That cat-like emotions and dog-like emotions clash could save humanity someday.

Something I first mentioned (rather awkwardly looking back) a few years ago in this blog is that if a girl from a nefarious addiction wrongly feels that she is in love with someone, she will likely find it difficult to hate. Whatever sodomy-introduced chemical is causing her to feel like she is in love with the object under consideration will presumably tend to make her feel love more easily than hate, as if under the influence of a love potion or possessed of "beer goggles" (through which according to the college jokes around in the eighties all guys look great). Accordingly, girls may well often relax themselves when in throes of love by having sadistic feelings toward other males. For various reasons I believe I first explained carefully here, there are considerations that would tend rather strongly to prevent girls from actually acting on these sadistic tendencies, unless by-and-large the people in the society desired human sacrifice (not really the case at all in societies like ours with much recent coming together of genetically diverse people). The key point is that girls are naturally hesitant to commit violence in the context of a relationship that they are frightened about. So they wouldn't want to be actually violent if they were sadistic from fear. And though it be the case that a girl might enjoy sadism just because she wants to have the kind of sex that a screwed-up girl couldn't have (a girl having emotions one way might select for a different kind of sperm than her having emotions another way), if this were the case, she wouldn't want to be at all scared while being sadistic, because often guys are scary because they really are nefarious people worth being scared about. And killing people for sadism or any other reason is (except in a society where your job is human-sacrifice priestess or whatever) dangerous because it is illegal not to mention something that the victims would tend to resist. In particular, in our society this female-sadism I mention is essentially just fantasy, as evinced by how rarely females murder compare with males. Very rarely, (the most prominent example I can think of being Mary Bell), some very abused confused girl might actually commit a murder where it's pretty obvious these sadistic tendencies are prominent motivators, but rather clearly it is very rare even among female murderers. Cats probably have these sadistic tendencies to a greater degree than humans.

Last year it occurred to me that there is nevertheless a significant danger associated with girls' sadistic tendencies: girls might more tend to be sadistic when they feel like they are being controlled. The more a girl is controlled, the more a test to see whether the control is sordid be relevant; and so, in particular, at least at first glance, the more a girl be controlled, the more she might consider her sadism as something she would want to feel as a test or just because that would make a big difference emotionally in her from a skank girl controlled by sordidness. There would be a very real danger that a girl might be especially willing to be forced by a male controlling her into performing violence. If a girl gets even slightly confused between enjoying committing violence because she'd get punished else and enjoying committing violence because just because (she can), well, a kind of abominable male using depravity might force her into committing abominations or into helping with the abominations he plans. And even with respect to a clean male, the power he might have over a female could be something he could employ selfishly. It's dangerous to assume that just because a male is virtuous ordinarily that he would be virtuous if he had extreme power. In particular, clean virtuous males, just by varying their loving feelings by way of reward and punishment can be very good at forcing girls to be themselves. But on the face of it, girls being themselves can be very sadistic indeed. Not that the danger is particularly great now, what with human sacrifice being extremely unpopular nowadays, but perhaps in the distant future if people don't realize the danger of males forcing girls to do violent things, that could cause some sort of evil apocalypse. If a male loving beauty be a sufficiently emotional thing, maybe girls would love male love of beauty sufficiently that they often couldn't be forced into doing non-beautiful atrocities, but it would be prudent to not assume such. I sensed last year that there was some sort of additional consideration, reminding me of spectator sports somehow, that, at least if understood properly, would be just the thing to save humanity, but I wasn't quite able then to figure it out so it made much sense. I believe I finally have a much better grasp of the phenomenon.

An entirely different sort of way a girl can feel relaxed about her love for a male involves her feelings toward other girls. A girl who is addicted to a male is likely to very much dislike his controlling other girls. Skanky girls, if at all sophisticated, tend to want all the control to themselves. It would be like a drunk seeing another girl totally savoring a particularly nasty addictive brew. Yes, seeing the other girl so totally intoxicated might make her want the brew somewhat, but she'd do her best to get the whole bottle, and would not be at all pleased by the other girl drinking it. But a clean, intelligently sophisticated girl tends to be turned on by a male controlling other girls in non-depraved ways. Sex with girls tends to select for spermatozoa effective at fertilizing young females. Accordingly, any behavior in a male that suggests he tends to behave toward girls in a way that is very rewarding if he should have sex with a girl, well, that is a sort of thing a girl very much tends to find sexy. It's rewarding, if a male has a non-deceptive virtuous nature, for a female to have sex with him in a way that selects for sperm effective at fertilizing young females, and it's even more rewarding to have sex with him that selects for sperm effective at fertilizing and controlling young females. In truth, controlling young females can be quite rewarding, yet beautiful, because if a guy can force girls having sex with himself to be themselves—to use their own analytical faculties and emotions in judging him rather than just accepting what dogma has to say about him—then other girls will find their affection much more impressive and worthy of being copied than would be the case (say) with conformist groupy girls. I ask you, reader, to look inside yourselves to inquire whether you haven't seen gaggles of girls all copying each other, resulting in a harsh kind of positive feedback phenomenon as if really there is no one or hardly anyone in the gaggle actually using any brains or internal direct feelings to evaluate guys. I daresay, those are not beautiful or even useful role models. A real male wants girls to love him because she naturally wants to, because those are the girls whose love for him is most impressive, and even to a typical conformist girl such girls as don't blindly copy would be what she would prefer copying (until he forces them to be themselves in turn, but not before a while has past for her to be thoroughly acquainted with him). Actually, it is beautiful for girls to take encouragement to be themselves, because in the long-run it encourages the evolution of effective mate-evaluation skills in females. Unfortunately, long-run considerations are the very sorts of things that the ordinary forces encouraging morals fail to encourage sufficiently, because those are benefits mainly to distant descendants, and such distant descendants are but slightly related. It may be good for males to force girls to be themselves, but males can't do so for the sake of beauty or goodness; accordingly and fortunately, what amounts to almost the same thing, desirable males force girls to be themselves from pleasure (the pleasure of the males), which works out about as well.

There's much confusion about how proper it be to enjoy sex. Obviously there is nothing improper about being pleased by sex, else the world is rather doomed because people who have fit children through sex more tend to have been pleased by sex. Also, sex is probably the most important way females love males; love is largely pleasing loved people and in particular (at least in females) pleasing loved people through sex, and if such pleasure is bad, well, love is at least half bad as well, which be absurd. But there are different ways of behaving emotionally towards sex pleasure. One can truly focus on the pleasure of sex, i.e., enjoy (let us define the word that way since the alternative "lust for" I define in a more technical sense) sex, as though pleasant sex be something one desires greatly, or one can accept the pleasure of sex without dwelling on it, as though it be an appreciated gift that is not something one has tried hard to obtain. It is most fitting as regards sex that people strive for the emotions that unselfish people tend to have, the reason being that different emotions probably affect sperm competition and development differently. Particularly is it important that the emotions be right when intraejaculate sperm selection is encouraged, as tends to be the case, I posit, when much female lust has been involved, as tends to be the case, I posit, when there are young females or several females involved. But even when sperm competition is not encouraged, emotions such as holiness could globally encourage or discourage such things as genetic crossover during sperm development. Emotions matter in sex. At best, they should be unselfish.

