|The Jennifer Lawrence Affair
Somebody with direct access to the Apple iCloud network made
copies of photos that some famous women had taken of themselves while naked.
On 31 August 2014 he posted the photos on the Internet for the entire world
to look at. Since the journalists focus on Jennifer Lawrence, I will describe
this as the Jennifer Lawrence Affair.
There are a lot of interesting aspects to this issue, but before I begin
I want to remind you to be careful about making conclusions about current
events because our information about the issue is coming from journalists,
police departments, and the FBI, and those people have a history of
lying to us about crimes that Jews
are participating in.
Whenever a crime occurs, we should wonder if we are being told the truth
about it. We can never know for sure, but by analyzing previous crimes,
we can see that there are certain things to look for. For example:
• If the Jewish crime network is
involved with a crime, then journalists and police will keep a lot of information
a secret from us; they will provide us with deceptive information; they
will destroy evidence; they will try to dampen our curiosity by convincing
us that they know exactly what happened before anybody has conducted an
investigation; and the investigation will be superficial.
So, are Jews involved with the Jennifer Lawrence Affair? We will never
know for sure, but I don't feel as if the journalists or police are interested
in investigating this crime. It seems to me that the journalists are trying
to convince us that this was another "lone gunman" style of crime
in which one psychotic man is responsible for everything. I suspect that
we are being given deceptive information about this issue, and that a lot
of critical information is being kept secret from us.
For example, immediately after the 9/11 attack, the FBI, police, and
journalists were telling us that we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, and
that the World Trade Center towers crumbled into dust because the fires
were so intense. None of the journalists or police waited for a proper
investigation of the incident. Actually, the government prevented
an investigation by destroying the World Trade Center rubble.
• If the Jewish crime network is not
involved with a crime, then the journalists and police will provide us
with lots of details on what happened; they will admit that they are confused
about certain aspects of the crime; the police will cordon off the area
to prevent contamination and destruction of the evidence; and they won't
come to definite conclusions until after the investigations have been completed.
Why is the media focusing
on Jennifer Lawrence?
news report has a list of the 101 women whose photos were posted. Most
of the names are unfamiliar to me, but if I was a journalist, I would describe
the photos as "photos of famous women". I find it peculiar that the media
usually refers to Jennifer Lawrence when they refer to these photos. If
somebody wants to pick just one name from the list, why Jennifer Lawrence?
Why not refer to them as the Kim Kardashian photos, or the Winona Ryder
photos, or the Scarlett Johansson photos?
To be fair to the journalists, there may be a sensible reason as to
why they focus on Jennifer Lawrence. For example, perhaps Lawrence was
the most active of the women in holding news conferences, threatening lawsuits,
and whining about the embarrassment, and perhaps they ignored Jenny McCarthy
and Rihanna because those two women never made a fuss about the issue.
Or perhaps the men were most attracted to the photos of Lawrence, and
so the men referred to them as "the Jennifer Lawrence photos", and the
journalists mimicked their expression.
Or perhaps the person who posted the photos was referring to them as
the Jennifer Lawrence photos, but why would he describe them that way when
there were photos of 100 other women in the collection?
If you are aware that a Jewish crime network is trying to dominate us,
you ought to consider the possibility that the focus is on Jennifer Lawrence
because she is the primary target of a campaign by the Jews to intimidate
and dominate the influential women.
Technology makes crime worse
The Jennifer Lawrence Affair is an example of what I mentioned
in other documents of about how technology is allowing crime to become
more complex and dangerous, and affect more people. This crime was impossible
200 years ago because there were no computers or photographs.
During prehistoric times, a person could commit only a few types of
crimes, and his crimes would affect only a few people in his local vicinity.
Today our technology allows us to commit a tremendous variety of complex
crimes, and those crimes can affect enormous numbers of people, including
people in foreign nations.
Technology can be used for beneficial purposes, or it can be used for
crime. For example, the Google maps can be used to help us find our way
around a city, or it can be used by criminals to plan their crimes. The
drones that are being developed to deliver packages can be used for beneficial
deliveries, or criminals can use them to shoot policemen with poison darts.
