|Distinguish between productive
Both animals and humans spend their lives titillating their
emotions. In order to create a better life for ourselves, we have to make
wise decisions on when we are stimulating ourselves in a useful
manner, and when we are engaging in worthless or destructive
masturbation. For example, consider the two extreme opposite ways of dealing
with the issue of food:
1) At one extreme, we could produce meals in the most efficient
We do not want either of those extremes, but what do we want? Earlier in
this article I asked, "Why do we eat?" I pointed
out that our prehistoric ancestors didn't have to be concerned with this
question, but in our modern era, we must deal with a lot of food related
issues, and future generations will have even more issues to deal with.
This question is becoming increasingly complex. When we take control of
our culture, we have to seriously analyze the issue of eating and ask ourselves,
"What are we trying to accomplish when we eat?"
We would eat food in the most efficient manner possible with no concern
for titillating our emotions, such as producing a low-cost, nutritional
slurry that we consume from feeding tubes, as some
farmers do with their geese. In that case, our restaurants would be
as efficient as a recharging station for robots. We would not have to waste
any of our time or resources on the production of vegetables, meats, dining
room tables, or kitchen equipment.
2) At the other extreme, we could produce meals to be as emotionally
stimulating as possible.
We would produce meals to stimulate our emotions with no regard to
the use of labor or resources. We would create extravagant and luxurious
dining rooms, and we would create meals that are visually artistic. We
would create lots of artificial flavors, spices, and sauces that stimulate
our nose and mouth beyond anything a real food could do. We would eat only
the portions of the animals that we liked the best, and we would discard
the rest. This philosophy towards meals requires a society to put a lot of
their labor and resources into producing a wide variety of extravagant
foods, dining rooms, spices, artificial flavors, and candies.
Before you contemplate that question, you might find it useful to consider
how technology of the future will allow us to make meals even more exciting
than they are today. For example, eventually the pharmaceutical companies
will have the knowledge to create chemicals that we take prior to having
dinner, and which are similar to Viagra or "poppers".
These drugs would enhance the stimulation of the food, thereby making the
meal much more exciting. These drugs would be especially useful for children
who are finicky with their food. Give a child some of these drugs, and
anything he eats will be incredibly pleasurable.
|Imagine people implanting wireless electrodes into various
pleasure centers of their brain so that when they eat food or have sex,
they can activate the corresponding electrodes, thereby increasing their
pleasure. Would these people be enjoying life more
than you and me?
Eventually surgeons will have the technology to implant wireless
electrodes into the pleasure centers of our brain. This technology will
allow people to create some truly exciting restaurants. After the customers
have been served their meal, the chef would turn on a transmitter to activate
all of the electrodes in his dining room, thereby causing all of his customers
to become titillated beyond anything that you and I could experience during
Incidentally, those wireless electrodes would be useful for our sexual
centers, also. When the people have sex or masturbate, they would activate
the electrode that is embedded into their sex emotion, and that would allow
them to experience pleasure beyond anything that we are capable of.
Our distant ancestors didn't have to be concerned about decorations
in their dining room, the type of utensils they ate with, or the visual
appearance of their meals. They were more concerned with finding food then
in stimulating themselves with food. Today we can produce food so easily
that we don't worry about finding food. Instead, we spend our time and
resources finding ways to titillate ourselves with food. Our technology
is providing us with phenomenal options for what we could describe as food
masturbation, and the technology of the future will provide even more
options, such as wireless electrodes in the brain. Our prehistoric ancestors
were concerned only with finding food, but we have to be concerned about
how we titillate ourselves with food. We have to learn to control our emotions
and think more often.
Imagine that you
are a top government official
The free enterprise system is currently handling all food related
issues automatically for us. However, if we switch to a society in which
we have control over our culture, then
must make all the decisions. For example, we must have discussions about
which food items to produce. Do we want to provide ourselves with veal,
foie gras, chicken nuggets, salami, Velveeta cheese, Wonder Bread, deep-fried
candy bars, or Cheerios? What type of artificial flavors should we produce?
If we create a society in which we are in control of our culture, and
if you become a top government official,
are going to have to discuss and deal with issues that are currently being
dealt with automatically by the free enterprise system. For example, what
type of foods should we provide for children?
Without businesses to make those decisions for us, you
and other people must be capable of discussing that issue, possibly experimenting
with some policies, and compromising on other policies.
Without free enterprise, we are on our own to deal with food
and other cultural issues. We are going to need people in the government
who have the intellectual ability and emotional desire to discuss these
issues seriously and compromise on policies. Are there enough people with
enough self-control to do what is best for society rather than do what
their particular emotions are craving?
What should our policies
on food be?
In this modern era, we have to pass judgment on when we are
providing ourselves with sensible meals and dining rooms, and when we are
jerking ourselves off with food to the extent that we are hurting our health,
wasting our resources, or encouraging bad attitudes. Businesses, such as
McDonald's and Chuck E. Cheese's, can profit by producing meals and dining
rooms that titillate children, but if we eliminate free enterprise, then
we must make decisions on what we want our restaurants to be. What do you
think is best for children?
We also have to pass judgment on when it is acceptable for us to waste
the food items that we are not attracted to. For example, our primitive
ancestors would sometimes, possibly most of the time, eat kidneys, brains,
liver, lungs, and other parts of an animal that most of us discard. Our
ancestors would also eat portions of fruits and vegetables that we discard,
such as sections that have worms or which are fermented. Should we continue
the practice of discarding kidneys, livers, tendons, cartilage, egg shells,
bones, and brains? Or should we authorize scientific research into the
nutritional value of these items, and if they turn out to be useful, grind
them up into sausages or other products? Lungs contain mucus, so if we
decide to put lungs into a grinder for sausage, we have to decide whether
we should wash the mucus out, and to what extent. Our emotions are disgusted
at the thought of eating mucus, brains, and eyeballs, but for all we know,
carnivores evolved to eat entire animals, in which case we may be interfering
with our nutrition when we restrict ourselves to eating a few muscles.
As I mentioned in this file,
some people complain that businesses are using tendons, skin, and other
items in chicken nuggets and ground beef, but is that "pink slime" unhealthy?
Or are we merely emotionally distraught at the thought of eating those
parts of an animal?
We should not let paranoid individuals set our food policies. We should
study these issues seriously, control our emotions, and try to make intelligent
decisions. We currently use dead animals, including those that are killed
by automobiles, for such products as gelatin, and if this process is sensible,
then why not use dead humans also? Human mothers discard their placenta,
but if a placenta is just as nutritious as a chicken egg, why not use placentas
for food, such as in omelettes or as a pizza topping?
Humans have such a strong inhibition about eating our own species that
I do not expect any society to authorize the consumption of placentas or
dead people. I mentioned that issue only to emphasize that there are a
tremendous number of food items in this world that we refuse to eat, and
we should seriously analyze our policies towards food and make intelligent
decisions rather than
react to these
issues like a stupid animal.
Why do babies eat everything?
Incidentally, it is interesting that human babies are constantly
putting things into their mouth. Is this due to a feeding emotion?
Or is it a tasting emotion? Or is it a technique to expose
a baby to bacteria and viruses? This behavior is so potentially dangerous
that we should not ignore it. Why would we have evolved such a characteristic?
There must've been a vital reason for this characteristic, but is it still
During the first few months of a koala bear's life, it lives in its
mother's pouch and drinks milk, just like all other baby animals. However,
when the baby is about six months old, the mother's digestive system produces
a special poop that is full of bacteria, and the baby develops a desire
to eat it. The craving to eat its mother's poop evolved as a way to ensure
that the baby koala bear acquires enough bacteria to digest the eucalyptus
leaves, and the mother's body evolved to create some special poop that
is full of bacteria so that the baby doesn't eat the less-useful poop.
Human babies, like koala bears, are born sterile. Perhaps the reason
human babies put everything into their mouth is to expose them to the bacteria
of their environment so that they build up an immunity to their particular
environment, and/or because they need some of that bacteria in their intestines.
In our modern homes, babies put potentially dangerous objects into their
mouth, such as knives, jewelry, and medicines. However, for all we know,
mothers would be helping their babies remain in good health if they put
them outside once in a while and let them taste the grass, leaves, and
dead butterflies. Perhaps the reason so many babies end up sickly or with
allergies is because they were not properly exposed to the environment
during the first few years of life. For all we know, our immune system
was designed to adapt to our environment, in which case, if a mother keeps
her baby in a sterile environment, her baby adapts to an unnatural environment
instead of to the real world.
Parents are afraid to let their children be exposed to bacteria and
viruses because they realize that a certain percentage of the babies have
defective immune systems, and they want to protect their defective babies.
However, from the point of view of the human race, if a baby dies from
exposure to the environment, the parents simply should have another child.
We have to face the fact that creating life is a difficult and imperfect
process, and that some of the babies are going to be defective. We should
not encourage parents to cry over the death of a defective child.
When is it acceptable to
Everybody wastes food, even people who are starving to death.
For example, many people would rather starve to death than eat spiders,
flies, mucus, ticks, maggots, or their dead parents. In this modern era,
it is acceptable to waste the foods that we don't like because we can produce
food so easily. Besides, we can give the undesirable food to animals, so
it's not really wasted. However, we often waste food that we
For example, we waste food in food-eating contests, food fights, shooting
bullets through apples, and carving watermelons into artistic designs that
we look at instead of eat. We also allow food to be wasted by providing
buffets that allow people to put food on their plate that they later discard
in the trash, and by having only one size of meal at restaurants, thereby
causing people with a smaller appetite to waste some of the food.
In a free enterprise system, the wasting of food is justified if it
results in a financial profit, but when we take control of society, then
we must make decisions about which foods to produce, and when it is sensible
to waste food. For example, is the benefit of a food fight worth
the burden of producing the food and cleaning up the mess? Or should we
restrict food fights to the foods that nobody wants to eat either because
the food is spoiled or because there is an excess of the food? And should
we restrict food fights to areas that we don't have to clean up, such as
For another example of how we must make decisions about wasting food,
restaurants tend to provide one size of meal for everybody, which causes
people with smaller appetites to waste food. Is the simplicity of providing
one size of meal worth the burden of the wasted food? Or should we tell
the chefs to provide different size meals for different people? Or would
it be better to have the chefs make smaller meals, and tell the people
who are hungry to have additional portions?
It might seem as if the best policy is to never waste resources,
but all of our activities could be described as wasting resources and
labor. For example, we could describe the production of visually attractive
meals as "wasting food, electricity, labor, and other
resources in order to stimulate ourselves with artistic food". We
could describe the people who enjoy artistic meals in an attractive dining
room as "jerking themselves off" with food. If we want to completely eliminate
the waste of food, electricity, and other resources, we would have to produce
a food slurry and consume it from feeding tubes.
Almost everything we do could be described as a "waste". It doesn't
make sense to complain about wasting resources or labor. When we take control
of our culture, we have to analyze the advantages and disadvantages to
all of our activities, and we have to pass judgment on which of them are
the burden that they impose.
For example, consider the advantages and disadvantages to artistic meals.
The attractive meals are a burden on us because they require much
more labor in the kitchen compared to producing a food slurry, and
dining rooms with utensils require more labor and resource to produce and
maintain compared to feeding tubes. These meals put a burden on
society. Is the burden worth the benefit? There is no answer to that question.
Different people will have slightly different ideas on which meals are
worth the burden.
If you are having trouble understanding this concept, consider
the advantages and disadvantages - ie, the burden and benefit - to the
foods that have gold dust or gold leaf, such as the bagel with gold leaf
(in the photo). The only advantage to goldplated foods that I am aware
of is that they are visually interesting. Therefore, I would say that it's
only benefit to society is providing us with an insignificant amount of
in the visual appearance of our meals. Is that small benefit worth the
burden? What is the burden?
The disadvantage with goldplated foods is that gold is so scarce that
in order for us to consume it on a regular basis, we must put enormous
amounts of labor and resources into mining gold, and this imposes a significant
burden on our lives and the environment.
We could reduce the burden of goldplated foods by producing only a small
amount of them each year, but that creates the problem of figuring out
how to distribute a small amount of a limited item to a large population.
One method is to let people take turns having access to the goldplated
foods so that everybody has equal access to it, and another is to provide
the goldplated food to people as a reward.