Females tend to automatically care for their children, while it is not nearly as much the case with males. It is more unselfish for a female to want sex because she finds it pleasant than to want it because she thinks the sex partner will care well for her children. Of course, a female (or male) could decide to not be motivated by pleasure at all, but sacrifices outside the mating context are dangerous, because only when rewards are given through mutual children will there be much reason to suppose an association between sensitivity toward character and a tendency to not deceive mates about one's character. And this association is key if morality is to evolve, since an other's sensitivity toward one's own character is a much easier thing to judge directly than whether one be deceived as to what the other's character be. The most important love is not some sort of totally unselfish charity, an imprudent approach if taken to extremes, it's just a tendency to (enjoyably) create and raise mutual children with a person who is worthy of it as opposed to someone who is not. Anyway, females tend to love by having sex with someone they love well—accordingly, good females should tend to enjoy sex. Males tend to love by caring for children from a well-loved female (when they could be chasing down mistresses, etc.)—accordingly a good male tends to enjoy seeing the children he has with his spouse do well and is rightly hesitant to enjoy sex much. Good males should not fear being pleased by sex but should not enjoy it so much in the sense that it is something they should really focus on emotionally or try much to get. There's a dangerous sort of analogy with food. Food is a pleasure one needs, but how one's brain feels when eating something fulfilling it is not particularly something one should wallow in because eating can be addictive (probably because the gut and teeth bacteria are forever trying to encourage one to eat an enormous amount for them). The reason for males to not immerse themselves emotionally in the pleasure of sex has nothing to do with sex being addictive, but all too often confused males, influenced by lies from females trying to obtain unselfish love they don't deserve and from males trying to equate the depraved pleasures they are pushing with unselfish sex pleasure, and having an impression of the truth that sodomy (addiction to semen in the digestive system) is addictive, will believe that sex can be addictive. Males have to think and fantasize about just how pleasant sex be, because else they may not appreciate that beautiful and virtuous females tend to please through sex and are thus such pleasing females should be loved best, but too often they think there desire for such fantasy be some sort of sign sex pleasure be addictive temptation. Mostly I have always loved best unselfish females who put sexual pleasure ahead of money, but occasionally, especially as an undergraduate with its prevailing culture of drunken dissolute sexuality, I would sort of look grouchily or grumbly at some of what in retrospect were some of the most deserving females, a stupid rudeness I very much regret looking back. It is sooo important for young people, nay, all people, to be clear-headed about what constitutes depravity (sodomy and to a lesser extent other addictions) and to distinguish that from sex pleasure.

But in truth there are subtle complications. Sex pleasure tends to be something unselfish for females to want, but girls and the better sort of females when having sex essentially always deserve to have sex in a way that is selfishly pleasing to them. People are very foggy about this. Great males tend to have holy, pious emotions, which emotions sexually please females the most. But these males are not being sacrificial in this respect. Rather, the particular part of the male genome which mediates cross-over frequency (which frequency is reduced in males by holiness, imao) has evolved to encourage crossover when the male be less great or when the female considered be less great, this being good for the human genome as a whole and no sacrifice to the particular part of the male genome which mediates it. Anyway, even those sex pleasures in girls that actually are selfish for girls to want nevertheless rightly tend to be something they should enjoy and immerse themselves in—they really aren't pleasures that hurt the male partner, but rather distant descendants less likely to be good than their children with the appropriately pious guy. (But of course sodomy pleasure is not sex pleasure, and should be avoided by girls like plague, the young being most susceptible to having their sensibilities warped by it.) As mentioned in a previous blog post, that sex pleasure in females is partly breast-related probably largely has to do with girls not being confused by the appropriateness of being sexually selfish in this sense.

Another complication is that the pleasure which males take in controlling females in clean ways is something suggestive of his goodness. Few humans get it, but in truth, when males force girls to do what they want just by not having loving emotions else, the males should enjoy this control—they should immerse themselves in it. Ordinary sex pleasure is not something good males should emotionally immerse themselves in particularly, especially in its seeking aspects. But if a male can make girls do what he wants in clean ways suggestive of his goodness, that really suggests as mentioned earlier that he is a stud. He's the sort who likely forces girls to be themselves. Girls will want him much more if he be the sort of person who can cleanly make girls do what he wants. What's more, if he's emotional about it, i.e., if he enjoys his control by immersing himself in those emotions, then, well, his emotions may will select for that part of his DNA that turns girls on the most. That's how he should be. Of course, it is also very important that his controlling emotions be clean and graceful, because girls want that (and will rightly try to encourage him to be that way), since it is equally important that his emotions not be like that of a (also controlling) sodomizer. This is partly why it be best for a male to not control his wife emotionally, as I have explained in previous blog posts. The contrast between there being a free bird-like female and controlled girls is more suggestive of a right sort of male, it seems to me; also, a wife being especially chosen as virtuous would presumably very much tend to be unselfish anyway if the male be good, so controlling her amounts to a pointless requirement that would only serve to make less fortunate wives (likely having less virtuous husbands) less what they should be or something like that.

Everything I have said so far is basically just preliminary to my main point. It is important that girls be willing to enjoy other girls being controlled in clean ways. A problem is that all too typically, girls think they are somehow being cat-like cruel by so doing. Girls, if being themselves, will enjoy the helpless look in another girl's eyes as they sense the latter's helplessness in being controlled by the love from a guy. If intelligently sophisticated, this enjoyment will be relaxing to them, because they will know skanks, wanting all the control to themselves, would not be that way. It is not a coincidence that dogs, unlike most cats, are pack animals. If even typically confused or naïve in their sophistication, girls are likely to seek to engage in some cruel cat-like behavior toward other girls as a result of their tendency to enjoy males controlling them. I believe I have seen several instances of really pretty girls, girls much less likely to make such mistakes than typical girls, some of the best girls one ever is likely to meet, who I feel have done cruel cat-like things to other girls just because they assumed they had some inner cat demanding it. It's pretty harmless (except to relationships that otherwise might be) if the guy they like is not a bad male, because a male with decency would be shocked, but lots of males are not good, and lots of females are not nearly so good. (Vaguely, I feel a sign that a female has been a victim of such a phenomenon is that she will likely often tend to hide her beauty, which somehow by way of causing underestimation makes getting back easier should another pseudo cat-strike attempt occur or be somewhat in danger of repeating.) But even none of this is the main danger. The main danger is that somehow general confusion in this area will lead eventually to some apocalyptic catastrophe. But I must be more sacred and rested before discussing the matter further.

In other news, one of my teeth, the only tooth that has caused me much problem or had a root canal, has failed a root canal for the third time and will have to be removed (and later replaced by an implant is the plan). Mostly, I don't think the (ugly) abscess is significantly nefariously influencing me or my emotions or thoughts, but I don't know for sure. I look forward (sort of) to the tooth being removed in a few weeks. And my B12 level I had checked and is slightly low, so I am suddenly taking B12, which may be making me weird. I don't know about that either. Anyway, there are a couple things making me wondering whether I might be less pure and sacred now, even though just prior to all this I felt I was beginning to come to terms with the center of something of sacred importance that needed to be discussed promptly. So I may prudently back off this issue slightly for a while more than I normally would. (It is normally prudent to discuss ideas vaguely or not vaguely about apocalypse or catastrophe rather quickly lest people think one is hiding things for sinister purposes.)