Robots and driverless cars will also provide criminals with more options.
The more advanced our technology becomes, the more destruction a criminal
Focus on the crime,
not the nudity!
Both men and women have very strong inhibitions about sex and
nudity, and we also have strong cravings for sex. The men are most likely
to be sexually titillated by the photos, whereas women are more
likely to have their sexual inhibitions stimulated. If a person
does not have good control over his emotions, his emotions will interfere
his analysis of the crime.
For example, the people who are sexually inhibited are likely to be
so focused on the nudity aspect of the crime that they don't notice any
other aspect of it, and they may come to the conclusion that the women
are responsible for the crime because they took photos of their naked body.
Some people have made remarks similar to:
"Those women deserve it. Anyone who doesn't want
their naked photos going public should not have taken them."
Those inhibited people cannot properly analyze the crime because they
are focused on the sex and nudity aspects. Their inhibitions are causing
them to become angry at the women and be oblivious to the fact that a crime
has been committed.
How many people know what
a "cloud" is?
Some people seem to have trouble analyzing this crime because
they don't have a good understanding of the Internet or the concept
of a "cloud". Therefore, it might help
those people to imagine the exact same crime taking place in 1950, before
Imagine if a photographer in 1950 were to break into the homes of hundreds
of famous women. Once inside, he searches through their collection of photographs,
and when he finds a photograph that shows their naked body, he takes a
photograph of it. He does not steal or destroy any of their photos; rather,
he takes photographs of their photos. He then makes copies of those photos
and posts them around the city on telephone poles and bulletin boards.
A person who breaks into your house and takes photographs of your photos
is not stealing anything from you or causing any damage to your property.
He is not harming you in any way. Therefore, he is not a burglar, thief,
or vandal. So, is he committing a crime? How would people in 1950 have
reacted to that type of crime? Here are some possibilities.
1) Some people might have responded with a remark similar to:
"Those women deserve it. Anyone who doesn't want
copies of their naked photos posted on bulletin boards and telephone poles
should never have taken the photos."
2) If the police were to catch that photographer, and if he turned out
to be a sexually inhibited, religious fanatic who was trying to embarrass
the women that he regarded as morally corrupt, then some people might consider
him to be doing a "community service" by exposing and embarrassing the
sexual deviants who take photos of their naked bodies.
3) If the police discovered that the photographer was a psychotic man
who was trying to hurt women for not providing him with sex, many people
would be disgusted with that man, and they would consider his act to be
4) If the police were to discover that the photographer was working
with a gang that was trying to manipulate the famous people in the city
in order to exert control over the city, some people would consider the
act to be a serious crime against society.
Imagine the Jennifer Lawrence
Another interesting way to look at the issue is to imagine
the crime occurring, but without any connection to sex or nudity. Imagine
if a photographer were to break into the houses of famous women and take
photographs of their refrigerator, and then post those photos around the
city. Who would respond, "Anybody who doesn't want
photos of their refrigerator posted on bulletin boards should not have
When a criminal commits a crime that stimulates one of our emotions,
it can be visualized as a criminal inserting an electrode into your brain
and triggering your emotions. If you cannot control your emotions very
well, then that stimulation will interfere with your ability to think properly
about the situation. If two different criminals commit the exact same crime,
except that one of the crimes has some connection to sex, you may come
to two different conclusions, even though the crimes are identical.
In this modern world, schools should be teaching children about their
emotions, and giving them practice with controlling their emotions. Children
need to become adults who can ignore the sexual aspect of a crime and calmly
discuss the crime, without giggling, hysteria, or anger.
Beware" attitude is for animals,
The people who reprimand the women for taking photos of their
naked body believe that the solution to this problem is for everybody to
refrain from taking such photos. That particular attitude is not much more
sensible than telling parents who complain about pedophilia that the solution
is to stop having children.
Unfortunately, this is a common attitude all around the world. For some
• The first automobiles did not
have any security devices. When criminals began to steal cars, people did
react by experimenting with policies to stop crime. Rather, people responded
by experimenting with locks and keys to make it more difficult for criminals
to steal the cars.