Note that the free enterprise system solves these problems automatically
without any of us getting involved, or even being aware of the issue. In
a free enterprise system, anybody with enough money to afford goldplated
food can eat it whenever he pleases.
When we take control of society, issues that we were not aware of suddenly
become issues that government officials must discuss and create policies
for. If you were a government official, you would have to think about the
issue of goldplated foods and devise a policy for whether restaurants should
offer them. If you decide to let restaurants produce them, then you must also
develop a policy to distribute such scarce items.
Another issue to consider with goldplated food is that in a free enterprise
system, the people who can afford such food can imagine that they are special
people, and I think this is detrimental to society. Whatever we create
a policy, we have to consider its overall effect on society. I think we
hurt society when we encourage people to become arrogant or conceited.
I think we will create a much more pleasant social environment when we
encourage people to treat each other in a more equal manner.
If we allow only some people to eat goldplated foods, those
particular people will feel special, but who benefits from that? I think
that is encouraging destructive attitudes. I also think there is a detrimental
effect on the people who must produce and serve the goldplated foods. They
will not have as much job satisfaction as compared to when they are producing
something that has value to society. They are put into the role of a peasant
who is pampering his king. I don't think that creates a pleasant social
environment. I think we should eliminate both the peasant class and the
How far should we go in making
I would prohibit the use of gold in decorating our meals, but
what about using orchids to decorate
meals? How about using sprigs of rosemary or basil? If you were
a government official, what guidelines would you provide for the restaurants?
Should we grow orchids simply so that chefs can put them on dinner plates?
Our free enterprise system is currently handling these issues automatically.
As the chefs increase the attractiveness of their meals and dining rooms,
the meals become increasingly expensive. Without free enterprise, we must
discuss these issues and make decisions. We have to decide how much labor
and resources we want to put into our meals.
I want meals to be attractive, but we must compromise on how far we
go with the decorations. I personally would not authorize farmers to grow
orchids simply to decorate dinner plates. I think the work of producing
and distributing the orchids is much too high to justify a few seconds
of visual titillation. I think it would be more sensible to put potted
orchid plants in the restaurant as decorations, and replace them once in
a while so that they can be put into a greenhouse to keep them in good
I think it is beneficial for society to make our meals attractive. They
allow meals to become pleasant, relaxing, social activities. They allow
us to enjoy life and other people. However, there is a point at which we
are putting more labor and resources into the decorations than we are getting
In a free enterprise system, many restaurants do something simply to
make people feel special. We could describe that as titillating
their arrogance or as stimulating their
ego. The goldplated food is perhaps the best example. Those
extreme decorations are not improving the meal, and they do not help people
to socialize or relax.
Humans are sociable creatures, and by providing attractive dining rooms
and meals, we can use meals as a social activity. However, we have to pass
judgment on when people are going too far with the meals and restaurants.
For example, I would say the "Happy Meals" that McDonald's provides are
inappropriate for children. The children are titillated by those
meals, but how do the children or adults benefit?
When we take control of our culture, we have to analyze everything
we do. What are the advantages and disadvantages to food eating contests,
food fights, or allowing people to waste food at buffets? These activities
provide some people with momentary emotional titillation, but is the benefit
worth the burden of producing the food? It might seem as if there
is a right or wrong answer to this question, but, unfortunately, there
A food fight is a waste of food, but that doesn't make it wrong, especially
if they are using food that has spoiled and will not be eaten. If a group
of people have a food fight in a dirt field, their pulverizing of the food
could be described as preparing the spoiled food for recycling
Having a fight with water balloons could be described as a waste
of resources because society has to produce the balloons. A society that
wastes rubber is not better than a society that wastes food. Having fights
with paintballs could also be described as wasteful because society has
to produce the paintballs and equipment. We could say that riding a
bicycle is a wasteful activity because it consumes tires, oil, chains,
and other resources. Allowing children to play
in a fountain of water could be described as a waste of resources
because the activity requires electricity, water pumps, and maintenance.
If we want to be truly efficient, we would do nothing during our
We want activities for our leisure time, but no matter what we do, it
could be described as a waste of resources and labor. In the world today,
businesses are offering any activity that they can proft from, and people
are doing virtually anything that titillates them, but we should analyze
all of our activities to consider their benefits and disadvantages, and
then pass judgment on which activities we want to support, and which we
want to discourage or prohibit. There is no right or wrong activity. Different
people have different preferences as to what is "wasteful" and what is
"fun". This is another reason why we should let cities have cultural differences.
We cannot create enough cities to please everybody, but we can certainly
do a better job of pleasing people compared to the cities of today.
What should our policies
for clothing be?
The same concepts apply to clothing. Why are we wearing
clothing? As of today, businesses, religious groups, and other people are
inadvertently setting clothing styles according to what makes the most
profit or what satisfies their particular emotional cravings. When we take
control of our culture, we should make more intelligent decisions. We need
to seriously ask ourselves, why are we wearing clothing? Why are we wearing
shoes? What are we trying to accomplish?
At one extreme we would dress purely for function, such as producing
clothing and shoes without designs, colors, or decorations of any type.
The clothing would be designed to serve specific purposes, such as protection
from the weather, or protection from thorns or chemicals, or to allow perspiration
to evaporate and to prevent our skin from rubbing against a bicycle seat.
At the other extreme, we would design clothing purely according to its
ability to stimulate our emotions with no regard to whether the clothing
is comfortable or practical. A few centuries ago some wealthy women would
wear dresses that were impractical, such as dresses with large hoops, as
in the drawing, below. Today many women are wearing high-heeled shoes that
cause permanent damage to their feet, and which are impractical
for walking, running, and riding bicycles. Some women in the entertainment
business not only encourage idiotic and dangerous shoes, they also encourage
uncomfortable and impractical hats, gloves, hairstyles, makeup, and clothing.
|Incidentally, a few people wonder if
the custom that men should hold a door open for a woman developed during
the time in when women were wearing such impractical dresses that they
couldn't open a door by themselves.
||Now that lots of women are having trouble
walking in their high-heeled shoes, we may soon have the custom of a man
holding a woman's arm as she walks in order to keep her steady, and to
help her up when she falls on the ground.
During prehistoric times, women could safely wear whatever
type of clothing their emotions were attracted to. The women had only a
few options for clothing, such as wearing a piece of fur around their waist
or shoulders, or wearing simple leather moccasins. It was impossible for
women in prehistoric times to wear high heeled shoes or a corset. They
couldn't use makeup, either, or hair coloring, fingernail polish, hair
spray, or perfume.
A woman's grooming emotions evolved to fit a low level of technology,
not the modern world. A woman's emotions must now change to fit this new
era. Until that evolution is complete, women should control
their emotions and think
more often. When women today follow their emotions, they waste time and
resources on idiotic attempts to become a sex toy.
A man's grooming emotions are also out of place today, but unlike women,
men do not have a craving to become a sex toy. Men are more interested
in competing with other men for dominance and status. Men want to impress
other people and feel important. As a result, we have a tendency to mimic
the men in influential positions, and to select clothing that is expensive
and intimidating. We have to control our emotions and force ourselves to
be more tolerant of clothing that is practical,
and which changes with the seasons.
Just as we should analyze our attitudes towards meals and pass judgment
on which practices are more sensible, we should analyze our grooming and
clothing practices rather than do whatever titillates us. For example,
should women shave their body hair? Rather than answer that question with
our emotions, we should analyze the advantages and disadvantages to such
an activity from the point of view of what is best for society.
Imagine two cities, identical in all respects, except that in one city
the women are shaving their body hair. How would life be different in those
two cities? In the city where the women are shaving their body hair, the
people must spend some of their time producing razors or hair removing
chemicals, and the women have to spend some of their time removing the
hair, and so the people in that city have a small but additional burden
placed on them. What is the benefit to the burden? Will the people have
more exciting marriages or sex? Will their relationships be more stable?
Will the people be more productive at work? Will they be more relaxed and
We would have to conduct these experiments to determine what would happen
if women stopped shaving their body hair, but my suspicion is that life
would become more pleasant overall
if women stopped this practice. Both men and women consider hairless women
to be more attractive, and so we assume that women should shave their hair,
but we are foolish to judge the value of an activity according to it's
emotional appeal. Men have an attraction to pornography, but does that
mean society will improve if we provide ourselves with more pornography
and put it on ordinary television?
Men have a naturally strong attraction to women. Our attraction to women
developed during prehistoric times to fit the women of that era. Our emotions
are designed for female savages in
their "natural" condition, not modern women who wear beautiful clothing,
brush their hair, clean their teeth, and wash their crotch. I think that
men today are being stimulated beyond what we were designed for,
and I don't think that we are going to make life better for us by encouraging
the women to become even more titillating. Most women have been shaving
their body hair during the past few decades, but where is the evidence
that this practice has improved life, sex, marriages, or friendships?
Furthermore, the removal of body hair creates women that are more attractive
from a distance, and in photos, so it makes pornography more
titillating, and it makes women more titillating from a distance, but I
don't think that improves our lives. Besides, when we get close to the
women, we can see and feel the stubble, and I don't think stubble is any
more attractive than hair.
Most men have grown up around women who shave their body hair, wear
jewelry, use cosmetics, wear high-heeled shoes, and color their hair. A
lot of men may have trouble considering the possibility that some of these
grooming practices are actually a waste of time and resources. It
might help those men to consider how this concept applies to women
and their attraction to babies.
When are women going "too
far" with babies?
Women have a strong attraction to the sight, sound, and smell
of a baby. What would you think if businesses were analyzing the odor of
a baby and producing perfumes that are even more stimulating than the natural
odors? Imagine women applying "baby scents" to their babies to make their
babies even more emotionally stimulating. Also, imagine businesses figuring
out how to make the babies more visually appealing through cosmetic surgery.
Let's also imagine the women shave off the "peach fuzz" that covers a baby's
body because they find completely bald babies even more titillating.
|Men and women try to become attractive with piercings,
breast implants, lip injections, high-heeled shoes, and foot binding, but
how many of these grooming practices are truly beneficial to us?
Imagine if businesses discover that women become even more
titillated by babies if we break the bones in the feet of the baby
so that their feet can be deformed to fit into certain types of tiny shoes,
similar to what some Chinese were doing to their daughters until
Lets's go one step further and imagine that chemists create a pill for
the mothers that is similar to Viagra except that it increases a woman's
attraction to a baby, and so the women who take this "baby enhancement
drug" become even more stimulated by babies. Let's also imagine some businesses
producing "baby pornography" videos to titillate the women. Let's also
imagine that surgeons in the future are implanting wireless electrodes
in the brains of women so that the women can activate their "mothering
emotions" when they are playing with the babies, thereby increasing the
pleasure that they receive from the babies.
Would you approve of mothers using those techniques to enhance their
pleasure with babies? The women would claim that these practices are making
their life much more exciting, and that if we stopped them from doing it,
their life would become dull and dreary. Would you support their behavior,
or would you tell the women that they are getting carried away in their
attempt to stimulate themselves, and that they are not doing anything that has
real value to them or their babies?
What would you think if women were implanting electrodes into the brains
their babies in order to cause the baby to spend more time smiling
and giggling? Would you approve of that technology?
Some women have been accused of deliberately prolonging their child's
sickness or obesity so that their child remains helpless and childlike.
What would you think if mothers were having their children's pituitary
glands removed to force the children to remain more childlike?
Imagine that pharmaceutical companies develop a Viagra-type drug
for babies that causes the babies to spend more time giggling and smiling.
Would you approve of mothers giving that drug to their babies?
What is the difference between a woman who is taking a drug to stimulate
her "mothering emotions", and a man who is using poppers or pornography
to titillate his sexual emotions?
We need to control our emotions and seriously analyze the advantages
and disadvantages to our grooming practices and pass judgment on which
of these practices are sensible, and which are wasteful, idiotic, or destructive.
Just as there is no right or wrong to the issue of wasting
food, there is no right or wrong to what men and women should do to make
themselves - and their babies - more appealing. There is nothing "wrong"
with men or women breaking the bones in their feet, coloring their hair,
plucking their eyebrows, having breast implants, splitting their tongue,
or injecting fat into their lips. There is nothing wrong with mothers pushing
their daughters into dressing like beauty queens or sex toys, either.