Okay, it is the next day, about 24 hours after I finished writing the last few paragraphs; now it's here on the 25^th day of February of 2013, and I have finally left the brambles of the rambling and recalled what it was that I was originally writing about. One more point that I need to stress before coming to my intended point is that cat-like cruelty and female-dog-like appreciation of male power over his bitches, well, clash. If someone were to actually perform some act of violence to make sure she still can hate and thus be not under the influence of the love-potion of sodomy, well, the consequence to the victim would likely be akin to the result that a mouse experiences when tortured to death by a calico thinking about her Tom and their kittens. On the other hand, if a girl enjoys the clean power of a male over some female he is also having sex with, well, that will make her want to be closer and she will enjoy the helpless look in her eyes and very much want his victory, but what exactly will his victory imply for the girl with the helpless eyes? If she be obedient, then he will love her emotionally in the way she wants most to be loved—that's the way his control works—a pretty good recompense for being forced to be herself or whatever it is that the controlling male wants to force her to do. Huuuuge difference, really, between defeat meaning ending up tortured to death and defeat meaning being loved emotionally in the way the victim most wants to be loved. What's more, the onlooker females sharing sex with the male directly very much need him to be emotionally loving to the other females, and in particular those he controls. Male emotions matter because they influence sperm development—not just the development of the particular sperm destined to the female under consideration, but all his sperm, no matter what female the sperm be destined for (especially does this remark apply to holiness emotions; I'm not as sure of the extent to which it applies to eternal-togetherness emotions). Similarly, all the females will very much want the male to control his mistresses in a very clean elegant way most different from the way a sodomizer controls. Sodomy and clean control both represent control and the males who engage in these things both tend to enjoy them. It's very important that stupid sophistication or worldliness (or anything else that might cause improper emotional conflation) not cause the controlling male to have much of the sordid emotions that a sodomizer would have—that would ruin sperm selection inasmuch as sodomy is the last thing a girl needs. (In fact, it is known, or at least I recall reading it, that prostaglandin fractions in male semen vary from time to time and individual to individual, so yeah.) Sure, the other females would lust at the girl's defeat, but they'd also lust for the defeat being a very clean non-sordid thing. The victim would likely very much appreciate all the ballet-like influences of all the other females trying to make sure the controller controls in the right, clean way—not only clean in the sense that no sodomy is involved, but also clean in the more particular sense that no sodomizing male emotions are involved. Mice, on the other hand, do not much appreciate the paws that torture them to death. —Again, huuuuge difference, the difference between being surrounded by girls being ballerina-like in encouraging your controlling lover to control you gracefully as you would most want (or least resent) and being sadistically clawed to death by kitties. Emotionally, you can't enjoyably be cat and dog at the same time because there's such a clash. I crave leave in the next paragraph to give an illustrative example. I shall use cats rather than dogs because growing up we had cats as pets (I've never lived with a dog except for short periods when visiting relatives).

Suppose Tom cat ruling over his calicoes were to tell one of his subjects: "I desire food. Torture me some mice to death and … purrrrr ... bring them to me, or I won't have loving feelings for you anymore." This would be a very strange thing since cats are not amenable to being ruled, but suppose somehow it were to happen. (That cats don't talk is a less problematic supposition, since in the wild what would presumably happen is that the male would exert his control merely by having more loving feelings when the calicoes bring him mice. ...They'd get the picture.) An onlooker calico, if she sees a captivated calico slinking off to get mice as demanded, well, she might, after moving her ears about to sense whether other cats are about, skulkily sneakily kind of enjoy his having such power (such enjoyment being dog-like it is not what a cat would tend to be proud of), but when coming to the part where the mouse is getting killed, she'd really be in a quandary. She'd really have to choose between enjoying the helpless I'm-in agony-and-going-to-die look of the mouse or the helplessly captivated look of the mouse-slayer. The emotions would clash horrrrribly. And that is a very good thing, because it is dangerous for males to be able to force females into committing violence. Remember, the more a female feels she is controlled, the more she is likely to feel the need to test whether she can be cruel, because being controlled can be a sign of being under the influence of sodomy. As long as females are in tune with their dog side, the control exerted by males toward sadism could actually be a good thing. Females can be excessively cruel when motivated by cat-like anti-sodomy sadistic feelings. But males aren't as much that way—if they are violent they are so for totally different reasons, probably. It is hard for a male to force a part-dog female into committing violence because of the way dog and cat clash. But a male could I'm thinking force a part-dog female into not-committing violence—into being more merciful and less homicidal, without females being unable to enjoy his exertion of power or unable to enjoy what cruelty he allows. Nothing wrong with that given how sadistic females can be. Would so doing make the female more enjoy what violence he allows? Maybe, yeah, I'm guessing so, but even that is not clear or quite as much the case as one might think because enjoying a male's clean control and power over other females is such a relaxing thing to females—so much contrary to what a skank who wants to all the control to herself would want—it could at least theoretically get to the point where his control of females on balance and on average makes females less scared of him or otherwise desirous of testing her ability to hate, notwithstanding control is also something sodomizers do.

Anyway, it is very important that in a society where an appreciable number of females are controlled cleanly by males that females appreciate that "dog" part of them that enjoys other females being cleanly controlled. If the typical response by girls to a controlling male is all cat—a test to see whether there still exists a capacity to hate and feel cruelty, well, males would have too much ability to force girls into being cruel. The more a girl is being forced to be cruel, the more she would try to test to see whether she enjoys being cruel, and so such force might could be exerted too readily. And of course, a female determining whether she enjoys other females being controlled by a male is a test in itself, a powerful one that in itself discourages dangerous nasty people from exerting power to the extent females interpret their emotions about the test reasonably with intelligent sophistication. It accordingly is important that in a sense girls be into enjoying male victory over other girls—rather like girls cheering at spectator sports. But then in spectator sports guys are usually competing against fellow guys, so maybe my post giving my original intimations about the solution was more confused than I had expected. Important, too, I offhand suppose, that guys have practice at good sportsmanship and not being violent to impress cheerleaders pretending they like violent males more than they do, but that would be something entirely else to think about.

I had wanted to give a stronger impression that the issue I am talking about may well be the most important one in saving the world from evil apocalypse, especially in some distant future age where human sacrifice might be commonplace as it has been in the past. Perhaps it would be more appropriately modest to say it is the most important one that the powers that be (for if there are powers that be, there's a kind of logic to this being just the sort of thing they especially care about, rather as a parent's influence is especially appropriate when it comes to protecting a child from great harm) have given me leave to consider or insight about. But I feel no urgency here to make my case more clearly, since such greater clarity is not in my head yet. An interested intelligent reader having perused this and having a passing acquaintance of the other main writings I've put on internet should now have a grasp of the issues here with an exactness and organization tolerably as well as what is in my head, which is the only urgency I feel as regards apocalyptic matters, dwelling on which would cast a suspicious aura about me if I weren't thus promptly open about my main conclusions.

I would acknowledge someone who a long-time ago gave me such feelings about this matter that they have ever been a reservoir of insight long before I even had a clue what the matter was that the insights were about. I can't help thinking that even at a young age she was some extremely moral virtuous genius when it comes to what I am talking about in this post. Whatever mistakes I'm inclined to think she might have made elsewhere, she must have been amazingly perfect there, and like I said, I think this is a matter of utmost importance. It took me about this long to have more than a clue, whereas I suppose it's reasonable to assume she must have already been there or somewhere close, albeit perhaps on some mystery magic level or something that I admittedly don't get.

Happy Christmas

I haven't posted in a while, so I thought that I would add a poem that I started writing Friday, November 9, and finished the next day. For no fathomable reason, the general idea of the poem came to me as I was shopping at COSTCO for groceries and driving to and from there (Friday, I guess). The poem doesn't make much sense, but it is poetical so I post it. I should say that when I try to find meaning to the pieces of the poem, it not infrequently suggests things to me that I don't believe, actually. I like to consider myself a scrupulously honest person, so this rather bothered me and made me reluctant to post it. However, when the poem came to me and as I was writing it, it to an unusually large degree felt like I wasn't actually writing it, and more like I was writing down what some spiritual influence was telling me. Whether there are such spiritual things from without I don't claim to know, but it felt like there was such a thing at the time, a muse from beyond as it were, and so if you are the skeptical sort who doesn't believe in spiritual muses, instead make whatever inferences you will from the fact that it felt like something was guiding me when I was writing it (though some of the poem writing felt like me). As a general rule for myself, and as something I would suggest as a general rule for others, I take random spiritual influences quite skeptically, basically for the same reasons as I am skeptical of witchcraft and excessively polytheistic religion. However, the poem is beautiful to me, and though the spirits of the void presumably aren't equal on average to the spirits associated with actual people, it's to show a small-minded prejudiced sort of bigotry to not appreciate beauty from external spirit when such beauty is evident. Perhaps the muse knows that I am wrong about some matters, or perhaps the poem is true on levels I haven't had occasion to discover, rather like a prophecy in a Shakespeare play which gets interpreted by a fool one way but then ends up meaning something totally different. Ha, who knows, maybe some of the smoke from the forest fire then on Pilot Mountain (sacred to the Saura Indians and the beautifulest place about near Winston-Salem) had some weird spiritual influence on me notwithstanding I couldn't detect the smoke. Also, I was just beginning to have a terrible sore throat that lasted about a week, the only sickness I have had in a couple years or so; moreover, I was unusually tired from having worked a 14 hour day as an election worker on election day (Tuesday). I couldn't find a good definition for what a lens-piece is, by the way, but the phrase sounds good in the poem.