Why would a person tell the parent of a molested child that the crime is
his fault for not watching the child more closely? For the same reason
that people scold Jennifer Lawrence and other women for taking photos of
their naked body.
• If a child rides a bicycle to school,
but does not bother to lock it to a post, and if his bicycle is stolen,
most adults will respond that it is his own fault for not locking his bicycle
to a post. The adults do not have any interest in creating a world that
is safe for children to leave their bicycles unlocked.
• When a person's house is burglarized,
the victim does not respond by advocting society experiment with
better methods of preventing crime. Rather, he responds by experimenting
with better security devices in an attempt to make it more difficult for
criminals to steal his items.
• When children are molested or kidnapped,
some people respond by telling parents to watch their children more closely.
They do not respond by suggesting society experiment with policies
to eliminate these crimes.
The reason for our bizarre attitude is because an animal's natural reaction
to crime is the "Buyer Beware" attitude. This attitude is natural for animals
because animals are in a competitive battle for life, and each animal is
his own to take care of himself. Animals do not get any protection
from a police force, a government, or the other animals. As a result, every
animal is always watching out for predators and potential dangers. Animals
live in constant fear and paranoia. They are suspicious of unusual noises,
sights, smells, and creatures. They are always ready to run away or fight.
When an animal is killed by a predator, the other animals - if they
could talk - would respond with a remark similar to: "He
should have done a better job of watching for predators."
As I have mentioned in other documents, the people who refer to themselves
as "conservatives" are pushing us into a life that is very similar to that
of the animals. They encourage us to carry weapons, live in fear of attack,
and be suspicious of one another.
When somebody is killed by a criminal, the conservatives will often
respond with a remark similar to, "It is his own
fault. He should have carried a gun." When there is a shooting at
a school, the conservatives often respond, "If the
teachers could carry guns, this would not have happened." When a
business is burglarized, the conservatives tell the business to get security
cameras, rolldown doors, and security guards. When a child is raped, the
conservatives teach children how to fight adults, or they tell the children
to stay inside the house and hide from potential danger.
The conservatives claim that they are preventing crime, but it
would be more accurate to describe them as stupid sheep who are preparing
themselves for an attack by a wolf. They do not try to remove
the wolves from their life so that they can live in peace; rather, they
ready for attacks by wolves.
I am not implying that the liberals have a better attitude towards crime.
Actually, their attitude is just as idiotic. They encourage us to feel
sorry for criminals, and to give criminals a second chance, and then a
third chance, and so on. They are neither preventing crime nor preparing
for it. They are equivalent to a group of sheep who put wolves in jail
for a few months in an attempt to rehabilitate them into vegetarians, and
who end up becoming victims of the same wolves over and over.
Neither the liberals nor the conservatives can help us reduce crime
or develop a better society. Both groups of people are following their
emotions like a stupid animal rather than analyzing issues like a human.
The difference between the liberals and the conservatives is that they
are following different emotions. The conservatives promote fear and anger,
and the liberals promote pouting and pity.
Getting back to the point I want to make, many people are letting their
sexual inhibitions dominate their thoughts about the Jennifer Lawrence
Affair, so let's take the sex out of the issue. Let's assume that somebody
found a way to look into the personal collections of photos of Jennifer
Lawrence and other celebrities, but he took copies only of photos that
the women had taken of flowers and
sunsets. He then posted them on the Internet with the description
of "Photos of flowers and sunsets taken by famous women."
In that case, nobody's sexual cravings or inhibitions would have been
titillated, and there would be no powerful desire among men to look at
the photos. New Zealand would not have suffered
a serious Internet problem when men assumed they were downloading those
photos but were actually downloading a computer virus. Jennifer Lawrence
and the other women would have been irritated that somebody got into their
personal collection of photos, but there would be no hysteria from women.
It is possible that none of the women would bother to threaten the websites
to erase the photos.
If we take the sex out of the Jennifer Lawrence photos, all that remains
is the crime of a person breaking into a computer network. That is a crime
that needs to be dealt with, but most people ignore that type of crime.
They consider that type of crime to be "boring", and they expect the computer
technicians to deal with it.