Since different people have different emotional characteristics, educational
levels, and intellectual abilities, the grooming practices of a society
will depend upon who is dominating it. If you are too apathetic to get
involved in these issues, then somebody else is going to make the decision
Another issue to consider is that if we decide that we don't like women
with hair, or if we want women to wear high-heeled shoes, then we should
restrict reproduction to the women who are most similar to what we want
them to be. It is better to breed humans to have the qualities we want
rather than try to give ourselves those qualities through surgery, drugs,
foot binding, and hair coloring. If the Africans don't want curly hair,
then instead of straightening it, they should breed themselves to produce
straight hair. Since Jews don't like their ugly faces or unpleasant personalities,
they should breed themselves to become more desirable rather than be envious
of us and use cosmetic surgery to become more attractive.
This concept applies to a man's beard, also. Most men don't want a beard,
and shaving is a waste of our time and resources. Shaving is not a significant
burden on society, so we don't have to worry about it, but I suspect that
future societies will eventually restrict reproduction to the men with
less of a beard, eventually eliminating beards completely. We have more
important genetic issues to worry about today, but thousands of years from
now, after the human race has evolved into a healthier creature, the people
will start dealing the insignificant genetic qualities, such as beards.
What is the difference between
giving a gift
and going to a prostitute?
All animals have a very strong craving to give food to their
children, and the males of some species have to give food or meaningless
gifts to the females.
dolphins, which are described as "wild" but are not truly wild since they
have contact with people, have given gifts of food to people, and some
pet owners have discovered their pets bringing them gifts of food. This
cat supposedly gives gifts to its dead owner at a cemetery!
Our craving to feed children is so strong that businesses can
make a profit by offering us the opportunity to give food to animals. People
don't feed the animals because they want to participate in the care and
feeding of the animals. Rather, they want to titillate themselves, and
when they are finished titillating themselves, they want to leave, and
they want somebody else to deal with the problems of taking care of the
animal. If people truly enjoyed taking care of animals, then the feeding
zoos would allow people to participate in all
such as the cleaning up after the animals, and maintenance of the fences
||The customers of a feeding zoo and the customers of a prostitute are
doing virtually the same thing; namely, stimulating
their emotions. However, they stimulate different
Why is one type of stimulation acceptable but not the other?
The free enterprise system is making decisions for us about
what type of feeding zoos and prostitution services are available, but
if we eliminate the free enterprise system and take control of our culture,
then we have to make these decisions.
What type of zoos should we offer? Should we offer any type of prostitution
Our ancestors had no understanding or control of venereal diseases or
pregnancy, so they had a valid reason for being frightened of prostitution.
In our era, we can offer a variety of prostitution services that are safe,
but that doesn't mean we should encourage any of them. We should seriously
analyze and discuss all of our activities rather than react to them with
Men have strong sexual cravings, and we should stop ignoring this issue.
Hiding from the problem is not going to make it go away. What should teenage
boys do when they become sexually aroused? Should they be told to masturbate?
If they are living in a dormitory with other boys, when, where, and how
should they masturbate? What should the rules of etiquette be for masturbation?
Should we provide them with pornography, or will that make the situation
worse? Should society provide men with some type of prostitution services?
Should we develop robots for sex?
I don't know what the best policy for sex and masturbation would be,
but we are never going to figure out a good policy when most of the population
is too inhibited to discuss the issue seriously, and when most people are
too afraid to experiment with different policies.
How many people are capable of controlling their sexual inhibitions
well enough to discuss and experiment with sex policies? For example, would
you be able to remain calm if your city was experimenting with sex robots?
If the sex robots didn't bring any improvements to society, would you demand
that society stop experimenting? Or would you be able to remain calm while
the city tried some other experiment?
If, instead, the sex robots caused the teenage boys and/or adult men
to become noticeably more relaxed and productive compared to when they
were masturbating or going to human prostitutes, would you be able to remain
calm while the city made sex robots an official cultural activity? Would
you be able to remain calm if the city provided Teentown with "teenage
sex robots" so that the teenage boys didn't have to masturbate?
Improving our lives requires experimenting with ourselves, and that
requires controlling our arrogance, fear of the unknown, paranoia, and
other emotions, and treating humans the same way we treat animals and plants.
Before you become worried that I'm promoting sex robots or prostitution,
consider that I suspect that we will significantly reduce sexual frustration,
prostitution, and masturbation by eliminating the free enterprise system
because that will allow us to put an end to pornography and the sexual
titillation in advertisements, movies, and television shows. I suspect
that pornography is making our situation worse by overstimulating the men.
I also suspect that we are making things worse for ourselves by allowing
the women to dress like sex toys at their jobs, and for allowing them to
dress their young daughters as sex toys.
I also think the best way to reduce sexual frustration, loneliness,
and divorce is to experiment with a variety of courtship activities to
help men and women form more stable relationships. Furthermore, I think
that putting the teenagers into Teentown will make it easier for adults
to help the teenagers meet and get to know one another, which in turn will
help them form more stable relationships at an earlier age.
Also, as I mentioned in a previous file, I would not be surprised to
discover that forcing nudity at public beaches would help men realize that
women are just female apes, not sex toys. A woman is amazingly titillating
in a bikini. They would be less stimulating if they were naked, except
when they are sunbathing while lying on their back.
Incidentally, people are never satisfied with what they are. The people
with light-skin want to have darker skin, and the people with dark skin
want to become lighter. People with curly hair want to have straight hair,
and people with straight year want to have curly hair. Businesses exploit
these people, but we should encourage people to accept what they are. There
is some benefit for us to have exposure to sunlight, and there may be medical
benefits for certain people to lie under ultraviolet lamps, but is there
any intelligent justification for encouraging healthy young women to lie
under ultraviolet lamps or sunbathe?
Getting back to the issue of gifts, it was sensible for prehistoric
women to have a strong craving to give gifts to their children, and for
the adult men to have a craving to give gifts to their wives, because all
of the gifts in that era were truly necessary, such as food, clothing,
and tools. Today men and women are getting out of control with their giftgiving.
Children need a certain amount of bedding materials, clothing, and food,
but many people in wealthy nations are giving excessive amounts of gifts
to their children. They are not thinking of what is best for the children.
They are simply titillating themselves.
Elton John and his boyfriend live in an apartment building in Beverly
bought a two bedroom apartment next to their apartment so that
their eight-day-old son and his nannies would have their own apartment
to live in. Men are not capable of breast-feeding a baby, and men have
no desire to take care of a baby, anyway, so it makes sense for Elton John
and his boyfriend to provide their baby with his own apartment and a few
nannies. However, Elton John and his boyfriend should not be described
as "raising a child". What they are doing is analogous to a wealthy person
who purchases a horse ranch and pays a few people to live on the ranch
and take care of it for him. They are simply using this baby to titillate
you want to be raised
in that type of family?
Some homosexuals will respond that the life they provide children is
just as good as the best heterosexual families, and in some cases, better.
Josef Fritzl and his wife are an example of a terrible heterosexual family.
I have no doubt that Elton John would have provided Josef Fritzl's children
with a much nicer childhood. Fritlz was so disgusting that I would not
be surprised if some baboons in a zoo would have been better parents for
Fritzl's children. However, the disgusting heterosexual parents do not
justify allowing Elton John or baboons to raise children. Instead, they
justify raising standards for all parents.
Some homosexuals complain that if we prevent them from having children,
we are discriminating against them. They believe that they have a right
to have children, either by adopting children or, if they are men, by donating
sperm, or, if they are women, by using their eggs. It would make more sense
to say that nobody has a right to a child. Children are helpless
creatures that are going to become the next generation of adults, so it
makes more sense to say that we have a responsibility to provide
them with a proper childhood. But what is a "proper" childhood?
What is a "proper"
Why not let robots raise babies?
If a "proper childhood" is nothing more than providing a child
with food and protection from wolves, then homosexuals are
capable of providing a proper childhood. Furthermore, if that
is all a child needs, then robots will eventually be advanced enough
to raise children. Future generations will be able to provide robots
to the children in orphanages, thereby finally eliminating the problem
Divorced couples could use a robot to take the place of their missing
spouse, thereby providing their children with a two-parent family. People
who don't have a spouse could marry a robot and then adopt children.
If a homosexual couple with children gets a divorce, will we take their
children away from them, or will we divide the children between the two
of them? If we allow divorced homosexuals to raise children by themselves,
will we pass judgment on whether they are looking for another partner in
an appropriate manner? For example, what if a man goes to bathhouses or
gay bars and brings a different man home every night for sex? Is it acceptable
for children to be raised in that type of "family"? What if he enjoys
sex with several men at the same time? Would that be a proper family environment
for a child?
Or what if a homosexual divorcee hires a male prostitute for sex, and
then the two of them become friends, and eventually the divorcee allows
the prostitute to live in his home while supporting him financially. Congressman
had that type of home life for a while. Is that a proper environment for
Why not let single
adults raise children?
We allow divorcees to raise children by themselves, and we let mentally
ill people have as many children as they please, even if they don't take
care of them properly, so why not let single
adults raise children, also? If a divorced woman and a mentally ill couple
can provide a proper environment for children, then why not let single
people raise children? Why do we require marriage?
Why not allow all single adults,
regardless of their sexual preferences and mental health, to get pregnant
from sperm or egg donors, and to adopt children? Why do we restrict children
to married couples when so few people are capable of forming a stable marriage?
Every living creature adapts to its environment.
We adapt to the climate, visual images, sounds, and foods. For example,
since men are taller than women, I suspect that we have adapted to looking
at women slightly downward, while women have adapted to looking slightly
upward at men. Therefore, if women were to wear shoes that made them taller
than men, I think it would create a slight emotional discomfort for both
men and women. Our discomfort would not simply be due to feeling short.
It would be partly because we prefer looking slightly downward at women,
which causes their chin to be smaller in perspective, whereas when we look
upward at them, their jaw becomes the more prominent part of their face.
Human children have been raised by a heterosexual mother and a father
for millions of years. Until we learn more about our brain, we should assume
that a child's brain has adapted to a heterosexual family that has a mother
and a father. We should assume that a child's mind is expecting
the type of family environment that existed thousands of years ago. We
should assume that allowing homosexuals, robots, and baboons to raise a
human child is forcing the child into an abnormal, unnatural relationship.
It might be best for homosexual children to
have the option of switching to homosexual parents, but I don't think we
should allow heterosexual children to be raised by homosexual parents until
we have some reason to believe that this is acceptable.
In a prehistoric family, children would have learned a
lot about male and female relationships, sex, nursing babies,
childbirth, masturbation, and human bodies by casual observations of their
parents and the other people in their group. They would not have learned
any scientific details about human bodies or relationships, but the boys
would have learned a lot about women, and the girls would have learned
a lot about men. This knowledge would help them in their own relationships.
The "natural" way for a child to learn about relationships and sex is
to watch the adults. Today parents are denying their children that education,
and this is causing the children to pick up distorted information from
television, feminists, religious fanatics, and advertisements. Children
who are raised by homosexuals are likely to pick up a homosexual view of
affection and sex. Those children will eventually get old enough to think
for themselves, but why should children have to readjust to a heterosexual
Most parents believe that they are "protecting" their children from
dangerous information when they prevent their children from seeing naked
bodies, the breast-feeding of babies, affection, and sex, but if that theory
were true, then the children of today would be better adapted to life than
those of previous generations. However, I would say that the young adults
today have more miserable relationships than those of any previous generation.
By "protecting" their children from these issues, parents allow their children
to learn about sex and relationships by watching Lady Gaga, James Bond
movies, and Queen Elizabeth.
I don't think raising children in homosexual families will improve the
situation for children, except perhaps for the homosexual children. I think
we need to start experimenting with better methods of preparing children
for adulthood. Adults have such strong inhibitions about bodily functions
that it may not be practical to expect adults to control themselves well
enough to allow children to see their naked bodies and watch their displays
of affection and sex, and so a more practical solution for this modern
era may be to allow schools to teach young children the type of information
that they should acquire from their parents and other adults.
It should be noted that children did not evolve for alcoholic parents,
either, or parents who keep them in a dungeon, or psychotic parents. If
we are going to prohibit homosexuals from having children on the grounds
that they cannot provide a proper environment for children, then we should
also prohibit heterosexuals from having children unless they can also provide
a proper environment. It is detrimental to society to force one group of
people to follow standards but not another group. Nobody, not even the
heterosexuals, should have a right to raise children. Everybody should
have to qualify to become parents.
