orgasm, lust, holiness
Quote:It is my understanding that if you put your partners disire b4 yours it alway s works out great. myself I think it feels better when I know ive made my wife climax a few times while me are making love as well...and yes guys dont be fooled a woman can climax many times in 1 session of lovemaking.
The main significance of orgasm is I believe that it mixes up sperm, making which spermatozoan succeeds in fertilization more random. It is my opinion that, contrary to what the ultra-competitive he-men types try to make people think, usually females are more pleased by being fertilized by weak sperm. That is because competition will occur in the ejaculates of her male descendants between sperm more related to her and sperm more related to her mate. So, yes, usually females are pleased by having an orgasm. However, to the extent that a young female's sexual desire is real and caused by her object of affection being moral, she is going to want sperm selection to occur, sperm selection being IMO the whole significance of nymphetal philokalia. It would be a dreadful mistake, therefore, to suppose that girls and women have similar needs and desires so far as sperm randomization and orgasm are concerned. And of course, it is well known that the E- type prostaglandins (the most likely culprits in sodomy addiction) cause uterine contractions, which is why they are used as abortifacients and why Motrin (which blocks prostaglandins) is effective in preventing menstrual cramps. Another time that a female might not want orgasm is when she is sharing her mate with another female; the significance of bisexuality is probably that sperm go back-and-forth between the two females, thus selecting for sperm able to survive such going back-and-forth, which of course are likely to be sperm which contain much genetic material that has been similarly loved by females in the past, presumably on account of it having been very desirable to females.
Female lust is a complicated phenomenon, which IMO is related to female lust mucous. This lust mucous gets absorbed by the male during sex, having several effects on spermatogenesis. One effect I believe it has is to reduce the importance in spermatogenesis of cytoplasm bridges (synctia), thereby enabling sperm formation to be more controlled by the haploid genome of the sperm (as opposed to the diploid genome of the man producing the sperm) than it otherwise would; this presumably greatly enhances meaningful sperm competition. Also, I believe that the lust epigenetically in some sense paints the sperm chromosomes so that after many generations the genetic material which has been loved by especially desirous lustful females is distinguishable from the other genetic material, enabling phenomena such as genetic inversions to occur as is best for the evolution of moral traits (e.g., by encouraging the proximity of important talent genes to important moral character genes). Genetic material is akin to a Chinese painting, which if well loved over the generations usually possesses many seals of its past owners expressing their love for it. Third, I believe that female lust immediately encourages genetic crossover in the males' developing sperm, which (as I shall discuss later) ordinarily is unusually in the male's interest. Fourth, female lust may increase fertility, but only after a while (after the sperm affected have had a chance to develop). The exact effects of female lust on spermatogenesis are presumably too complex to be completely understood at present, but at any rate, I feel confident that female lust mucous does have effects analogous to those I describe. An important point to be observed about spermatogenesis is that the most important genetic properties (e.g, how crossover is determined) occur about two moons before a sperm is typically ejaculated. It may well be (a common theory in the literature) that female orgasm increases fertility somewhat, so that when a female is still and lustful, she won't be significantly fertile for a while, until the sperm affected by her lust have developed, and so she will be very likely to in fact be fertilized by the sperm that have been affected by the lust.
This female lust it strikes me underlies many of the more mystical ideas of Eastern religions. For example, it is easy to see that Nirvana, the desire for extinction as a release from the dread cycle of transmigrating life, is analogous to the male desire for rearrangements of genetic material that occur on account of female lust. And in fact, one of the main rituals of Shivaism (the most popular Hindu sect) is pouring milk (like lust mucous a female secretion) over an erect pillar.
An hypothesis of mine is that young females (as well as very desirous females) have a greater capacity to lust. So, in fact, lust is tied up with early female sex.
Holiness, I posit, is rather opposite in its effect from female lust. More precisely, the significance of holiness is that when this emotion is felt by the male, it causes him to discourage crossover in his developing spermatozoa. Usually, a female is more rewarded by being fertilized by spermatozoa that have
not undergone crossover during spermatogenesis. Indeed, a crossover between chromosomes has a small chance of producing an advantage, and a large chance of producing a disadvantage. Such a situation can often be of benefit to the male, though, on account of how compounding works. The situation is analogous to compound interest. An advantage like a positive interest rate becomes more useful as time goes on, producing greater and greater gains as time goes on. A disadvantage, on the other hand, like a negative interest rate, becomes less disadvantageous as time goes on. So the advantages of genetic crossover are mostly long term, after the female's genetic material is likely to be separated from that of her mate, while the disadvantages are mostly short term, while her genetic material is still likely to be significantly with her mate's in descendants; therefore, females can't get much of the advantage that may arise from crossover in their mates' sperm, but they can suffer from the disadvantage. Therefore, females are more pleased by holiness in males. Holiness is something that good men feel for females they love well because they unselfishly want to please their mate. It follows that in fact good males do tend to be more holy than bad males.
The archetypal holiness emotion is that which a man feels for a well-loved woman. By extension, other well-loved beautiful things can elicit holy emotions. For instance, the best most carefully and artistically written series of mathematics texts is probably the Bourbaki math books, and they have the capacity to inspire holy feelings in me towards them. What actually inspired me, however, to discover what holiness was was when I discovered that girls, too, were holy. They were sexy and holy. I was very surprised, because I had sort of assumed that holiness was something I would feel for a girl unless I really seriously wanted to care for her, and yet I didn't feel like marriage was something I wanted. Yep, I discovered what holiness was at about the same time I developed my theory of nymphetal philokalia. Girls are holy, and inspire in me the same holiness that I might feel for a very clean elegant math book or a particular well-loved female. My sexual desires for young females are much more pure and noble than my desires for most older females. As for why I choose the term "philokalia", I did so merely because it is a word which in Greek means "love of goodness", which is what girls tend to especially love in males. It isn't just a name of a book, it is an actual word which English has no counterpart for that I know of. Not that it being a name of a book concerned with holiness bothers me, though. Male "holy" chemical is something good males probably tend to release more of, and so male holiness probably tends to select for sperm coding diploidly for moral traits. And nymphettes are extremely pleased by sperm having moral (diploid) traits, since only that sort of sperm is likely to have an association between an ability to prosper and survive inside young females and a tendency to code for desirable characteristics. Holiness is something good males do tend to feel for young females--it would be mean to feel otherwise. Certainly I find girls holy.
An interesting point is that for sex with girls to be meaningful, it has to be slow. As I mentioned, it takes a couple moons for female lust and male holiness to have their effects. And doubtless sperm selection in females is more meaningful if male sex is more drop-by-drop than orgasmic (so the sperm can more be adsorbed by the female cervix, etc.). It follows from the difficulty of hiding things that last a long time, therefore, that really the kind of sex that is meaningful to girls is not something that it is very easy to be sneaky or dangerous about. Thus, by outlawing nymphetal sex, unless really draconian measures are taken, you really won't be effectively discouraging girls from having sex with bad people (who had just assume have sex for ten seconds and who from their other criminal tendencies are likely to have a capacity for getting away with crime) nearly as much as you will be discouraging them from having sex with good people (who would tend to have sex that is difficult to hide on account of it lasting a long time and who are likely to be rather transparent so far as having committed a crime is concerned). Probably good males are more hesitant to go to jail, also.