Some people break into computer networks in order to steal credit card
numbers or to steal technology from their competitors. That is a much more
destructive crime than posting photos of naked women. However, there are
people making more of a fuss about the photos of naked women
than there are who complain about the more serious crimes. Therefore, I
suspect that if the person had posted photos of flowers rather than naked
women, I don't think many people would have been interested in hearing
about the crime.
Businesses discovered long ago that a simple way to attract male customers
is to use sexual titillation. If we were to remove the sexual titillation
from advertisements, television shows, and movies, a lot of men would lose
interest in them. I have not seen The Hunger Games movie, but I
would bet that a lot of men would lose interest in it if the women in that
movie had been ordinary, and even more men would lose interest if the women
had been ugly.
Advertisers know that sex will grab the attention of both men and women.
The men are attracted to the titillation, and the women become hysterical
over it. This ought to make you wonder why somebody searched through all
of the photos of those celebrity women and selected only those that were
sexual. If all he wanted to do was annoy those particular women, he could
have picked photos at random. Why did he pick sexual photos?
It is possible that he is like Elliot Rodger; namely, a sexually frustrated
freak who is angry that he can look at celebrity women but cannot touch
any of them. He may have decided to get revenge by hurting those women,
and the only method he could think of was to display photos that cause
women to become embarrassed and angry.
However, I suspect that the person who posted the photos was working
for the network of Jews that is trying dominate our nations, and those
Jews specifically chose the sexual photos because they wanted to intimidate
the women as much as possible, so they selected photos that the women would
become upset with.
If my speculation is correct, that leads us to wonder why
the Jews are trying to intimidate those women. What have those women been
doing to cause the Jews to become angry with them? What are the Jews afraid
If those photos were posted by Jews in an attempt to intimidate the
women, then the people who reacted with hysteria or who scolded the women
were inadvertently helping the Jews put pressure on those women.
They were making the situation worse, not better.
If the public had remained calm and quiet, and if they had encouraged
the celebrity women to remain calm, they would have been able to sabotage
the attempt by Jews to intimidate the women.
At the beginning of this document I mentioned that a lot of details
about this issue are hidden from us. Until we know exactly what happened,
we are fools to come to conclusions. All we can do now is discuss the bits
of information that we have been provided with, and speculate on the missing
details. We don't even know if some of the women were pushed by Jews into
taking those photos.
If you have looked through my other documents, then you have seen a
lot of evidence that Jews are trying to instigate wars, racial fights,
fights between men and women, and fights between different nations. When
an event happens in this world, don't react like a stupid animal. Think
about the issue, and consider that a crime network might be involved. Don't
become one of the suckers that inadvertently
helps a crime network to manipulate or intimidate somebody. Don't become
a sucker who is tricked into starting a war, or hating some group of people,
or hating some nation. Remember what George Bush said about "Fool
It is OK
to take pictures of your naked body
Some people criticize women for taking photos of their naked
body, but this issue is similar to what I have mentioned about sports,
recreational activities, and holiday celebrations. There is no sport or
a holiday celebration that can be described as "intelligent". All of our
activities can be described as idiotic.
Likewise, we can criticize all of our photographs for being stupid,
unnecessary, silly, or wasteful. When a person first get a camera, he is
especially likely to take photos that are silly simply because he's having
fun taking photos.
Most people take photos of themselves, their family members, their pets,
and their friends, and there is nothing intelligent about a photo that
shows some people sitting around the dinner table, or children at a beach,
or people visiting the Grand Canyon. Why criticize a woman for taking photos
of her naked body but not for taking photos of her naked baby, her naked
pet dog, or naked flowers?
In previous documents, I pointed out that a society should pass
judgment on what is and is not "art". We should do the same with
photographs that are intended for the public, but if a person is taking
photos for himself, then his photos are his own personal preference.
If Jennifer Lawrence and the other women had been pushing their photos
on society, such as by putting them in museums, putting them on display
outside of public buildings, trying to sell them to the public, and putting
them on the walls of school classrooms, then they would be pushing their
photos on society, and we would have the right to pass judgment on whether we
want them. However, those women took those photos for their own use, and
they had no intention of letting the public see them.