I don't remember writing a poem with dialogue in it before, which makes for punctuation difficulties. Perhaps in the future after thinking about what schemes are standard or better, I will change the punctuation, since it is rather haphazard and the one thing about the poem that I feel now I might should try to improve.
 

The trip to Dragon Island

''Get in, get in,

the rowboat takes off in two.

I wouldn't tarry...

If I were you.''

The oarsman removes his pocketwatch

from his breast-coat pocket.

That's right, he's wearing a breast-coat.

The second hand ticks around

as he does observe it.

He lifts his hand

slowly.

And then,

Suddenly!

He drops it.

He looks deep into the passenger's eyes,

She is his only passenger.

"We're casting off."

"It is time."

He puts the right oar in the right oarlock.

He strokes one oar two strokes around.

The boat turns.

He puts the left oar in the left oarlock.

He strokes two oar one stroke straight.

The boat is on its course.

The boat man he needs not look back

for he has been there before and remembers it well,

the girl on the cliff begging him back,

because men don't do those sort of things.

Well, he remembers where she was,

and how if he's pointed straight at her

as he is rowing away

he knows full well where he will end up.

Dragon Island.

Many a time he has

made the trip since

Always resolute,

always indifferent.

He tell the girl something.

"We are going to Dragon Island. You know?"

She responds not.

She just smiles.

How convenient, the rowman thinks,

that a girl smiling, almost laughing, at the silly looks so very similar

in every way

to a girl having so much fun.

Were it any other way,

What would her friends think?

He stops the oars and the water of the lake

drips in drops on both sides

from the blades

as they are rested above the water.

He wipes his brow with the back of his hand

very right after

He looks at her again,

"You know, it is very convenient..."

He's so knowing, she thinks.

He looks--

so deep.

What could he be thinking?

She smiles some even more.

He stares deep into her eyes.

He has something to say of great import!

"Because Dragon Island is where the magic gown be."

Slowly and leisurely he places the oar tips upon the sea,

rowing away once again,

so slowly at first,

exactly as before a minute after.

"Yeah. We are going to Dragon Island.

And we are going...unconcernedly.

Oh yeah.

Un-con-cern-ed-ly"

He laughs, he turns his head,

Har-har-har-aye-arrgh-har-hai-ho!

She looks where he is looking,

Unicorns be frolicking on the lakeshore!

Rubbing their horns together it is a sight.

But not for him.

"Them 'corns, many a time I have a seen 'em"

he says. They are after all but the normalest thing about."

"About!"

he says.

"That reminds me (slurring he does),

This trip is to dragon island.

Did you know?"

archly this time,

"that soon

We will be there?"

She smiles broadly,

"Well, I guess I kind of figured it,

because there is an island not

15 feet from the front of the boat

and you are never one to stop rowing for long."

"Excellent!"

He exclaims.

"Indeed it is really true then.

Soon..,

soon,

and we will be there."

He gives two strokes more.

Puts the oars up

and Holds his right hand up before her,

palm facing,

a gesture to stop.

Obviously it be of great importance

Exactly how this boat is exited

and what precisely be the demeanor of those exiting

at the time that they be a exiting.

He tries to convey this in his glance.

This is the island where there is a place

with an attic

where the magic robe is....

He wants to tell her this

but he doesn't really know how.

All he does is put his hands back on the oar,

pulling their handles up toward the back

to fold the oars in place.

He looks straight down

the small amount of sea

about his feet

He sees eternity there

and doesn't know what to do

So he just stares there

Knowing he wishes more sacred he could be.

But there is nothing else to do at this point but to look up at her

and tell her they must get out even as imperfect though he is,

because this is where the magic gown be.

"We must first survey the island",

he says,

"before setting foot."

Because of the dragons? she suggests,

somewhat expectantly.

No, he says,

as he lifts his right hand not in a stopping gesture

but as if to cut the fog in two.

"This is where the dragon lives,"

He pauses to lift his hand up and down several times as his hand gets higher and higher, then slowly drops it, then raises it up and down a smaller distance and then lets it fall.

"but it's not where the dragon is....

First we must prepare ourselves for whatever contingencies might arise.

Would you be so kind as to open the locker just behind you there on your left (it was on her right) and remove my log book.

Thank you, it's just there, yes, yes."

And so he writes,

LOG.

1stday 6:36 pm 42 seconds.

Arrival at shore of Dragon Island. One passenger. Seas normal. Trip uneventful. Those who may read this know that until sunset I shall the island observe with telescope. Thereupon we shall disembark, heading to the place deemed most boring. We shall return with the magic robe. Expected length of journey: 15 minutes. When we return, having obtained robe, I will explain to passenger what we needed to do to obtain magic robe. She will explain to me all about life as I row us back.

"The theodolite lens-piece, child."

"The foot-locker...in the foot-locker."

He surveys the island, observing carefully the foliage to determine where the most boring trees are.

There, over there, he says, do you see something?

"No, " she says.

"Upon the branch of the magic boring tree.

What do you see?"

He hands the theodolite lens-piece.

"Uh, some sort of bird?"

"Exactly right, the magic bird on the magic boring tree."

"Let me see," she says,

again,

she's strangely spellfast.

He know that look well, too,

he learns more from that than from

the fuzzy bird image.

He reads her face.

He gets out his compass

while writing some calculations in his log book.

Triangulating, he knows just where to go.

He sees something there, a tiny stump

with a rope above,

floating in the air.

"See that rope there?"

He asks.

"That's where we need to go."

The girl is transfixed.

A magic place indeed is this

Dragon Island.

He takes her by the arm as she disembarks,

his ankles wet in the water.

She scrambles right out

more spry than he, actually.

He looks at the shore philosophically,

and rubs his hair back like it's a problem,

she's running right off turning back when almost there.

He slowly plods off toward her

Thinking about his life and all that he has seen.

His distant past,

the girl on the shore,

the bird that's always somewhere else.

Upon closer inspection the cord heading up,

up to the sky,

5.6ft off stump-center be.

He finds a nearby stick.

Would you make an X there please?

She does.

He pulls the cord and the stairs come down.

They climb the stairs,

he's in an attic

and she follows right after.

He's oh-so tired now.

He sits down in a chair,

facing the stairs as she finishes ascending.

His eyes are twisting about, his tongue he stick out,

he dies

for three seconds

and then comes back,

teetering at first, but then,

there has become the magic robe in the box.

And right after,

he's back.

Back to his usual self,

just like he knew he'd be.

Here is a map I drew of the island area, fairly reflecting how I visualized it:

I know my drawing is quite bad. Handwriting is the one subject I could never get an outstanding grade at during elementary school. I am not nearly so good at art as I am at poetry. I have done better, though. Here are the three best things I've ever drawn, to demonstrate that I am (or at least have been) not totally as bad a drawer as when I drew the map.