Adults want children for the same reason that children want to feed
animals at a zoo. The adults want to titillate themselves with their children,
they do not want to raise the children. It is "natural" for a parent to
use their children as toys or dildos. We cannot complain
that parents are using children as toys. However, we can insist that every
adult control their emotions and raise children to become self-sufficient,
productive members of society. Every society should pass judgment on which
parents are controlling their emotions properly, and which of them have
crossed the line from "enjoying" their children to abusing their children,
or interfering with their child's development.
It might help you to understand this issue if you consider men and their
craving for sex. Every man can be described as "using" his wife as a sex
toy. Men have sex for their own pleasure, not to help their wife. We cannot
complain about a man who is using his wife for sex, but we could pass judgment
on when a man has crossed the line from "enjoying" his wife to "abusing"
Every wife can decide for herself if her husband has crossed the line
from enjoying her body to abusing her, and she can get a divorce if she
does not like the treatment that she receives. Children, however, cannot
make decisions about how their parents are raising them. Society must get
involved with the raising of children, and we must pass judgment on which
parents have so little control over their emotions, or such bizarre emotional
cravings, that they are unfit to be parents.
Most people would agree that Josef Fritlz crossed that line, but I would
say that a lot of parents who consider themselves wonderful are actually
bad parents for this modern world. We tend to think of a parent as being
"bad" if they are physically abusive or sexually abusive with her children,
but a parent should be considered bad if they are interfering with the
child's development, such as by keeping them ignorant about sex, or forcing
them to accept idiotic propaganda about religion, or by spoiling them to
such an extent that they have trouble functioning in jobs and forming friendships.
The Internet has lots of amusing videos of spoiled, bratty children, such
this, although some of them may be publicity stunts.
Society has no obligation to let anybody use children to titillate themselves.
In this modern era, we must think of what is best for the human race and
stop pandering to adults who want children.
Getting back to the issue of gifts, it made sense for prehistoric mothers
to give their children gifts of food, clothing, and toys, and to encourage
their children to eat as much as possible, especially prior to the winter.
Our ancestors could be proud of themselves and their children for being
slightly overweight and having lots of clothing. Today, however, we can
produce these items in such excessive quantities that we have to develop
more appropriate attitudes and customs.
For another example of why we must analyze our cultural activities and
attitudes, our ancestors eventually learned how to raise dogs, goats, and
horses, but they never had what we would describe as "pets"
until recently. Today people are using pets as substitutes for human relationships,
and society is putting a lot of labor and resources into pet supplies and
services. Why do we prohibit the use of animals for sex but encourage the
use of animals as substitutes for friends? If we take control of our economy
and culture, then we must analyze all of our policies and products regarding
pets, and we must pass judgment on which policy is beneficial enough
to promote, which should be tolerated but discouraged, and which should
People are breeding dogs to give them the physical and personality characteristics
that we find more entertaining. How unnatural do the dogs have to become
before you would say that the people have become carried away in their
attempts to breed dogs into substitutes for friends and babies? What if
some women were breeding dogs to more closely resemble human babies by
creating dogs that didn't have any teeth, enjoyed being held on their back,
and had to be fed with a bottle? What if some men were breeding dogs to
have vaginas that were more appropriate for men to have sex with? How extreme
would the breeding programs have to be before you complained that the people
had gone too far?
What would you think if people began implanting electrodes into the
brains of their pet dogs so that they could force their dog to behave in
a titillating manner whenever they pleased? What if pharmaceutical companies
were producing a Viagra type of pill for dogs that would cause the dogs
to behave more like a baby, for the women, and another pill for the men
that caused the dogs to become sexually aroused? What if veterinarians
were forcing dogs to remain in a puppy-like state by removing their pituitary
glands? At what point are we going to stop acting like stupid
fish and ask ourselves, where are we going with pets?
When do we ask ourselves, how do we benefit from this activity?
Every society is currently ignoring the fact that humans have emotional
cravings, and that millions of people, possibly the majority, are unsatisfied.
Enormous numbers of people are searching for happiness because they are
lonely, sexually frustrated, dislike themselves, or are suffering from
mental disorders. We are doing nothing to deal with our emotional
health. Businesses exploit unhappy people, but we are doing nothing to
understand our problems or experiment with solutions. Most people are ignoring
the issue of emotions.
There are no serious discussions on television about our emotions or
bodily functions; schools cannot teach anything of significance about these
issues; and most people are too inhibited to talk about these issues with
their friends or children. As a result, children are not being properly
educated about these issues, and everybody has to figure out for himself
what to do about his emotional cravings. This is causing a lot of people
to become confused and frustrated, and many people are engaging in idiotic
or destructive activities in an attempt to bring themselves some pleasure,
or at least some relief from their misery.
We should face the fact that humans have a lot of emotional cravings,
and we should stop promoting the philosophy that happiness comes from becoming
wealthy and doing whatever feels good. Our goal should not be to titillate
ourselves. Our goal should be to understand ourselves, analyze
our activities, and conduct experiments to figure out the most appropriate
ways to satisfy our cravings.
For example, is it better to tell women who are lonely or who want a
child to get a pet dog, or is it better to arrange for women to have contact
with children at schools, recreational activities, or social affairs? Men
want to feel important, but should we allow them to titillate themselves
with awards, or should we develop other techniques to help men feel good
about themselves? Is it better to tell teenage boys and/or men to masturbate,
or would it be better to provide them with an alternative?
There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We simply have
to make decisions about what we want the human race to become, and we need
to experiment with different policies, observe the results, and experiment
some more. Ignoring these issues will not make them go away. People all
around the world are regularly doing all sorts of idiotic and sometimes
dishonest things in order to titillate their emotions. We should stop ignoring
our emotional cravings and start experimenting with society in an attempt
to bring true improvements to our lives.
For example, we might be able to significantly reduce the problem of
loneliness by creating a city in which we are living in large apartment
complexes, and everybody's home is virtually the same, and everybody is
allowed to freely move around the city so that we can move near our friends.
I think that would give us the type of life that our prehistoric ancestors
had, and which we were designed for. I suspect that being able to open
your front door and be among friends will be much more satisfying than
living in a giant mansion far away from other people. The mansion has greater
emotional appeal, but modern humans cannot do what titillates our emotions.
We have to think about what is best for us.
As soon as we start experimenting, we are very likely to discover that
we don't know nearly as much as we assumed, and unexpected problems are
certain to develop. However, do not fear the unknown. Our experiments will
help us to learn about ourselves, and we will be able to deal with any
problems that occur.
How does society benefit
from gifts or
Humans have a very strong desire to give gifts. Businesses,
children, and parasitic adults are encouraging and exploiting this craving.
Women receive so much pleasure from giving gifts that I have seen them
do it purely for their own entertainment, such as when two women are in
a retail store and one says to the other something to the effect of, "I
like this store! Let's buy each other a gift!" That type of behavior
is analogous to a couple of men who are watching a television show, and
one man says to his friend, "The women on this show
are getting me sexually aroused. Let's jerk each other off!"
In prehistoric times, the craving to give gifts was a vital
emotion that caused parents to take care of their children. Today, however,
people are giving useless and sometimes detrimental toys, candies, and
other gifts to children, and in addition we also give idiotic gifts to
zoo animals and our friends and coworkers. Since we don't have any emotional
craving to analyze the gift and determine
whether it has a value, we must control our emotions and think about the
value of the gift. Otherwise we may give gifts that are dangerous or detrimental,
such as when we give bubblegum to a zoo animal.
We assume that we give gifts because we want to be helpful, but unless
we have actually put serious thought into the issue, we give gifts to titillate
We are stimulated by the act of giving a gift, and by the expression of
enjoyment on the face of the receiver of the gift. Our emotions don't care
whether the receiver benefits from or needs the gift. In this modern world,
we must exert control over our emotions and seriously consider whether
the person receiving the gift is going to benefit from it.
Children cry when they are unhappy, and adults evolved to react to the
crying by looking for ways to please the children. In prehistoric times,
this behavior was beneficial because the children would cry only for sensible
reasons, such as when they were hungry, cold, or in pain. The adults would
react by trying to figure out how to stop them from crying. In the modern
world, however, children are crying for all sorts of idiotic reasons,
such as when they want some candy or toys. Also, a lot of the children today
are defective, and they are crying because of internal problems.
Adults react to the crying by trying to please their children with gifts,
but the children are not necessarily going to benefit from modern gifts.
This is especially true when the children are crying because of some mental
disorder. No amount of gifts is going to stop defective children from crying.
Our prehistoric ancestors could safely assume that pleasing a child
was helping the child, but that concept is not true today. In this modern
world, parents have to control their emotions and analyze why
a child is crying. The adults who don't enjoy thinking, or who don't want
to control their emotions, or who have trouble controlling their emotions,
are not suited to being parents in this modern world. Adults who mindlessly
please children with gifts should be regarded as primitive savages in a
modern world. They are analogous to the people who give bubblegum to a
Businesses exploit the craving that we have to give gifts by encouraging
us to give gifts at Christmas, birthdays, weddings, and anniversaries.
Businesses profit from this activity, and people enjoy receiving gifts,
but profit and titillation shouldn't be used to justify an activity. We
should analyze all of our giftgiving practices to determine which of them
truly provides us with a benefit, and which of them are merely wasting
resources, creating awkwardness, or encouraging a child to become a spoiled
Adults must give food, clothing, and other items to children, but adults
in this modern world do not need to give gifts to other adults. Many of
the gifts that adults are giving to each other are so worthless that they
quickly end up in the trash or the attic. The adults enjoy some momentary
titillation when they give or receive a gift, but how does society benefit?
Nothing improves with anybody's life as a result of these gifts. We are
wasting resources, and wasting the time and talent of the people who work
in the factories that produce the gifts.
I think it would be better to provide all adults with the basic necessities
for free, in which case it becomes idiotic for them to give each other
gifts. Instead of adults giving gifts to one another, I think it would
be better to promote the attitude of adults doing things together.
For example, instead of giving a gift to your friend on his birthday, you
could arrange for some social affair, bicycle ride, snorkeling trip, or
some other activity. We should put emphasis on doing things with other
people rather than collecting items. The people who would rather
collect items should be considered as primitive savages.
Giving toys to children is a waste of resources, also, because the chilren
quickly become tired of the toy. It would be more sensible for society
to create some higher-quality toys that the children can share.
In that type of a city, a parent would pick up a toy for his child, and
when the child is tired of it, the parent takes it back to the store and
replaces it with a different toy.
A more serious problem with giftgiving is that we are allowing criminals
and parasites to exploit our emotions by offering us the opportunity to
donate money and items to charities. The people who donate money to charities
(aside from those who have been pressured into doing so), believe that
they are wonderful people who are helping the world, but they don't actually
want to help the world. They have no desire to study or discuss any of
the world's problems. All they want to do is titillate themselves by giving
a gift. They don't want to analyze the charity to determine whether their
money will be spent in a useful manner, and they don't want to look at
the history of the charity to determine whether they have had any success
in the past.
If we could remove the secrecy and analyze all of the charities, I'm
sure we would discover that none of the charities have done anything
to improve life for the human race. The charities are failing to stop hunger,
cancer, illiteracy, and everything else that they claim to be stopping.
There appear to be thousands of charities implying that they
are helping some group of people. These charities consume a lot of labor
and resources, but where is the evidence that they are providing a benefit
that justifies their burden? We already have real
scientific laboratories that do research on cancer and multiple sclerosis,
so why do we need charities to get involved with such a complex issue?
Imagine a society that depended
If you believe that the concept of charities is a practical
and desirable method of dealing with problems, imagine taking this concept
to such an extent that we replace our free enterprise system with a charity
system. Imagine all of our railroads, factories, farms, hospitals, and
research labs operating by charity. They beg for donations, and they use
their money to hire engineers, technicians, factory workers, farmers, scientists,
and truck drivers, and they produce and distribute products and services
for free. Everybody in such a society would either be hired by a charity,
or be one of their volunteers.
