction of sodomy, the more they will have it from money or the admiration of an ability to make money, what rich males want. But in contradistinction to innocent fucking, if a female leaves her wealthy mate on account of sodomy from a poorer male, well, her adultery or leaving him is something that very likely would not have happened otherwise. The wealthy are less likely than the poor to (wrongly) respect sodomy. This is one of the reasons the party of the wealthy, the Republicans, are more anti-sodomy than the Democrats. And I think mainly this is why (sodomy being strongly associated with violence) private schools tend to be safer and less free of physical bullying than public schools (at least it is my strong impression that private schools are safer that way).

The rich tend to be kind of clueless when it comes to depravity. They tend to group depravity with innocent fucking and file it all away as "vulgarity" and just forget about it. I notice this when I listen to opera, the rich man's version of hillbilly bluegrass music, or at least that’s the way I look at it. Opera is preposterous. That said, opera is not morally annoying and conniving the way most bluegrass music is; it is just stupidly naive. I rather think that I would like most rich people who like opera; rich people especially are to be admired when they possess an interest in art forms exploring the emotions involved with depravity and failures to distinguish it from innocent mere sexual lust. Operatic emotions are what the rich would do well to think more about. Actually, I'm inclined to think it is not the wealthy who are most to blame for the wealthy's frequent lack of discrimination in the depravity sphere. Lots of poor males want to screw rich ass. It is not in the interest of these truly vulgar poor to encourage in the rich a sense that sodomy is something they ought to watch out for more than an innocent desire to get fucked. The poor may be better than the rich classes at discriminating depravity from innocent sexual pleasure, but they tend to be selfish when it comes to edifying the rich. Needless to say, this particular ignorance causes it to be convenient for the rich to look at all the wildness of the common folk as mere vulgarity. The rich know they are ignorant about wildness and so are scared of it; scared rightly. So scared they often decide to live in gated communities and socialize just in country clubs, etc. They make sure their lawns are mowed carefully and be free of weeds, because for all they know maybe it's letting the lawn go to pot that makes depravity--they don't really know to more fear getting screwed by the occasional molester in the horde of transients they let in their communities to do all this work. But they still lock their doors and put their alarms to the on position. Indeed, with little interaction with the other social classes, snobbery really can take hold in the wealthy; a worse snobbery that is so isolated from the poor it doesn't even have to feel the need to view depravity as vulgar. Then vulgarity is criticized not from fear of depravity but from possible guilt arising about the clique necessitating justification of exclusiveness. Once the wealthy are totally isolated from the poor, there is no particular reason to think they won't be just as depraved (among themselves) as poor people are.

So I guess my main point about the wealthy is that there is a kind of desirable clean attitude that can arise in the wealthy from individual selfish snobbery, so long as snobbery isn’t so excessive as to preclude interaction between the rich and the poor. Because it is in the selfish interest of wealthy males for females to mate more from money or respect for money than from depraved emotions, wealthy males have an unusually selfish interest in viewing sodomy with contempt. But what really is the benefit to the wealthy to view females seeking innocent fucking pleasure with the same contempt? Perhaps wealthy males are just deceiving themselves in thinking that they really could cause their women to not want to fuck from general principle. A group of mostly like-minded people who espouse the truth, even if the truth is espoused for selfish reasons will have force to protect the few in the group from lies. In particular is this so regarding depravity, what people are more conformist about than anything. In a society where almost universally depravity is viewed as such and where almost universally there is no confusion between depravity and the innocent pleasures it is frequently identified with, there will be little danger of anyone in that society coming to view through addiction depravity otherwise than what it is, even if there be a few in the society secretly pushing depravity on others. But to view innocent fucking pleasure as akin to the sordid addictive pleasure of sodomy is a lie. A group of males might think that by forming an exclusive social group holding to their own views on the immorality of fucking that will keep their females from going astray. But that fucking is evil is a lie. There will be males in the group who secretly are not quite as against fucking as they make out, and there will be females in the group fucked by them. Such snob associations serve but half a purpose to rich males wanting to keep their women folk from straying. They mostly don’t do anything if their females really want to fuck from innocent reasons, and if the females want to fuck from not innocent reasons, well, the standard opinion of the group, being half lie, won’t be nearly as effective in protecting her as the truth would. Snobbery is a bad thing, but if rich snobs would only be smart enough to be snobbish in their own selfish interests, i.e., in a discriminating way rather than as vulgar interests have encouraged them, it wouldn’t be nearly so bad. Whenever I go to rich communities, I get the impression that these people would be unusually discriminating in distinguishing depravity from innocent sexual wildness, it’s just they lack understanding. More than other groups, they would believe both in innocent wildness and the importance of sexual cleanliness if they only were not so totally unfamiliar with wildness for wildness to be a great risk akin to sailing a ship in uncharted waters.