I drew this dog with the owl not long after starting high school. I remember the dog I sketched from a photo of a dog in the World Book Encyclopedia. I don't know why the owl looks like he has a mustache.

I drew my left hand when I was a freshman at UNC, in 1984. I was simultaneously taking Art History, I think the class which grade-wise I did worst in as an undergraduate.

I drew this sketch of Joseph Conrad, apparently on August 3, 1997, when I was 31. I guess it would look okay, except carelessly I chopped off the top of his head like I was the Queen of Hearts but couldn't aim right. It was taken from this photo, which was on the cover of one his books that I had.


I have had intimations at various times that it would be very important to draw better, but it is terribly exhausting to me, I don't know why. I don't know if exhaustion is the best way of putting it, though. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that doing art feels terribly formidable or daunting. In many ways I don't actually have a good memory for faces, though I can remember the emotional impression people make in me extremely well; doubtless art would improve my ability to remember faces and their expressions, probably mainly why it would be advantageous for me to be a better artist. I think the importance of fashion is underrated as well, which may be another reason it would be well if I were better at art (but I'm not), since it is hard for me to imagine myself really appreciating fashion while not having drawing skills.

 

Baseball to me way back when

It's the fourth again. This being that time of year, I suppose a post on baseball would be deemed appropriate and less surprise.

This post/poem really fails rather badly at explaining its main point—why the appreciation males have for sports and baseball in particular can somehow cause a sane clarity in people about sadism and males controlling girls that could possibly avoid some sort of evil apocalypse. I'm not looking at things exactly the right way, I guess, or, yeah, there's something a little crazy in there. I mean, my explanations might be valid in explaining a slight such association, but I seem to be trying to want to make a more important and fundamental point that I suppose just eludes me. Anyway, on an intellectual level, baseball still seems to me kind of stupid mostly, as I've mostly thought true since 11^th grade, and even emotionally, I kind of think it largely is. Still, there's something sort of to it I guess, and vaguely I feel whenever one has confused feelings into such matters possibly involving apocalypse, it does seem best to hurl up high from a distance such meagre inspiration as one has out into the open for public inspection (or, as the case may be, the few sufficiently interested in examining the matter further) by those who come across the landed missive—the public too may help in figuring out what I am getting at. I suppose avoiding apocalypse ideally a democratic open process should be, and anyways, it's not the absolutely safest sort of thing to keep secrets about, I guess because people will yeah think you're secretly plotting to take over the world or something when you have something to say about it but don't do so and they see you thinking.

For a good while, I have had quite ambivalent attitudes toward sports, and spectator sports in particular. But about a week ago, I sort of relived my childhood feelings toward that in a poem (at end of this post). I suppose it still mostly seems to me that as a kid I liked sports too much. Sports can be what insanity tends to like too much. But in a way, this being the case gives sports its value. A large part of success in athletics arises from playing very sane. Take baseball. Play like the ball is a beast to be obliterated, and you'll swing with power—more precisely, with a swing such that if it encountered an object that offered much resistance, much force would be applied for a good while during the swing after the object offered the resistance—, because such power is helpful in knocking the beast down. But what determines the energy a baseball receives is determined mainly just by the energy transferred during the transient impact, determined basically just by bat speed upon impact and where the ball is hit on the bat. Even bat speed should be sacrificed (especially by hitters not so much seeking home runs as a higher batting average) for the sake of a smoother shorter swing more capable of being changed (or withheld) quickly and accurately according to the trajectory of the baseball. Such precision is not necessary for beast bashing. And the enthusiasm and determination, so appropriate for desperate struggles with nastiness, as it can keep one fighting after having been compromised, really gets in the way of the calm boringness and artistic sameness of checking whether the pitch is likely in the strike zone. Similarly with other sports. Play defensive line like a savage and the screen pass will ruin you. Play football like you're up against a bunch of forcible sodomizers and you not only will incur too many penalties, but also you won't play with the vaguely gay-like artistic feeling so necessary because football is a fast game where (except in practice) reactions should mostly led by feeling. But there is a continuum of sports. Football, from its high level of physicality, is better at eliciting the insane emotions, but for most people the physicality of it is much greater than anything real world that might require a very sane response. It's easier to be sane about baseball, but such insanities that exist about it perhaps are more similar to the real world ones that need to be understood. Golf is way out there beyond baseball. What golf is concerned about is so different from anything that would cause unsheltered people to be insane about, it would seem to lie way out on the continuum and not serve much purpose by way of training people to be sane. I do not like golf—it is too dull—but it is good in the sense that it is a sport that rich people care about, and perhaps rich people, having an elitism that denies any significance to anti-abuse emotions, most are in need of sports. Baseball I think was the best sport when I was a kid. But in the period after that, football probably became better, I guess because football tested for hormone use much before baseball did, and wide-spread steroid, etc., use in baseball for a while at least made the game stupid brutish. Basketball, hockey, and other sports like soccer are presumably fine, too, but our neighborhood was unsuitable for basketball—not being sufficiently paved with long stretches between baskets suitable for running—and even more hockey wasn't possible because only once did the lake ever freeze enough to skate on it (skating, which I've learned just in past few years at a rink during a few sessions, is great fun, but oh well), and soccer, well, that just wasn't played in our neighborhood. And sports tends to be more interesting if one has played them at least slightly.

As I've gotten older, sports became less enjoyable. Neighborhood football becomes less fun and more painful as speeds and weights increase simultaneously. And after elementary school, baseball (the only organized sport I did, which I only played in elementary school) and the other sports I knew of I figured more-or-less required to a certain degree guys showering near each other and wearing athletic supporters, i.e, a type of underwear with a hole in the butt (and being practiced in remaining sane while walking around in public wearing underwear with a hole in the butt seems of limited utility and not much of a fun accomplishment). As someone with natural anti-sodomy sensibilities who was underweight, who only once before college went to the bathroom during school (in the fourth-grade, I think, during a stomach ache, I suppose I had eaten too much food), no, uh-uh, that was not for me (and besides I was not very skilled in sports). Even watching sports very gradually became less fun, until now it is only moderately fun, and not something I do much. (Though it is easy to spend much time playing computer games.) I'll still watch a Vikings game occasionally, and girls' gymnastics and ice skating are cool, but the latter for obviously totally different reasons than what I am talking about. (I was weird growing up because, though living in Maryland and having nothing to do with Minnesota, I only liked Minnesota sports teams, at least before Carew left the Twins.) I suppose as one gets older and more familiar with the emotions concomitant with sports, one gets more practiced with dealing with all the insane emotions about them, which makes sports less useful (and also less likely to cause you to like them for insane reasons).

Anyway, I've more or less held the view of the preceding two paragraphs for a while. But lately I've been beginning to see another good thing about sports. When girls are captivated by love, they often get this weird tendency to make sure they can hate other males, because if they couldn't hate bad males as normal, that would be a sign their love is fake, caused for example by being under the influence of sodomy chemicals that work merely by making it much easier to feel love and much harder to feel hate. The more controlling the male is, the more likely the girl is to enjoy whatever hate she feels towards others, because, after all, it's when girls are being controlled that sodomy is most relevant, the whole purpose of sodomy being control or even enslavement, and naturally, like any other testing, testing for sodomy is most relevant when there is an appreciable possibility of the existence of what is being tested for. The same sort of characteristics of sports that make insanity mostly incompatible with effective play should I imagine make this sadistic cruelty (which also can be somewhat insane) mostly incompatible.