A "charity society" would have two, distinct classes of people, 1) the
wealthy class, which consists of people who are paid by the charities,
and 2) the volunteers who work for free. Since the volunteers would not
have an income, the charities would have to provide them with free food,
clothing, housing, and other essentials. Since only the wealthy class would
have money, all of the charities would depend upon them for financial support.
Therefore, the wealthy people would have to purchase the products and services
that the charities offer, and they would have to donate money and items
to the charities that don't sell anything, such as the charities that provide
food to the volunteers.
Theoretically, everybody would be happy in "charity society" because
the volunteers would love doing charity work, and the wealthy people would
boast that they are wonderful humans who love to donate money to help the
less fortunate members of society. It would be a beautiful system in which
everybody is helping one another.
Do you think that an economic system that depends upon charities is
practical? Would you want to live in that type of society? If not, then
why should we believe charities will be effective in reducing hunger,
illiteracy, cancer, or anything else? You might respond that charities are
idiotic on a large scale, but sensible on a small scale,
but where is the evidence that they are sensible at any scale?
A lot of money and labor has gone into charities during the past few
centuries, and even if they did accomplish something of value for the human
race, I think we would have had significantly more of a benefit if the
money and resources had been put into more sensible programs.
It is idiotic for us to allow mysterious groups of people to beg for
money and volunteers, and then use that money and labor in whatever manner
they please. If a society wants to support research into cancer or multiple
sclerosis, or if a society wants to do something about hungry children,
or if a society wants to help a group of people deal with a hurricane,
then we should do it officially and openly, not by allowing secretive,
mysterious groups of people to collect donations and spend the money in
whatever manner they please.
I would describe a charity as just a variation of extortion in
which the criminals stimulate certain emotions in their victims that cause
the victims to enjoy giving their money or labor to the charity.
Charities are like these
parasites that alter the brain of their victim.
||It is emotionally pleasing to think that we can stop cancer in children
simply by purchasing some cookies or giving a donation, but these charities
are exploiting people, not stopping cancer.
There may be a few tiny charities that are truly trying to
be beneficial, but my suspicion is that most of the charities are dominated
by parasites, criminals, or people who couldn't find a job, or who cannot
function properly in society, and they are exploiting our craving to give
gifts and help children in order to provide themselves with money, and
in some cases, sexual access to children. Some of the volunteers
who work for the charities may truly be concerned with helping people but
they are volunteers. The people who
are profiting from the charities seem to be primarily interested
in the money or gaining access to children. They are looking for a way
to make an easy living, not a way to help the world.
I don't think a society should allow churches, charities, sports
clubs, or any other organization to operate on donations. We are currently
allowing people to do virtually anything they please, with no regard to
whether it has a value, and we provide people and organizations with secrecy.
We should pass judgment on which activities the citizens are allowed to
engage in, and which activities should be forbidden. I don't think citizens
should be allowed to pressure people into donating money, material items,
or labor. Society should be in control of the activities, not mysterious,
secretive groups of citizens.
For example, it is acceptable for a group of people to arrange for a
sports event or a bicycle ride because everybody is treated equally and
sensibly in those activities. By comparison, when a church or charity manipulates
people into donating labor, money, or material items, they are treating
the people like animals, and for their own benefit. Only society should
have the authority to make people do things, and society should have to
justify the activity.
Society, not individuals, should be in control of scientific research,
and society should be in control of all attempts to deal with complex social
problems, such as hunger and unwanted children. We should not allow mysterious
groups of people to claim that they are going to solve these problems for
us if we donate our labor or money.
Would you approve of charities
that help hungry sex workers?
||If you still believe that charities are beneficial, imagine an extreme
situation. Imagine if charities were forming to help provide food and other
necessities to the children who are struggling to survive through prostitution.
Imagine that in addition to begging for donations, these charities also
arrange for "donation tours" that take
groups of men to different poor neighborhoods around the world so that
the men can purchase the sex services of the children in order to help
them earn a living.
These charities could boast that they are providing children with a
income rather than a few handfuls of rice. These charities would provide
children with enough money to purchase clothing, attend school, and pay
rent. However, even though these charities would be providing more
assistance to the children than all of the other charities combined, would you
say that these charities are actually solving a problem? Or would
you describe them as exploiting a problem?
||What is the difference between a charity using "celebrities" to exploit
our craving to take care of hungry children, and a charity exploiting a
man's craving for sex by encouraging him to visit a child prostitute?
By the way, the logo for Kids to
Love, at the upper right corner, has a drawing of a young girl in an
odd pose. Is this just a coincidence? Or is this an indication that pedophiles
are in control of that organization?
||Imagine groups of men going on "donation tours" around the world to
visit child prostitutes for the purpose of helping the children make a
These charities would be able to boast that their sex tours are providing
hungry children with a significant and steady income, and
that the children are going to school and eventually getting jobs.
Are sex tours your idea of a good
solution to the problem of hunger, orphans, and uncontrolled reproduction?
||The children who benefit from those sex tours would be grateful, and
they would resist attempts to stop the charities. The children and the
charities would boast that there are no victims,
and that everybody is benefiting, and therefore, there is no reason
to complain about the charities.
However, it doesn't matter whether an activity is beneficial to somebody,
or whether somebody enjoys it. We have to think about what is best for
the human race; what is best for society.
Charities that arrange sex tours would be beneficial to the sex workers
and to the pedophiles, but they would not be beneficial to the human
Likewise, the charities that toss bags of rice to hungry children are
providing the hungry children with a few meals, but they are doing
of value for the human race. The hungry children are grateful, and the
charities titillate their employees and the people who donate, and some
people are benefiting financially from the charities, but the charities
are doing nothing to end the underlying
cause of hunger.
Our emotions are similar to warning
Animals and humans are biological machines that respond to
emotional feelings. This system worked perfectly for our prehistoric ancestors
because their emotions had evolved to fit their environment. For example,
after a prehistoric human ate a meal, he felt relaxed and happy. As the
hours passed, and his body became increasingly low on energy, his brain
reacted by increasing the emotion that we describe as "hunger". This unpleasant
emotion was initially trivial, and he ignored it. However, as his body
became low on energy, his emotion increased the severity of the miserable
feelings. Eventually his body became so low on energy that his feelings
of hunger reached such a high level that he became annoyed by it, and he
reacted to the discomfort by making an effort to figure out how to find
There is some portion of our brain that is a biological sensor that
reacts to low energy levels by causing feelings of hunger. If a person
was born with a brain that didn't have that hunger sensor, or if that sensor
was nonfunctional, then the person would never experience hunger. Would
a person who never experiences hunger be happier than those
of us who occasionally experience such unpleasant feelings? Most people
seem to believe that happiness comes from titillating yourself and avoiding
unhappiness, but I think a person who never experienced hunger would not
be able to enjoy food as much as those of us who experience it.
||You can visualize your emotions as the biological equivalent of the
lights on an automobile dashboard that become active when there
is a problem with the automobile.
For example, when you are hungry, your food emotion is activated
to push you into looking for food.
For another example, when your body becomes too hot or cold,
some type of temperature emotion is
activated to make you feel uncomfortable in order to force you to do something
to correct the problem. Since humans are sociable, we probably have several
different emotions that activate occasionally in order to push us into
forming both friendships and intimate relationships.
Our hunger emotion is inappropriate today because it was designed
for a primitive era in which food is scarce. For example, it becomes activated
even in people who are obese because it is not looking at energy
that is stored in fat or the liver. It is monitoring something else, such
as the activity of the stomach, or the glucose level in the blood.
In addition to emotions that are inappropriate for our modern era, we
also suffer from genetic defects and variations in all of our emotions.
All of us have subtle differences in our emotions, but who among us has
a "proper" or "normal" emotional craving for status, food, water, children,
or sex? People are being born every day, but none of the babies have "perfect"
emotions. Rather, all of the babies have subtle variations in their emotions.
Our genetic variations were taken care of during prehistoric times in
the "natural" manner, which is very cruel. Specifically, people competed
for life, and those whose emotions were unsuited to their particular environment
ended up dying, being driven from society, or were less successful at reproduction
and raising children. Now that we are preventing nature from controlling
our genetic variations, we are slowly degrading into a wide variety of
emotionally defective and incompatible freaks.
However, I don't bring up this issue to remind you that we must start
controlling reproduction. Rather, I want to point out that hunger, sex,
and other emotions were not given to us by a loving god so that we can
enjoy food, sex, or life. Hunger is nothing more than a sensor or
a feedback mechanism to cause a stupid animal to eat food when it
is needed, and to eat an appropriate amount of food. Sexual cravings are
nothing more than a mechanism to cause stupid animals to reproduce. The
titillation that we receive from babies is nothing more than a mechanism
to cause stupid animals to feed and care for their baby.
Animals and humans have the ability to taste and smell foods in order
to cause us to eat the food that is appropriate for our species. Our ability
to taste and smell foods is dependent upon two different things: 1) the
sensors in our nose and tongue, and 2) the portion of our brain that interprets
the signals from the sensors. Our sensors and our brain are designed by
our DNA, and since every person has a slightly different genetic blueprint,
we all have slightly different tastes sensors, and a slightly different
emotional reaction to those sensations. This means that each person has
a slightly different ability to taste and smell foods, and a slightly
different reaction to tastes and smells.
If we don't set standards for meals and pass judgment on who among us
has "appropriate" abilities to taste and smell food, and who has appropriate
eating habits and desires, then the variations and defects will continue
to increase, and they will eventually reach the point at which people are
so different and so defective that it is impossible for restaurants to
serve meals because everybody will insist on having a different meal.
Although the environment plays a role in our eating habits by causing
us to become accustomed to certain foods, children in the same family have
subtle differences in their attractions to food, manners, and ability
to control their hunger. We do not have to require all people be identical
in their eating habits, but in order for restaurants to be possible, and
in order for it to be possible to feed children, the human race has to
keep its eating habits within a certain range.
It is acceptable for one person to want more salt on his food, and another
person to want more tomato sauce, but we are going to create problems for
ourselves if we allow people to become so different that every adult
and child is whining about the meals and picking out olives, mushrooms,
or whatever item they refuse to eat.
If we don't set standards for humans, then we will eventually degrade
to the point where parents cannot easily feed their children, and it becomes
impossible for restaurants to function. This, incidentally, is another
reason why I think it is important to send children to Teentown. The adults
will provide the teenagers with meals, and observe which of them has a
problem with food.
We must set standards for all of
our emotions. For example, if we don't pass judgment on which women have
"proper" cravings for children, then eventually some women will have such
and abnormal attractions to children that they cannot properly contribute
to or participate in society, and some will be unable to properly raise
children. If it seems impossible for women to have too strong of a craving
for children, consider the mothers who are being accused of deliberately
keeping their child obese or sickly in order to extend the amount of time
that the child spends in the "helpless phase" of life. Another example
are the women who have cut open pregnant women and stolen their baby. Men
have to keep their cravings for women under control so that we can face
the fact that women are just female monkeys,
and some are mentally ill, and some are dangerous, and some have emotional
characteristics that are unsuited to this modern world.
Modern humans regularly “cheat”
It's important to understand our emotions so that we can learn
to control them and set standards for them. Emotions are just feedback
mechanisms that are intended to cause us to do something. All of our emotions
were vital in prehistoric times, but some of them are unnecessary or inappropriate
today. Furthermore, and the issue I want to mention now, is that this modern
world gives us the opportunity to "cheat" the feedback system, and this
is sometimes - but not always! - a good idea.
We want to satisfy our emotions, and our modern world provides us with
lots of opportunities to "cheat" the process that nature intended for us.
For example, when our primitive ancestors were hungry, they would react
by looking for food. When a man's sexual cravings reached a high level,
he would react by trying to impress a female. When a man felt inadequate,
he would react by trying to become a more impressive man, such as by doing
a better job of hunting or making tools.
Today, however, we have lots of opportunities to cheat the process.
The obvious method to cheat the process is to commit crimes, such as raping
women rather than earning the women, or stealing food rather than earning
it, or sabotaging a competitor so that we get the job we want. But there
is another way to cheat the process, and that is to stimulate
ourselves. For example, when a woman is unhappy, she can bring
some momentary pleasure into her life by shopping and purchasing gifts
for herself or other people. She will titillate herself in the process,
but she is not solving the problem that caused the unhappiness. She is
Whenever you experience an emotion, it is because your mind is trying
to manipulate your behavior. We are supposed to react to the emotion in
a manner that solves the problem, but in this modern world, we are often
bypassing the process and simply looking for ways to titillate the emotion.