Photographs are a snapshot into a person's life. They are moments frozen
in time. Different people have different interests in life, and so different
people are taking photographs of different moments of their life. We should
not tell a person which aspects of his life he should be taking photos
of. If the photos are for his own use, then he can decide what he likes.
The photos that titillate our sexual emotions could be classified as
"pornography", but if a person is keeping them in his own private collection,
rather than putting them on display in public, then it has no effect on
any of us.
You may not want to look at the sexual photos that some woman has taken
of herself, but I may not want to look at the photos that you have taken
of your dog or your children. We will not improve society when everybody
is acting like an arrogant dictator who tells everybody else what type
of photos they should be taking for their private collection.
Before they were photographs, people used their memory to remember
whatever they enjoyed about life. To scold a woman for taking a photo of
her naked body would be equivalent to going back in time several hundred
years and scolding a woman who looked at a reflection of her naked body
in a shiny piece of brass, and then remembered that image. What is the
difference between scolding a woman for remembering what her naked
body looks like, and scolding a woman for taking photographs of
her naked body?
If a person wants one of his photographs to be displayed in a public
area, then society should pass judgment on whether we want that photo in
our lives. We should decide whether the photo will improve our lives, such
as by helping us to relax, or by inspiring beneficial attitudes, or whether
it will be detrimental, such as by irritating us with optical illusions,
or by stimulating our sexual feelings, or by evoking unpleasant emotions.
If a person takes photographs for his own use, we don't need to tell
him which photographs are acceptable. However, a society should provide
advice on creating a personal collection of photographs. It might
seem impossible to provide people with advice about a personal issue, but
if a lot of older people were to analyze their photo collections, we would
learn something useful from it. For example, we might notice that most
of the photos are rarely looked at more than once. By analyzing photo collections,
we would be able to give advice on which photos are most likely to be treasured
later in life.
We might discover that people have a tendency to take excessive amounts
of photos during emotionally exciting events, such as a marriage, the birth
of their first baby, or a pet. We might discover that many people have
thousands of nearly identical photos of their first baby. Therefore,
we may advise younger people to control their emotional cravings and delete
all but a few of the best quality photos of their first baby.
A society could also advise young boys to be cautious about collecting
pornographic photos. We could explain to boys that modern technology allows
them to stimulate themselves to excess with pornographic images, and that
in turn can cause them to become a nuisance to women, interfere with their
relationships with women, and cause them to waste a lot of their life on
sex and masturbation.
By providing advice to people about how to take photos, and what type
of photos they are most likely to treasure when they get older, we are
helping children make wise decisions. However, if a person disregards the
advice and takes thousands of pictures of his first baby, let him. If a
man disregards the advice and takes lots of pornographic photos, let him.
We don't need to worry about a person unless he becomes a nuisance to
Although society does not need to dictate which photos a person can
keep in his personal collection, society should set rules us for
taking photos in public. For example,
we can prohibit people from using cameras to look inside other people's
homes; we can prohibit people from taking photographs of people in public
bathrooms; and we can prohibit cameras at beaches and parks that allow
nudity. We could also prohibit cameras at theaters so that we don't have
to be bothered by flashes of light or by people holding up cameras in front
It might seem contradictory for me to suggest prohibiting cameras in
certain areas of the city when I also propose security cameras around the
city. The difference is that the security cameras are sending video to
a computer, and most of that video will never be seen by a human. The security
video is only useful for scientific research, and for dealing with crimes.
So, although society should not dictate what type of photos a person
can have for his personal collection, a society should educate its children
and provide them with advice to help them make sensible decisions. For
example, instead of providing children with hysterical nonsense about how
pornography is evil, we should be honest and serious.
Children should be taught that there is nothing wrong with having
pornographic images, but they should not be fooled into thinking that pornography
will improve their lives. Food titillates our emotions, but we are not
going to improve our life simply by eating more food. Likewise, pornography
can titillate us, but there is no evidence that men who stimulate themselves
with pornography are having a better life than the men who do not.