That girls naturally are most sadistic when being controlled by a male might lead people to think that somehow there be something natural or fundamental about males forcing girls into being cruel to others. But girls' imaginings tend to be quite fantastical rather than real. Boys just plain like their model trains real-looking, but girls are less that way about their toys, I mostly think. Girls' sadism mainly lives in their fantasy world, as it should. Admittedly, there is this much to be said about girls being sadistic—if a girl enjoys being cruel toward others in a seemingly loving sexual context while being controlled, she isn't probably being sodomized. If human sacrifice were something common and appropriate in our culture, something could be said for girls performing the sacrifices while acting on their sadistic fantasies according to their desires, because then the sodomizers or their mates wouldn't be doing the killing, but rather sex partners of males who give sexual pleasure without sodomy (because females feeling love on account of sodomy can't hardly feel or enjoy hate toward others, sodomy being a kind of love potion). Semen contains chemicals like PGE2 that increase sensitivity to pain making torture more terrifying—sodomy is fundamentally about torture and physical violence, and accordingly perhaps the most disastrous thing (though it is all too typical in history) that can happen to a society is for a bunch of nasty sodomizers to satisfy their desire to torture, rape, and kill upon it. But we do not live in a society where there is human sacrifice or where there is any appropriate possibility of it any time soon (certainly when there is much inter-breeding between genetically diverse people, such human sacrifice seems unusually inappropriate, and that is very much what the world has now on account of the many recent advances in travel; and it is dangerously apocalyptic for attitudes toward human sacrifice to change abruptly toward more sacrifice, and most of the world hasn't practiced human sacrifice, well, any time lately), so girls turning their clean sadistic fantasies into reality would appear to be amaaaayzingly fucking stupid and not something a reasonable male would want to force a girl to do. But that is beside my main point. Even if human sacrifice were reasonable, it would be very wrong for males to force girls into harming, because even sodomizers can force girls into killing and torturing (even if they can't force them into enjoying it for its own sake), and so one would lose the main moral justification for girls killing out of a sexual sadism that is enjoyable to them, namely, that at least they almost certainly aren't killing and torturing because they are controlled by likely rapacious sodomizers who have turned them into zombies acting not from natural brain predilections but from terror caused by PGE2 up their butt or down their throat.

Anyway, it is very good for girls to not want to be forced by males into cruelties. Indeed, because girls do tend to feel more clean sadism when being controlled, there be much conflation in the minds of people between girls being forced by controlling sodomizers into accepting or encouraging torture or killing and girls who are captivated by love fantasizing about being cruel just because they enjoy that they can. Now, girls probably mostly don't mind being controlled when having sadistic fantasies; in fact, since they have sadistic fantasies largely to test the cleanliness and appropriateness of such control the male has over them, one could say they might even appropriately more enjoy being controlled then. But the control should be largely beauty-based (or so it feels) and definitely not be control for the purposes of encouraging actual killing or harming; nor would the latter sort of control be expected to be enjoyable to the female, since that is the sort of thing even sodomizers could do. Sodomizers are forever trying to make people think the evil tortures they inflict and demand girls and others accept are somehow analogous to the mostly innocuous sadistic fantasies girls use as a test when they are being controlled. Actually, Hitler and Stalin types can and do use this confusion to their evil advantage; the danger is real and girls should be admired for taking it seriously. That said, I sort of wonder whether girls might be a little more discriminating there. I guess in the so-called romance novels that females tend to read there tends to be the dashing controlling hero who darkly forces the female into a mishmash of sketchy and merely rewarding behaviors using a mishmash of nasty and clean sexual behaviors. That's not how it is. If a guy is decent and not nasty, then if he controls a female (by only having especially loving feelings toward her when she behaves as desired) otherwise than by sodomy, it's hard to see why he would use this control to force her to harm others, since she wouldn't need to be forced into doing something she enjoys thinking about if somehow it were safe and reasonable for her. Anyway, the poem below is about how wanting to force girls to harm others may well be akin to the crazy dumb emotions that can get in the way of winning baseball games, and how girls for that reason might like guys somewhat for enjoying sports and might come to appreciate that a girl enjoying being controlled when fantasizing about being cruel is totally different from a guy forcing her to be cruel. The poem is also (more poetically, actually) about how I felt toward baseball cards, which I suppose overlaps somehow, but I don't understand that. Looking back, I look back more fondly on the time I spent tinkering with baseball cards than I look back on the other amusement I received from sports, but I don't really know why.

Minnesota Twins 1977

We dream all of our past amusements

Before I became a serious person

I wasn't.

I should not have changed.

Dealing out baseball cards for no reason

Stacking them according to different schemes

Imagining how that would win.

I remember in second grade

before joining my first team

I was told there might be a trying out

registration day.

Somehow, before showing up I imagined myself

in the all-purpose room (the cafeteria)

with wiffle bat

and the coach pitching the wiffle ball to me

and BAM the wiffle ball went

faster and farther than had been ever seen

I ran around the cafeteria—home run!—with a sense of deserved gleeful joyous dignified abandon

near the giant paper-mache dinosaur perhaps—we made it in kindergarten

standing a testament to past glory—

as all the onlookers gaped in awe.

Deserved because I hit it.

So conformist I was

in fifth-grade

waiting for the pitch

I put my tongue in my cheek

to look like Rod Carew.

Knew nothing of chewing tobacco.

Make weird face and it disconcerts the pitcher.

Embarrassing.

I really wanted Carew to hit .400

and would check the box score each morning.

It seems a better thing to have wished for than

ingratiating myself with the scary nasty boys

passing so-called girly germs

right before they changed

overnight into claiming to already have fully adult sex desires.

Much better.

When I got serious I sold the baseball cards.

Baseball cards is not mathematics nor even useful knowledge,

an improper consideration for the serious mathematician.

It seemed . . . entirely appropriate to sell them,

that part of my life all done,

I'd profit and wash the commodity farther away.

I saw excess drunkenness at college.

I look back at rejecting the drunkenness fondly,

only,

I wish I had been a more discriminating.

I remember going to the dentist a few days before graduating from high school.

A kindly old man, well, recently-retired-looking at least, asked whether I wanted the Sports Illustrated.

I told him thanks, I used to like sports,

but I gave them up

because I no longer cared about them.

He told me he knew why,

"Girls!"

I gave an off-hand gruff "Ehhh" in response.

I'd say about the same thing today as my reason then.

I cared about other things,

though it might have had something to do with it,

it largely wasn't true

as he said it.

But this all one.

Why girls?

What does girls has to do with sports?

Mostly it was the boys who liked sports.

One can be . . . not favorably disposed to boys.

Boys play games well,

that's all they're apparently good for.

Could make me better disposed toward them and my past

if I look back at the distant amusements of men

behaving like boys

or boys?

Could be,

but it's the conformity that interests me.

I hate it.

But my fear of it leads me astray at times.

Universes that don't allow for semisets so wrong,

and yet using them to justify why we can add arbitrary function extensions in separation and replacement axioms, a normalcy I should not have feared to the point of not seeing it to mild gloom.

Sadistic girls and controlling them go hand-in-hand,

because,

after all,

the more she is being controlled, the more useful and fun it is for her to test out whether she can still hate,

different opinions about which can lead to fatalistic gloom in one girl and smiling unwillingness to cede control in her other almost erstwhile girlfriend.

Dark fear bravely carried from love vs. prudent rejection of apocalyptic danger.

But normalishness could perhaps carry the day.

All a guy has to do is love girls imagining themselves cruel in proportion to how beautiful they are being.

Almost, but not quite, like normal guys only having loving feelings toward the extremely special.

Only, love must change from moment to moment, in proportion to how beautiful she be at that particular moment.

Girls behaving fucking stupid crazy cruel not so pretty is outside their imaginings.

Torture and human sacrifice are frowned upon.

Loving girls rightly like resurrecting the fun of the long-ago past.