Modern humans must make an attempt to understand why the emotion was triggered,
and we have to make intelligent decisions about whether we should ignore
it or satisfy it in some manner. If we decide to satisfy an emotion, we
then have to make a decision on whether we are doing so in an appropriate
Thinking about our behavior and controlling our emotions is not natural.
We prefer to do whatever brings us the most emotional pleasure, and many
people look for ways to suppress the unpleasant emotions, such as with
alcohol, daydreams, religious fantasies, or distractions, such as life-threatening
The people who satisfy their emotional cravings in an inappropriate
manner are hurting themselves, and they often hurt other people, and they
may also waste society's resources. For example, when an unhappy woman
goes shopping to titillate herself, she is doing more than wasting her
time. If she buys gifts for herself or other people that nobody needs,
then she is wasting resources and increasing the amount of trash, and if
she gives unwanted gifts to other people, she is creating social awkwardness.
If an unhappy woman pushes her friends or husband into following her around
as she goes shopping, then she is wasting their time, also. A society will
be happier when women react to their problems in a sensible manner, not
by titillating themselves with window shopping or giftgiving. Likewise,
a society will be more pleasant and efficient when the men find ways to
deal with their problems rather than withdrawing into religious fantasies
or trying to mask the problem with life-threatening activities or alcohol.
Another example of people cheating nature are those who use pets as
substitutes for friends and sex partners. We experience such feelings as
loneliness, sexual cravings, and desires for affection in order to push
us into forming human relationships, not relationships with dogs. Unfortunately,
rather than encourage us to understand our emotions and design social activities to help
us meet people and form stable relationships, the free enterprise system
encourages businesses to exploit our emotions. Businesses make an enormous
amount of profit by selling pets and pet supplies to lonely people. These
people are titillating themselves with their pets, but they are not solving
the problem that caused them to want the pet.
Actually, I suspect that pets are increasing our problems. For
example, pets increase the quantity of fleas, filth, and ticks in our cities,
and, even worse, it encourages people to spend time with and animal rather
than with humans. It would be more appropriate to react to the loneliness
by experimenting with social activities and courtship activities. Unfortunately,
we cannot experiment with social activities in a free enterprise system,
or with the incompetent, selfish, and corrupt governments that we have
today. We have to alter our society so that we can take control of our
Some people believe that children benefit by having pets, but the only
way to determine whether pets are useful would be to have two virtually
identical cities, but only one of which allows pets. We would then be able
to determine if pets are making a child's life more pleasant, or helping
them become better adults. My suspicion is that pets are encouraging arrogance,
selfishness, and social awkwardness by allowing children to become accustomed
to an abnormal relationship.
The relationship between a human and his pet is more unnatural than
that between a king and his peasant. It is even worse than the relationship
between the Americans and their African slaves. The slaves spoke a different
language, and were uneducated, so there was no real communication between
the slaves and their owners. The slave owners could treat their slaves
in any manner they pleased, including having sex. We find the same situation
is happening with pets. You might respond that some of the slave owners
had treated their slaves with decency, but that doesn't justify such a
relationship. Likewise, some pet owners treat their pets quite nicely,
but we need more than that to justify the relationship.
Human children were intended to play with one another, not form a master/slave
relationship with a different species. Children may learn some useful information
about human and animal behavior by spending some time at a farm or a zoo,
but allowing children to spend a lot of time in a owner/pet relationship
is not necessarily beneficial. For all we know, this type of relationship
is encouraging arrogance, selfishness, and social awkwardness.
Do not assume that your emotions
To complicate the issue of emotions, some people are certain
to be experiencing inappropriate emotional reactions as a result of some
physical disorder. Our brain is a chemical computer, and our emotions are
triggered by electrical and chemical signals. Therefore, we can be certain
that some people occasionally experience inappropriate emotional reactions
as a result of problems with their body chemistry. For example, a person
might occasionally become sexually stimulated because of a problem his
body is having with hormone levels or blood sugar,
and another person might experience hunger unnecessarily because his hunger
emotion is being inadvertently triggered due to a problem with his liver
The people who crave extreme levels of fame, status, or affection might
never be happy no matter what their life is like because they may be suffering
from abnormally extreme cravings for status or love because their emotions
are being triggered unnecessarily and frequently, perhaps due to a defective
brain or defective blood chemistry. Some of the people who eat excessively
might be doing so because their food emotions are being triggered unnecessarily.
The people whose emotions are being stimulated more often than "normal"
can be visualized as a defective automobile in which one of the warning
lights is defective and accidentally fllickering on and off. These people
need to ignore their abnormal cravings, but how many people have the ability
to ignore or control their emotions?
You cannot assume that the emotions that you experience are always occurring
for sensible reasons, and you cannot assume that you should satisfy every
emotional craving. If you were genetically perfect,
and if you were perfectly adapted to your environment, then you would
be able to satisfy all of your emotional cravings, but none of us are genetically
perfect, and during the past few thousand years, the human race has so
dramatically altered our environment that none of us are truly adapted
to this modern world.
Different races are emotionally
We should also assume that there are subtle differences
in the emotional qualities of different races
of people. Different groups of people evolved different physical characteristics,
and we should assume that our brains developed slightly different characteristics,
also. We should assume that there are subtle differences in our cravings
for food, sex, children, and status, and that some races are more prone
to violent outbursts, envy, or pouting.
Our basic sexual feelings are also determined by our genetics, not by
our environment. You did not become homosexual or heterosexual because
of your environment, and your environment does not determine the images,
sounds, and smells that you become sexually titillated by. It is possible
to push people, especially when they are young, into doing something sexual
that they don't want to do, but they will continue to have the same sexual
preferences that they were born with. It is possible that our mind has
been designed to allow the environment to have a slight effect on our sexual
feelings, but if so, even that is a genetic characteristic. The environment
can affect us only to the extent that our brain has been designed to be
affected by it.
Female peacocks are titillated when the males vibrate their plume of
feathers, while the female Frigatebirds
are titillated by males that can inflate a large, red pouch under their
If a female frigatebird were raised by peacocks, she would continue
to be aroused by the red pouch rather than the peacock feathers. We cannot
change an animal's sexual cravings simply by changing its environment.
When two races of humans have been separated for so long that
they develop different physical characteristics, we should assume that
they have developed some subtle sexual differences, also. For example,
the men of some races may be more titillated by women's faces while other
races may be more titillated by a woman's butt or breasts. Some races may
be more affectionate, and some races may be more prone to S&M activities.
If we could study pedophiles, we might discover that certain races are
more easily titillated by young children.
Another interesting aspect of courtship and sexual behavior is that
it is both irrational and unique for all animals. There is
no right or wrong sexual behavior as far as nature is concerned. Every
species develops its own idiotic sexual practices. There is a tremendous
variation in sexual behavior, but there is not so much variation in certain
other characteristics, such as the manner in which we digest food, or the
manner in which birds fly.
All birds fly in a similar manner because aerodynamics is the same for
all living creatures. Every animal digests food in the same manner because
chemistry is the same for all creatures. Every animal's heart is a variation
of the same basic pumping mechanism because everybody's heart must follow
the same laws of physics. All of the most complex animals have two eyes, and
they work in the same manner because all of our eyes must follow the same
laws of optics.
There are subtle differences in the shapes and colors of our irises,
and in our sensitivity to light, but the differences between our eyes are
so trivial that if we had the technology, we could transplant a monkey's
eyes into a blind human, and that would enable the human to have color
vision that is almost identical to that of other humans. We can also transplant
hearts and other parts of an animal's body into a human body.
By comparison, courtship procedures do not have to follow any particular
scientific rules, so there is nothing in nature that is influencing courtship
to follow a particular path of evolution. The end result is that every
animal develops unique and truly senseless
|Courtship procedures for this
spider are not only idiotic, they are dangerous for the male.
The male must get very close to the female and vibrate an iridescent flap,
but since spiders eat one another, if the female is not titillated, she
may attack and eat him.
When groups of humans are genetically isolated for so long
that they develop differences in their physical characteristic, we should
assume that they have also developed subtle differences in their courtship
and sexual behavior simply because nature doesn't care what our sexual
practices are. All that nature cares about is that our practices result
in reproduction. The end result is that there are likely to be subtle differences
in the courtship and sexual behavior of different races, thereby creating
subtle incompatibilities and awkwardness when different races try to form
Some people have trouble pronouncing such English letters as "R", and
some people slur or mumble their words. There is a significant difference
between people in our ability to pronounce words. This cannot be dismissed
as irrelevant. However, we cannot be certain of why
we have these differences. Are some of the people who mumble doing so because
they are a mixture of prehistoric and modern genetic traits? Are some of
them related to a different race of humans that developed different speaking
characteristics? Are some of them the result of defects in "normal" genetic
characteristics? To summarize this concept, are the people who mumble:
1) Inheriting prehistoric genetic traits?
2) Inheriting traits of a different race of humans?
3) Suffering from defects in otherwise normal traits?
If we could remove secrecy and analyze everybody's sexual cravings,
we would find that there are subtle differences in our sexual emotions.
Why do some people enjoy anal sex, for example? Why do some people enjoy
having sex with a three-year-old child? Why are some people enjoying sex
with animals? Why are we different? Are some people picking up prehistoric
sexual cravings? Are some people picking up sexual characteristics from
a different race of humans? Are some people suffering from defective sexual
The same concept applies to all of our other emotions. We all have the
same emotions, but there are subtle differences in their "levels", and
what triggers them. Why are some men unusually competitive, violent, or
concerned about their status? Did they inherit some emotional qualities
from our prehistoric ancestors? Or did they inherit traits from a different
race of humans? Or are they the result of defects or random changes in
"normal" human traits?
If people could control their craving for secrecy and their paranoia
of being observed, and if the different races would accept the fact that
there are differences between us, and if men and women could accept the
fact that we are not a unisex creature, then we would be able to study
the human mind and body to the same extreme that we study animals. This
would provide us with tremendous information about the human race.
Most people fantasize about acquiring more money or fame, but information
about how our mind and body works is more valuable than money, diamonds,
mansions, and yachts. If we had a thorough understand of our bodies, we
would be able to more easily identify and deal with our medical problems,
and a more thorough understanding of our mind would help us alter our society,
relationships, economy, and social activities to be much more appropriate
to us. Information allows us to make our lives more pleasant, whereas money,
fame, and food only provide some momentary emotional titillation.
Women should participate in the
process of understanding the human mind. The feminists whine that women
do not have any opportunities to be intelligent, and that "glass ceilings"
are preventing women from achieving their potential, but men are not stopping
women from analyzing themselves and providing the human race with a better
understanding of their body and mind. Men should encourage women to
help us understand women rather than pander to the women and encourage
them to whine about sexism.
Although everybody has the same physical and mental qualities, there
are subtle differences between us. It is impossible to pick out one person
and describe his particular mental or physical characteristics as "perfect"
or "normal". It is impossible to say what is normal in regards to sexual
titillation, also. All we can do is discuss the issue of sex and courtship
and pass judgment on what type of behavior we want to see in the human
race, and what type of behavior we want to disapprove of. For example,
most people disapprove of adults who are sexually attracted to children,
but should we approve of adults who enjoy S&M sex? Should we approve
of anal sex? How about sex with robots?
These concepts also apply to the manner in which we eat dinner, socialize,
play sports, and sleep. All of these activities are irrational.
There are no right or wrong social activities, foods, or sports. What we
like and dislike about these activities is partly due to the environment
and partly due to our particular emotions. If we could study the differences
between the races, we would discover that we have subtle differences in
our emotional cravings, and this is causing us to have slightly different
preferences for food, sports, recreational activities, holiday celebrations,
music, clothing, and home decorations. This information will help us create
a better world for everybody. We should look forward to learning more about
ourselves rather than fearing such knowledge.
about life, don't react
to your emotions
When you experience an emotional reaction, especially a destructive
emotion, such as envy, anger, or revenge, you should consider the possibility
that the emotion has been triggered accidentally
due to some problem with your blood chemistry, or because of crosstalk
between nerves, or because you are becoming frustrated with your life,
or because of some medical disorder that we don't yet understand. Do not
automatically do what your emotion wants you to do.