Furthermore, children should be taught that there is a difference between
and pornography. We should explain to children that some statues
and other artwork have nudity, but we don't want pornography in public because
it can be irritating, distracting, and even dangerous. For example, when
men are operating certain types of machinery, they need to be able to concentrate
on their job. It would be dangerous if those men were becoming sexually
titillated while they were trying to work.
Likewise, when we are eating dinner, we want to enjoy the food and the
people. It can be distracting and irritating to eat a meal while there
are pornographic movies playing, or when people next to you are having
sex or masturbating.
Getting back to the Jennifer Lawrence affair, I think most people are
focused on the sex aspect of the photos because they don't understand their
emotions, and they have trouble controlling their emotions. Nobody is going
to suffer if parents take photographs of their naked children for their
personal collection, or if people take photographs of their own naked body,
or that of their spouse or friends.
Actually, there are intelligent reasons for people to collect photos
of their naked body. For example, as I mentioned in another document, I
became incredibly skinny during 2011, and when I finally discovered that
I was low on thyroid hormones, I decided to take some photos of my naked
body from different angles to see whether I was improving as a result of
the thyroid supplements.
I rapidly regained my weight, and I stopped taking photos of myself
since there was no longer any purpose for them. The point I want to make
is that photos of your naked body can be useful in helping you figure out
what is going wrong with your body. In fact, doctors take photos of people's
naked bodies when they have to deal with certain medical problems, and
they often continue to take photos to determine if the person is improving
as a result of the treatment.
Nudity could help with medical
If people could control their sexual inhibitions and their
paranoia of being observed, then we could create a database that included
photos of our naked body, and at different points during our life. This
process could even be automated so that doctors don't need to be bothered
For example, we could build a machine that resembles the scanners at
airports. These machines would be placed around the city near medical centers
or recreational centers. A person would take his clothing off, step into
the machine, and the machine would take photos of his body, including thermal
photos. The machine could also use probes and sensors to measure whatever
else we have the technology for, such as temperature, weight, blood pressure,
and the chemical composition of our breath. That information would then
go into the database.
By putting a treadmill in the room, and taking thermal video of the
naked person as he exercises, we might gain an even better understanding
of his circulation system, and how his muscles are functioning.
By placing these machines at different locations in the city, everybody
would have easy access to them. If a person wanted a more detailed analysis
of his medical condition, he could visit one of the machines throughout
the day and evening so that he could see how his body changes during the
This database would be useful for people who have a medical problem
but don't know what it is. By searching the database for photos and descriptions
that match their particular symptoms, they would have a better idea of
what their problem might be.
For example, as I mentioned in another document, starting at about age
twelve, I slowly began developing certain symptoms, such as feeling colder
than everybody else, and feeling as if my lungs and throat were on fire
when I expended a lot of physical effort, such as when running. I also
noticed that the skin on my palms and the bottom of my feet were
yellowish rather than pinkish. I knew something was wrong with my body,
but I had no idea what it could be, and doctors told me everything was
fine. I assumed my problem was too complex for the current level of medical
If I had lived in a city in which these machines were scattered around,
and if I had been able to go to them periodically, the thermal images might
have made it obvious that something was going wrong with me because they
might show that as the years passed by, I was becoming noticeably colder.
Who knows what else those machines would show.
That type of database would make it easier for doctors to diagnose problems
compared to the situation today in which most of us have so little understanding
of what is going on with our bodies that we make vague remarks to doctors,
such as, "I don't feel right", or "I seem to get colder than some other
A database with details of everybody's naked body could also help scientists
understand how the human body changes through the years, and why some people
are aging at different rates. It might help mothers and doctors to figure
out if their babies are developing properly.
The database would also be able to provide us with entertainment. For
example, we could ask the computer to display the sequence of photographs
of our naked body, thereby creating a video that allows us to watch ourselves
develop from a newborn baby into an adult.
The more detail that type of database has, the better we will do at
understanding our bodies and our health. For example, imagine if computers
were keeping track of all of the food you eat, and cameras around the city
were keeping track of where you go, how often you pick your nose, and the
sound quality of your voice. If you were to tell the computer to analyze
the database for all of the nose picking you have done during the past
year, you might discover that you do more of it on certain days and at
certain times of the day, and if you then tell the computer to search the
database to see what is different about those particular days and times,
you might notice that there is a correlation between certain foods and
nose picking, and that could indicate that you have a mild allergic reaction
to those particular foods.