This like a bee landing on a pretty flower.

Only,

it is not just the fun of my distant ancestors,

but the amusements such as they were from my childhood.

Dealing out the baseball cards on the floor in a newly-sorted order.

So careful and yet so forgetting of what be around me.

While at the same time closer to what fun in former ages used to be,

my childhood, fundamentally past.

Rod Carew wasn't like other players.

He dozed off between innings—that cool.

Or carefully numb to forget each witnessed horror of locker-room jock bravado....

I can imagine myself years hence, old and alone,

finishing up details on my work in logic and moral philosophy,

throwing it out there in a final wistful try

just because it be better than doing nothing.

It's not a bad or unsacred imagining.

I wonder what the girl who loves baseball would think,

yes, yes, I had an imagining half a poem ago.

Baseball is wild to her.

A wild game just maybe of reconciling past friends.

Horrors in the real world can be some fun when only sang about,

and sometimes rightish be normal.

I'm just against sodomy, not same-sex attraction

I love her

More than anyone else.

But I don't think she loves me.

And I feel really silly writing this.

I love other girls

a lot.

I guess,

she is full of lust for them.

Yeah, that's about right.

That's what happens.

You know how it is.

Girl A

loves him.

He loves her most.

He doesn't mind girls B-Z, either, though.

I'm sure it would reassure them,

her being full of lust for them,

unless.

They think it's something I put her up to faking.

Wahh, she's a bird--I have no control over that, not possible--

An argument for marriage, I suppose.

Girls pondering a male find an older respectable female (wife?) wanting their backsides for lustful purposes reassuring,

but not if the older female's lust for the younger females is male-forced fakery.

Girls getting it in their minds they want to sodomize each other.

Like that is possible!

Errrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Somewhere, sometime.

Maybe just in her dreamland, maybe not,

It's not as important which as whether--

and mostly I do think whether,

and maybe perhaps that didn't matter much either,

(compared to that it rang a bell I hadn't heard)

a girl did want me most.

Congratulations,

but not really,

because yeah I did like that girl lower in the alphabet, too.

And if that made girl A want me most, yay!

But not really, because how can a girl love a male most and awful well without wanting his backside

when she considers girls-lower-in-alphabet?

How dare, she grinched, you pretend to try to make me jealous.

YOU KNOW THAT WILL NOT WORK AND THAT IS NOT WHAT I WOULD EVER ALLOW MYSELF TO DO. DO NOT DARE EVER, EVER TRY.

That's what she said, as I see it casually in this poem, in so many words with her grinchy growly face.

Well, I just chalked it all up as a strange inexplicable phenomenon, to be filed away for future investigation.

But then there was more.

I do believe after further investigation indeed she did theorize it not at all unlikely her first impressions were erroneous.

She had decided, yep, other girl made her want to violate me so she could get all my lust, etc., for herself, never having to share it with girl lower-in-the-alphabet. She could and would not accept that level of selfishness in herself. She indeed saw the appropriateness of an application of her willpower to avoid sodomizing me in order to get any sodomy from me all to herself.

So, so, sad. So, so, erroneous.

But gradually she came to think maybe that wasn't right either. After all, not that she would mind particularly girl-lower-in-the-alphabet being on her backside. Who would mind the respectable older female? Certainly not her. Yeah, I do believe she came to think of girl-lower-in-the-alphabet as being something of the great diaper-changerer-goddess of backside protection. Great. And that made her think, yeah, that maybe her own desire for me was just to protect my backside and maybe she herself was something of a lesser but still great diaper-changerer.

It is not reassuring to consider that a girl thinks you might be gay. It can be a sign that a boy or boys around her might be telling her lies, presumably because they want to SODOMIZE you and in their excess bold stupid effrontery (at least when dealing with me) thereby make you gay. But by the time you realize she was thinking at a certain time that she just wanted to improve your hindquarters like a mother changing diapers, the usefulness of any fears that a girl having such a strange notion would generate would, well, be mostly be well past their expiration date.

That wasn't really important, though.

What was important is what girl-lower-in-the-alphabet thought.

Girl-lower-in-the-alphabet was worried. Worried she wanted on my account to sodomize the girl I loved more. And that just was not acceptable to her no way no how. Survivor's guilt. Having been the one who escaped unharmed. Children are never to blame for protecting other children—they're all terrible at it, but still, they get blamed because after all if they had been perfect.... I should have been more perfect. Perhaps if I had been more clear to myself that holiness was a more generally applicable phenomenon. Perhaps if I had been a little clearer, too, about the extent and manner in which I presumably wanted to control girls-lower-in-the alphabet. In retrospect, my thoughts were not unclean toward anyone (though greater grace is always possible), but there were little doubts, then. Girl-lower-in-the-alphabet feared those doubts making me fear her, feared too, the idea of her corrupting something as pure and innocent as what was between me and the girl I loved most then. It's no harm for girl lust to defeat male holiness 179-5. The more lopsided the score the better as long as the male internally in his brain holiness is ever trying to be as holy as possible—as long as he tries everybody's a winner.

Any way, life is in many ways a joke. A girl can want you so much she totally wants to share you with other girls to the point of wanting to be all over your backside to reassure you. And other females can want to share in the fun so much that they want to be all over her hindside when you make love to her, egging her on to greater lust. But none of that matters if... a girl lower-in-the-alphabet feels too guilty to do anything that her lust is telling her to do. True there might be hope yet if the girl you love most could jolt the girls lower-in-the-alphabet into complacency by temporarily evincing a reduced reluctance to being controlled. Look, well-loved girl might say, "I actually already don't mind at all being controlled." Actually, this sort of thing presumably has happened so often in our ancestral history that whenever a girl senses that some other desired girl who wants sharing is not sharing because she is too afraid that a desire to share might be a desire to corrupt a sacred relationship with sodomy, her natural tendency is probably to adopt behaviors seductive of the other girl. If a girl senses she needs to get some other girl to feel okay with being lustfully against her backside, probably her natural tendency is just to temporarily not mind her male lover controlling her in the clean way virtuous males control mistresses, so that way the other girl will less feel that what the male feels towards her, and more importantly the subservience and beyond she is willing to give in response, is somehow contrary and opposed to what he feels for the better-loved girl. Lot of good her seduction will do anybody, though, if she takes her innocently seductive temporary alacrity to be controlled as just further evidence that when around girls lower-in-the-alphabet she wants to be controlled and therefore sodomized by the male like some everyday sophisticate skank jealous of other girls because she wants all the sodomy to herself. She was so beautiful when she thought about her love for girl-lower-in-the-alphabet. Maybe just in some dreamland, but to my thinking she'd have let me love her if that other girl would have felt less guilty about wanting to "sodomize" her—AS IF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

The world is a joke. It is possible for one girl to want another girl's backside so much that, confused, the former just can't deal with the guilt, and possible too for the latter to just not feel right about what, in an effort to seduce the former into feeling okay with her backside, she will let her lover to do her unless the former is taking turns with her on him. Presumptuous of me to think? Nah, I have seen hints of this sort of thing in girls other places, in situations not involving me at all. The particular way it evinces itself in altering behavior differs from situation to situation (relevant variables: which female is older, how much self-confidence is there and which girl has it, and whether each girl has before been in relation with another male similarly or like the other girl), but the root cause is always the same. Next to sodomy itself, females fearing some always non-existent tendency in themselves to sodomize or malevolently control or defile with their own lust (lust from females is basically always unselfish if it is real) may well be greatest cause of particular female error in relationships.