Our attitude towards humans has to become more like our attitude towards
automobiles and airplanes. If the oil level warning light of an automobile
turns on, a mechanic doesn't automatically pour oil into the engine. He
will first check to determine if the engine needs oil, and if not, he assumes
that the warning light is broken, in which case he fixes the warning light.
By comparison, when a child cries for food or toys, or when an adult craves
money, status, affection, or sex, we try to give the person what he wants
rather than analyze his situation and pass judgment on whether he needs
what he desires. Giving toys to children who already have enough toys,
or giving attention to people who are already famous, or building another
mansion for a person who already has several mansions, is equivalent
to pouring oil into an engine that already has too much oil.
There is nothing wrong with stimulating yourself, or stimulating your
children or friends, but we have to be careful that we are not doing something
idiotic, destructive, or wasteful. Are you eating because you are hungry,
or because you are unhappy with life and are trying to titillate
yourself? Are you having sex because you truly have the desire for it,
or because you are feeling unhappy and want some pleasure in your miserable
life? Do you want a child because you are actually ready for the responsibility
of raising a child, or are you simply looking for a way to titillate yourself?
It's also important to keep in mind the possibility that our emotions
are sometimes triggered accidentally. If you find yourself feeling hunger
when you are not actually hungry, or if you find yourself sexually titillated
in inappropriate situations, you may be suffering from some defect with
your body or your emotions. Some of these disorders may be at least partly
correctable. If you're not sleeping properly, for example, you can adversely
affect your mind and body. For another example, if you set unrealistic
goals for yourself, you can cause yourself a lot of frustration and stress,
and that in turn might cause you to become overly sensitive to problems.
If you enjoy performing risky stunts, can you find a sensible reason
for your desires? Or do you crave risky activities in order to distract
yourself from internal pains, or because there is something defective about
your mind or blood chemistry?
If you have cravings to collect expensive material items, is it because
you have a sensible reason for collecting them? Or do you suffer from abnormal
feelings of inadequacy, or abnormal cravings for status? If your emotions
are abnormal, is it because of a medical disorder that you can control
through diet or drugs?
When is self-stimulation
Women enjoy being touched affectionately once in a while, and
men enjoy touching women. When people are forming stable relationships,
men and women will inadvertently satisfy their partner as they satisfy
themselves. What is a man or woman to do when they either don't have a
partner, or are unhappy with their relationship? How will they satisfy
their cravings? Lonely women are allowed to pay a massage therapist to
touch their body, but we don't allow men to do the equivalent, which is
paying to touch women, even if no sex is involved. Why is it acceptable for
women to pay people to touch them, but illegal for men to pay to touch
women or pay for sex?
There are no right or wrong solutions to any of our problems. We simply
have to discuss these issues, make decisions about what we want
life to be and what we want the human race to become, and start experimenting
with policies. For example, we could make it illegal for women to purchase
massages unless they have a valid medical reason for a massage. We could
put the massage therapists and their customers in jail, just as we do with
prostitutes and their customers. Or we could arrange for the lonely men
and women to try satisfying one another until they find a more stable relationship.
For example, the women who want to be touched can be told to let one of
the lonely men give them a massage, and we could tell the women to face
the fact that the men may get sexually aroused in the process, and if so,
she should deal with it in some manner and consider her favor to him as
payment for the massage. Or, we could tell everybody to suffer
loneliness and sexual cravings, participate in courtship activities, and
form a stable relationship.
Women have a craving to kiss, care for, talk to, and touch babies, and
if they don't have any babies, they will often use dogs. However, we don't
let men have sex with dogs. Why are women allowed to use dogs to satisfy
their emotional cravings, but not men?
We currently consider masturbation to be disgusting, but what is "masturbation"?
Most people regard the word "masturbation" to refer to sexual self-stimulation,
but I think it would be more useful to consider masturbation to be the
stimulation of any emotion. Sexual stimulation is just one form
of masturbation. I would say that people who are eating excessive amounts
of food are masturbating also, but they are stimulating a different emotion.
People who praise themselves because of their college diploma or athletic
awards are masturbating, also. People who spend time pitying themselves
are also masturbating.
Is masturbation bad? Not necessarily. It depends on why you are
doing it, and what the overall effects are. In some cases, stimulating
yourself can be beneficial. For example, when we become frustrated in our
attempts to accomplish some goal, we will sometimes stimulate our arrogance
by telling ourselves that we have the ability to succeed. Some people stimulate
themselves by reminding themselves of images of their spouse or children,
or imagining themselves as heroes in a parade. People frequently refer
to this as "self-motivation" or "inspiration" rather than as "masturbation"
or "self-stimulation", but what is the difference? In all of these situations,
you are stimulating your emotions.
The primary difference between sexual stimulation and other forms of
stimulation is that the sexual stimulation doesn't accomplish anything;
it merely satisfies an emotional craving. By comparison, when you stimulate
yourself to accomplish a task, you are (hopefully) doing something useful
for yourself, your family, or society. We consider it admirable for a person
to stimulate himself into accomplishing a desirable goal, but we are embarrassed
or ashamed of sexual stimulation. However, the people who satisfy their
sexual cravings through masturbation could be described as doing something
useful because they are helping to keep themselves in proper emotional
health. The cravings, when unsatisfied, are an annoyance. Of course, it
is possible for people to sexually masturbate in a manner that is troublesome
for society or themselves, such as the people who get objects stuck into
their butt or vagina and then need medical attention.
We should not judge stimulation according to whether it is sexual or
nonsexual. Instead, we should judge it according to its effect on society.
A criminal who stimulates himself into committing a crime is doing destructive
masturbation, for example, even though he may be doing exactly the same
type of stimulation as a construction worker who is pushing himself into
moving big rocks in order to make a rock wall.
For another example of how self stimulation can be useful, consider
schools and training programs. We do not have cravings to learn or think.
Some people enjoy learning about Hollywood gossip or sports scores, but
that is not "learning" or "thinking". That is "entertainment". We really
don't enjoy learning or thinking, so when we must put serious effort into
these activities, we often look for ways to stimulate ourselves into accomplishing
the task. However, we don't refer to this behavior as "self-stimulation"
or as "masturbation". We tend to refer to it as "motivating ourselves".
What is the difference between a student who is "motivating himself"
to learn a useful skill and a person who is sexually masturbating? Both
of them are stimulating themselves, but they are stimulating different
emotions and for different purposes.
Just as sexual masturbation can be either productive or destructive,
so can the students who motivate themselves. For a few examples, a student
might motivate himself to such an extent that he spends so much time studying
that he interferes with his social life or physical health. Another student
may motivate himself to achieving goals that are unrealistic for him, resulting
in him becoming frustrated or angry, thereby creating a disruption in society.
And another student may use excessive amounts of caffeine or other drugs
to help him get through his school course, thereby harming his health.
In some situations, we use other people to stimulate us. For example,
it can be easier to do unpleasant or difficult work when we are working
with other people, and we are helping to stimulate one another. The term
refers to soldiers who are chanting as they exercise. We describe this
activity as motivation, or as inspiration, but we could describe this as
a "circle jerk", or as "mutual masturbation", or as "group stimulation".
The point of these past few paragraphs is that stimulating yourself
is not right or wrong. We should analyze all of our activities and pass
judgment on whether we are stimulating ourselves in productive manners.
Unfortunately, animals and humans were never designed to analyze themselves.
We are designed to react to the world,
not think about it. We are not designed
to analyze our body or our emotions. Furthermore, we have very strong inhibitions
about certain bodily functions and emotions, and these inhibitions have
prevented every society from facing the fact that we have emotional cravings
and that people are routinely stimulating themselves in a variety of different
manners and for different reasons. No society can seriously deal with such
issues as masturbation, sex, death, childbirth, nursing babies, waste products,
digestion, mucus, or earwax.
Our inhibitions are inappropriate for this modern world, and they need
to be controlled. There are men who consider themselves to be tough and
courageous because they can get into fistfights or do risky sports, but
they behave like frightened rabbits when their children ask about sex,
waste products, or mucus. Women love to clean their house, clothing, and
themselves, but they are too inhibited to clean their butt.
It is important to understand why we have these inhibitions so that
we can learn to control them. These inhibitions were important for our
prehistoric ancestors, but they are interfering with modern life. For example,
watch this video of
a gorilla eating its poop, and notice that a younger gorilla comes over
to grab some of it and eat it also. Animals do not have strong inhibitions
As monkeys developed intelligence, they began to think more often, but
thinking is dangerous for an animal, especially a dumb, ignorant
animal. Our ancestors had to develop an emotional dislike of waste products
in order to prevent them from eating it, using it as a building material,
playing with it, and whatever else they started doing with it.
It is also possible that one reason we evolved such a disgust of poop
is because our distant ancestors began experimenting with anal sex and
with sticking things into their butt for sexual titillation. In our modern
world, it is very easy for us to clean our butts and sanitize the items
that we put into our butt, thereby making anal sex less dangerous, but
our colon was never designed to deal with things that enter it. For all
we know, anal sex is unhealthy. The colon absorbs liquids, so what does
it do with semen? If the interior of the colon gets torn from anal sex,
could some genetic material or chemicals in the semen get into the bloodstream?
If so, would that cause trouble for the person? Is it possible for sperm
to swim into somebody's bloodstream from a tear in the lining of the colon?
If so, what would that do?
As our primitive ancestors developed intelligence, they needed
inhibitions for anal sex, poop, childbirth, mucus, and vomit. These inhibitions
prevented our stupid, monkey-like ancestors from hurting themselves, but
these inhibitions are interfering with life today. Our waste products,
for example, are disgusting to our emotions, but they are nothing more
than digested food. I am not advocating that we play with or eat our poop.
Rather, I am pointing out that we need to understand why we have these
inhibitions, and we need to be capable of controlling our emotions so that
we can teach children about it, study it, and create sensible policies
Likewise, most animals have few, if any, inhibitions about cannibalism,
which is why a female spider will consider a potential mate as a food source.
Some creatures will even eat their own children. Carnivores need certain
inhibitions about cannibalism in order to prevent them from hunting their
own species. The more intelligent a carnivore is, the stronger those inhibitions
Our inhibitions about cannibalism are so strong that most people would
rather starve to death than eat their dead friend. To die of starvation
when there is plenty of food is truly idiotic. The fact that humans have
strong inhibitions about cannibalism is evidence that our ancestors developed
the intelligence necessary to wonder whether other people were a source
of food, and they occasionally ate one another, and the end result was
that they did not survive the competitive struggle for life as well as
the people who developed inhibitions about cannibalism. There is nothing
right or wrong about eating human meat or drinking human milk. Our dislike
of cannibalism is simply a method to prevent a semi-intelligent
savage from hunting its own species.
Intelligence and curiosity are valuable mental qualities, but they are
also dangerous to stupid or uneducated animals. Animals and humans developed
a tremendous fear of the unknown and a strong desire to keep everything
as it is because the world is full of dangers, and the creatures who survived
the competitive battle for life were those who wanted to follow established
procedures and took risks only occasionally or when necessary.
As our ancestors developed intelligence and curiosity, they
would have started wondering about the world around them, and about their
own body. You and I know so much about the world and ourselves that we
don't have a lot of curiosity about it, but our primitive ancestors would
have wondered about everything. They would have wondered what the stars
were, whether any dirt was edible, what their fingernails were, and whether
the hair on their head could be useful for clothing or tools.
Humans are the only creatures that have a problem with nudity, reproduction,
childbirth, and bodily functions. Our incredibly powerful inhibitions could
not have developed unless our distant ancestors were repeatedly exploring
their body and hurting themselves in
video of a 15-year-old girl sucking on her bloody tampon may be just
another prank for publicity, if we could travel back in time, we would
have certainly found that our distant ancestors were occasionally wondering
not only about their own body, but also wondering about other people's
bodies, and about all of the animals, plants, and everything else in the
As our ancestors developed curiosity and intelligence, they began to
explore the world, but they did not have the education or intelligence
to understand what they were discovering. There was a potential danger
with their curiosity, and nature solved that problem by causing them to
develop inhibitions about the potentially dangerous aspects of the human
body and the world. Our inhibitions about our body are analogous to a bad
tasting chemical that some parents put on their child's thumb in order
to stop him from sucking on his thumb.