Anyways, it's a strange reflection. Maybe the girl I loved best did love me best, only she so much wanted to reduce the other girl's fear of sodomizing her that she couldn't imagine herself feeling free around me unless imagining herself sharing me with the other girl--the better-loved girl just didn't feel right about having intimacy with me unless the other girl was involved. And maybe the other girl really wanted by nature precisely what the better-loved girl by nature wanted, but because she mistook it for a desire to sodomize, she felt too guilty to do it. And maybe all three of us by nature are among the most antisodomy people on Earth. Life is in so many ways a joke, but that is actually reassuring. Tragedy largely is just people getting confused about things that actually are just synonymous (but different), no malevolence or selfishness being involved except in the distant people originating the conflations. Particular examples may be girls not differentiating between wicked males' sodomizing and benevolent females'-lustful-sharing, and not differentiating between subservience to a male that shows inappropriate lack of self-respect and subservience to a male that is appropriate because it is moral or temporarily serves as seductive jolt to excessively guilty females wanting to share a male with her. It is worth pointing out that, at least in the situation I wonder whether might have happened, if the girls had been open with one another, it probably would have cleared up the problem. There's something preposterous about one girl viewing the other's feelings towards her backside as those of some sort of sacred maternal diaper-changerer rear end protector, while the other views her own feelings for the former's backside as perhaps being equivalent to a desperate desire to corrupt a relationship into unholy lust via sodomizing; it's hard for me to imagine they each could have known what the other felt about the matter without each recognizing that each must be looking at things in quite the wrong way. I mean, if one of the girls were right, the other would have had to be a total idiot to view things the way she did, and they each presumably knew that they were both quite intelligent—they certainly seemed intelligent to me.

I know I haven't posted much in my blog lately. Unexpectedly this afternoon, I felt like posting something. I had wanted to post something more carefully along these lines for a good while by now, and though I couldn't manage it to my satisfaction, for some reason, though I mostly think it best to view all days the same, I just up and did it.

Lately, compared to what I have been doing, I have been working much on my logic paper, and am also working on mathematically defined definitions of beauty, goodness and morality more thoroughly thought-out than what I have hitherto made. I have been thinking that maybe I will someday post a series of self-produced lectures on youtube starting with my definitions of the important moral concepts and proceeding from there. If my history is a guide, I can be very slow about things, though.

That's all I have to say for present. There is family stuff I need to attend to for next few days, so in the case someone comments, I may be delayed in responding. Hoping no one be offended, I am, Stephen.

The nuclear crisis in Japan--How bad?

 Update (5/7/2011): Well, it doesn't seem nearly as bad as I hard feared here in the States, what since no major explosions of the reactor vessel or criticality events seem to have happened. The best website I have found for keeping track of the radiation somewhere in U.S. is run by this group of UC-Berkeley nuclear engineers . I probably will delete this post in a few weeks or months, since it is time sensitive and doesn't fit in with the other posts in my blog.


The nuclear crisis in Japan has the potential to be quite disastrous. With three reactors and apparently large quantities of spent fuel rods from six reactors vulnerable, there is more material that can evaporate, burn up, etc., and get into atmosphere than at Chernobyl. The good news is that there hasn't been any fission there for a week or so, and so the short-lived radioisotopes (those with a short half-life) shouldn't be very problematic as they were at Chernobyl. But for the greater public at large, Cesium-137, with its 30-year half-life, will be just as bad as ever, and that's typically a large part of the problem in these situations, anyway. And actually, if the fuel rods melt down, falling to the bottom of the reactor or pool, becoming a lava-like blob, there is no guarantee there will be no criticality created. It wouldn't be an especially explosive fission bomb type criticality, presumably, from what I have read it can't be (but I am not a nuclear expert), but does have the potential as in Chernobyl to create a sudden release of heat leading to somewhat explosive evaporation of nuclear material and steam. This is why they are adding boric acid, to absorb neutrons and discourage criticality. On the whole, I think the expected damage at this point is slightly worse than at Chernobyl. (I am not saying that there is greater than 50-50 chance it will be worse than Chernobyl, but it could be a lot worse than Chernobyl (while it can't be better than the problem it has already been), and so the expected damage is probably worse than Chernobyl. What will be the damage to those not exposed to acute radiation, and How can we estimate this from detected levels of radiation? As a mathematician who minored in physics, who has been gleaning the internet for relevant studies, etc., over past few days, I will throw in my observations, since such observations seem to be inconveniently lacking and hard to find.

Readings at Tokyo of external radiation levels are apparently (as of yesterday) at 0.8 microsieverts per hour, about 24 times normal. According to an article in the IAEA bulletin summarizing WHO findings, in areas of Europe fairly removed from Chernobyl about one-third of the damage to people from Chernobyl was caused by external radiation, about one-third from inhaled radio-isotopes and one-third from ingested radio-isotopes ("in areas of low deposition, all three pathways may
be of similar importance"). So the total effective dose equivalent can be guesstimated by multiplying the result on the radiation meters by three (and multiplying by the number of hours the radiation is received). What are the effects of 2.4 microsieverts per hour? A Rule of thumb I've seen in a couple articles (apparently from the International Commission on Radiological Protection) apparently is that one millisievert increases one's chances of dying from cancer by about 1 in 20,000. In other words, one microsievert increases one's chances by 1 in 20 million. So 2.4 microsieverts increases one's chances of dying from cancer by 1 in 20/2.4 million, i.e., about 1 in 8.3 million. Tokyo has a population of about 13 million. Thus, as a result of these radiation levels, assuming cancer treatment doesn't improve drastically in the next few decades, about every 40 minutes someone in Tokyo is going to be doomed to eventually die of a cancer which wouldn't have happened else. This hopefully can give an idea of the current seriousness of the present increased radiation levels, and how to estimate the seriousness from measured radiation levels should the situation change, and in particular if it gets worse, as I'm guessing it probably will. The workers at the reactor are a totally different situation, of course; if they are exposing themselves to external radiation of 400 millisieverts per hour, as some places near the reactor were emitting, after about 10 hours or so they can expect to die within a few weeks from having received that exposure. Indeed, LD-50 is between 2.5-5 Gy (or Sv, presumably, a technically better way of saying things, imho). They are indeed heroically risking their lives.

Let's look at America, now. The winds in the northern hemisphere at the latitudes of the U.S. and Japan are mostly from the west, and the jet stream is from the west as well. So America could get a good deal of fallout. If the situation ends up somewhat worse than Chernobyl, we may get, say, about half what Northern Italy got from Chernobyl. Estimates from the IAEA article linked to above are that people in Northern Italy received about one millisievert total effective dose equivalent (a little less for adults, a little more for children). So, a guess is that if the accident is somewhat worse than Chernobyl, we'll get about half a millisievert on average. That means an extra 1 in 40,00o risk of dying from cancer. Multiply by a population of about 300 million, and you get 7,5oo Americans dying from cancers they otherwise would not get. It won't be nearly as bad as in Japan, presumably, but it is certainly of significance even here.

Of course, there are other effects as well. Hereditable effects caused by genes mutating tend to be (according to this course lecture) an order of magnitude less than carcinogenic effects, but they last longer, from generation to generation, so that is something to consider (but being mostly ignorant about the matter there's nothing precise I can say about it), and also fetuses are very susceptible to abnormalities from radiation, the teratogenic effects supposedly being (according to same lecture) an order of magnitude worse, but pregnant females aren't as numerous as people at large. So perhaps the carcinogenic risk is the most of the risk. Also, there could be very long-lived isotopes of stuff like plutonium dispersed, having effects for millenia, but again I don't have a good idea of how to estimate that particular risk.

It's surprisingly lame that there are so few publicly available radiation detectors on the internet. The best network I can find for the U.S. is at Radiation Network , which one could use to compare radiation reading with normal readings. Another one is available at Online Ionizing Radiation Detectors . I haven't noticed any changes in those reading yet here in the States.