Curiosity allowed our ancestors to learn a lot about the world, but
many of them died or suffered in the process. For example, by experimenting
with different foods, they discovered that there are lots of edible items,
thereby increasing the number of foods in the human diet, but they also
discovered that some of those items are poisonous. Nature kept their adventurous
desires under control by counteracting it with a fear of the unknown and
a desire to follow established procedures. Since each person has a unique
blend of emotions, some people are more curious or adventurous than others.
Since everybody is arrogant, we tend to assume that our particular blend
of emotions is ideal, and we tend to ridicule people who are different,
but the differences between us allow us to take different roles in life
and notice different aspects of the universe. Nature did not favor the
humans who produced identical babies. Nature favored the humans who produced
A variety of children produces a more talented team than a group of people
who are identical.
Reward the high-quality people,
not the weirdos
Incidentally, that video of the girl sucking on her tampon
is just one example of a video that has absolutely no value to society,
but which gets a lot of publicity, including by supposedly intelligent
news organizations, such as Huffington Post. The significance of this should
not be overlooked! The best way to attract the attention of people is to
titillate certain emotions, such as fear, disgust, or sex. People do not
respond well to intelligent remarks, serious discussions, useful advice,
or scientific knowledge. We are especially resistant to criticism.
It is important to understand these qualities so that you can avoid
being manipulated by con artists, and so that you don't waste your time
on worthless emotional titillation, or by being frightened of issues of
no importance. For example, salesmen and con artists regularly manipulate
us with praise. When political candidates talk about Social Security,
they don't have intelligent discussions about the issue. Instead, they
attract people with frightening stories about how Social Security
will soon run out of money, or that their political opponent is going to
reduce Social Security benefits. When influential Americans talk to us
about Iran, they don't say anything intelligent. Instead, they stimulate
emotions of fear with idiotic remarks about how the evil Iranians will
go on a suicidal mission to destroy America as soon as they develop a nuclear
Most people "react" to events rather than "think" about them, and this
makes it very easy to manipulate people by stimulating their emotions.
Millions of people around the world reacted when Janet Jackson exposed
her nipple during the Superbowl halftime show. Many people don't have any
idea what happened during the game, and many did not even watch the game,
but they heard about her doing that. Millions of people are regularly wasting
their time learning about and discussing issues of no importance,
and millions of people are living in fear that some evil nation will attack
them or steal their worthless islands.
The video of the teenage girl sucking on her tampon is getting a lot
of publicity. Would a video that was providing a serious analysis
of a woman's menstrual cycle get more publicity or less publicity?
Imagine a woman posting a video that gives a detailed description of what
exactly is collecting in her tampon; whether the material that oozes out
is exactly the same during each day or whether it changes; how the quantity
of material changes at different stages of the cycle; whether she can feel
any of the material oozing out of her; whether the material oozes out continuously
or whether it comes out in spurts; whether the liquid is lumpy at any stage
of the cycle; and how her cycle is different from that of other women.
That type of video could be useful to young girls who don't know what to
expect; adult women who wonder whether their cycle is typical; and men
who are simply curious, but would it get much publicity? Would schools
encourage children to learn from it? Would parents advise their children
to look at it?
The girl who sucked on her tampon didn't give any description of it
at all, not even a simplistic description of the smell. All she did was
make unpleasant facial expressions. People have a very strong attraction
to human faces, and we would rather watch people's expressions than listen
to an intelligent explanation of some issue. Therefore, it is possible
that her idiotic video would be much more popular and get much more publicity
than a serious, descriptive video.
Likewise, a woman who tricks a man into having sex with her, such as
Monica Lewinsky, or the women who chased after Tiger Woods, can get a lot
of fame, publicity, and money by talking about it on television shows and
writing books about it. By comparison, a woman who is honest and considerate,
and who does something of value, is likely to be ignored. It's possible
that Tiger Woods met some responsible, considerate women, but who are they?
They don't get publicity. We tend to ignore the people who are responsible
and considerate because they don't stimulate our emotions. They blend into
There are billions of people in the world, but only a tiny percentage
of them get publicity. Compare the people who get publicity to the people
who are ignored. We give special attention and pampering, and sometimes
lots of money, to the people who are the most greedy, disgusting, obnoxious,
noisy, immoral, bizarre, parasitic, frightening, and abusive. The scum
is rising to the top of human society because we are following our emotions
like a stupid animal rather than thinking about issues and making intelligent
A farmer doesn't give special pampering to the weeds, sickly plants,
or retarded animals. A farmer looks for the high-quality plants and animals,
and he gives them special attention. We must do the same with humans. Start
noticing and appreciating the people around you who are honest, responsible,
and useful members of society. Don't ignore them. Don't give your attention,
money, or admiration to people who are destructive, worthless, irritating,
or parasitic. Don't let people or businesses manipulate you with their
idiotic publicity stunts.
Our inhibitions were originally
Humans are the only animals to develop inhibitions about its
crotch. These inhibitions were desirable during prehistoric times because
it caused the people to hide their crotch and keep their crotch clean,
creating what we would describe as "manners".
These inhibitions did not interfere with the sex education of children
because the lack of clothing, bathrooms, private bedrooms, and other modern
technology meant that children were regularly exposed to nudity, sex,
and other aspects of the human body, despite the attempts by everybody to
keep their crotch hidden.
In this modern era, our inhibitions are much too powerful. Modern technology
is allowing women to hide their crotch to such an extreme that boys can
grow up in complete ignorance of what a woman's body looks like and how
it functions. Men are hiding their body so well that some of them don't
know if their sexual organs are typical or abnormal.
When we look at somebody's crotch, we are emotionally stimulated in
a somewhat unpleasant manner, and most people interpret that unpleasant
feeling as a sign that children will suffer psychological damage if they
are exposed to nudity. However, children are not damaged when one of their
emotions is titillated. Their emotions are titillated every day. For example,
they regularly experience feelings of hunger, thirst, and pain. Our brain
was designed to experience emotional feelings.
During prehistoric times, children regularly saw naked bodies, and they
saw and heard their parents having sex, and they survived. If a mother
today allowed her child to see her crotch, she would cause certain emotions
to be titillated in her child's brain, but the child would not suffer.
She would simply be allowing the child to learn what he would have learned
if he had been born thousands of years earlier. I think it would actually
be beneficial to the boys by providing them with a realistic understanding
of a woman's body.
If parents would show affection and have sex in front of their children,
they would also titillate emotions in their children, but it would not
hurt them. It would simply provide them with the type of sex education
that our prehistoric ancestors had.
The best way to understand this concept is to look at the boys who grew
up during the 1960s, as I did. There was no Internet, and America was extremely
prudish, and the end result was that many young boys grew up in amazing
ignorance about girls and sex. The girls kept their crotch completely hidden
from us, and they kept themselves very clean. The girls also had a tendency
to avoid physical activities and remain in cool areas during hot days,
so they did not perspire very much.
Some of us boys not only wondered what their crotch looked like, but
we also wondered if their bodies ever stink or are capable of producing
as much perspiration as boys. I have no memories of my mother sweating
or stinking, and I was not the only boy to wonder if girls have cleaner
bodies than boys. One teenage boy had a girlfriend, and eventually their
relationship got to the point where she let him touch her. He put his finger
into her butt and then smelled his finger, and he was shocked to discover
that her butt had the identical stinky smell as his.
There is some area within our brain that is designed for thinking,
and there are other areas that we could call emotions that try to
bias that intellectual unit. Our emotions want us to come to certain conclusions,
and our emotions are not concerned with reality or evidence. Since boys
have strong attractions to girls, our emotions will bias our thoughts into
assuming that girls are beautiful, nice smelling, and have wonderful personalities.
We need lots of memories of them stinking, crying, having temper tantrums,
and acting like monkeys in order to counteract our emotions.
When we raise boys in ignorance of what girls are, we deny the boys
a realistic view of girls, and that allows our emotions to bias our view
of what a girl is. It is similar to what happens when a child sees the
benefit of having a pet but has no concept of the responsibilities involved.
We end up believing what we want to believe because we have no idea what
We do not hurt children by making them aware of the responsibilities
of owning a pet, and we do not hurt boys by letting them know the truth
about girls. Boys and girls evolved for a prehistoric life in which there
is no secrecy or privacy. Boys and girls were designed to be around nudity,
sex, childbirth, death, hunger, storms, wolves, spiders, and the nursing
of babies. Reality will not hurt us. In fact, it's possible that the reason
so many adults today are having trouble coping with nudity, sex, and relationships
is because they were so well secluded from reality during their childhood.
The reason we become emotionally upset when we see a crotch, or people
who are pooping, or people picking their nose, or people having sex, is
to cause us to turn away and provide them with privacy. Animals do not
have these inhibitions, and as a result, they appear to be "rude" to one
another. Humans have these inhibitions to create a more pleasant social
environment, not because these activities are evil, dangerous, perverted,
If we follow our inhibitions, we will assume that sex, death, nudity,
waste products, and other issues will cause psychological damage to children,
but in reality, our inhibitions are nothing more than mechanisms to cause
a stupid monkey to keep its home and body clean, and to develop "manners".
Hiding information about human bodies is causing children to become ignorant,
confused, and abnormally curious about issues of no importance. It is idiotic,
for example, to raise boys in such ignorance that they become teenagers
who wonder if a girl's poop is as stinky as a boy's poop. We could describe
parents who raise ignorant children as idiots, or as unfit parents,
or as abusive parents, or as talking monkeys who cannot cope
with a technically advanced world.
Girls will obviously develop a somewhat realistic view of their crotch,
but when a society doesn't provide boys with accurate information about
a woman's crotch, the boys have to make assumptions about it. Since humans
do not like to think, boys are not likely to put any serious effort into
researching the issue of women's bodies and coming to intelligent conclusions.
Not many boys will figure out that a woman's crotch is just a trivial variation
of a chimpanzee's crotch, except that it is messier because of the menstrual
cycle that humans suffer from.
Instead, we are likely to let our emotions fill in the missing details
in whatever manner is most pleasing to us. The end result is that boys
are likely to assume that a woman's crotch is some type of beautiful sex
toy. Likewise, when women hide the nursing of babies, boys are not exposed
to the fact that breasts are glands for feeding babies. We will assume
that breasts are also some type of wonderful sex toy.
If you are a man with a sister, have you ever wondered why you have
little or no sexual attraction to her? Although we may have a natural tendency
to look to strangers for a spouse in order to increase genetic variety,
I think one reason that we find our sister unappealing is because we grew
up in such close contact with her that we realize that she is just a female
human. This is especially true if your sister is younger than you,
in which case you will have lots of unpleasant memories of her in diapers,
vomiting, crying, and stinking. You may also have memories of her having
temper tantrums and arguing with you over idiotic issues.
By comparison, when you meet a stranger, you have no unpleasant memories
of her. Your emotional cravings for women will be free to fill in the missing
details, so you are likely to assume that she is a sex princess. Furthermore,
your sister is likely to act "natural" or "honest" around you, thereby
allowing you to see what she really is, whereas strangers are likely to
put on a phony image in order to impress you.
I think that if schools were providing young boys with accurate
information about sex and a woman's body, the boys would realize that a
woman's crotch is the same as a monkey's crotch, except that it has a slightly
different shape and odor. The boys will discover this information eventually,
anyway, so by providing it to them at a young age, they will not waste
any of their teenage years wondering about a woman's body. Likewise, I
suspect that we could reduce the obnoxious fascination with breasts
if women would stop hiding their breasts, and if they were to breast-feed
babies in public.
Of course, we would need to run experiments to figure out the best policies.
This requires finding enough people who have the emotional ability to
experiment with policies for nursing babies, sex education programs, policies
regarding nudity at beaches, and related issues.
In this modern world, our inhibitions are interfering with the education
of children and causing unnecessary awkwardness, confusion, and frustration.
Modern humans no longer need these inhibitions. We can now use our intelligence
and our knowledge to make wise decisions about sex, death, waste products,
childbirth, nudity, and other "sensitive" issues. Eventually the future
generations should consider breeding these inhibitions out of themselves.
That will enable the future generations to have discussions about issues,
and teach their children about issues, that would make us squirm from embarrassment.