This concept also applies to a database that keeps track of our voice.
Unlike computer voices, the human voice does not remain exactly the same
throughout the day, or throughout our lives. Our voice may change when
we are physically exhausted, when we are sleepy, when we are sick, and
when our body is not properly controlling its hormone levels. We don't
know much about what affects our voice, but if microphones were all over
the city and recording people's voices, scientist might eventually start
noticing that some people's voices change more than others, and that could
help them figure out what factors are affecting our voice, and why.
For an example of how this information could help us, if a computer
can sense the changes in our voice that occurs as we start to fall asleep,
then people who are operating certain types of machinery might benefit
by having a computer talk to them once in a while and analyze their voice,
and when the computer senses that they are showing signs of sleepiness,
it would send a message to somebody to replace them with somebody who is
Or imagine if scientists discover that when certain types of illnesses
start to develop, our voice starts to change in a particular manner. If
a computer is monitoring everybody in the city, including our voices, then
when the computer senses that a person's voice just made that change, the
computer could send him a text message that he may be on the verge of getting
that particular disease. The person might then be able do something to
prevent the disease.
The people who want to keep secrets about themselves, or who are paranoid
of nudity, are interfering with our understanding of ourselves. We should
not encourage their idiotic behavior.
If people could allow sensors in their bed, or the room they sleep in,
we might be able to get a better understanding of sleeping, such as why
some of us will sometimes sweat a lot while we sleep. Throughout most of
my life, sweating while sleeping was a very rare event, and it would happen
only when I was suffering from a cold or a sore throat. I concluded that
it was the result of my body increasing its temperature to fight the disease,
and my skin was reacting to the heat by sweating.
However, I have not been sick for many years, but this problem has happened
many times anyway. There was a period of several weeks that it was happening
every night, and it was happening during the winter, which made it especially
annoying. I was sleeping in two cotton undershirts and a cotton pajama
top in an attempt to soak up the moisture, and all three of them would
be wet. My pillow would be wet, and my face would be wet. My legs did not
seem to sweat, however. Since the air in the room was cold, as soon as
I got out of bed the sweat would become cold. This problem hasn't happened
to me for about two years, but there are occasionally some nights when
I perspire excessively.
Several years before I had this problem, a man about 20 years older
than me mentioned that he was sweating so much at night that he was wearing
two undershirts, and both of them were wet when he woke up in the morning.
That problem eventually stopped for him, just as it did for me. This makes
me wonder, does everybody go through this at some point in their life?
What is causing this? Is it a change that some of us go through as we get
Humans excel at self-stimulation
Have you ever wondered why humans are emotionally traumatized
by nudity, childbirth, breast-feeding, masturbation, and other issues?
In other documents I discussed this issue to a certain extent, and I will
now add more details to it.
Notice that animals do not have any inhibitions about their body or
its functions. They are naked all the time, and they have no problem having
sex in front of other animals, or peeing or pooping in front of other animals.
They will also masturbate, give birth, and breast-feed their babies in
front of other animals.
Furthermore, nothing seems to "stink" from the point of view of an animal.
It may only be humans who consider some smells to be stinky. Animals consider
some smells to be attractive, and some to be sexually titillating, but
most smells seem to be neutral to them. As a result, animals will occasionally
eat rotten meat or fruits, as well as waste products, and they have no
concern if those things get smeared on their fur. Animals do not keep
other animals as pets, but if an animal were capable of having a pet, it
would have no desire to toilet train the pet.
If animals were intelligent enough to create homes for themselves, cats
would be one of the few animals that would want toilets and trash cans.
However, the cats would not use toilets because they are disgusted with
their waste products. Rather, cats have a natural desire to hide all
traces of themselves, thereby making them invisible to both predators and
their prey. Cats are not bothered by
the smell of waste products or rotten meat. In fact, female cats will eat
the waste from their babies, and cats will eat it off of themselves.
For reasons we may never fully understand, as monkeys became more intelligent,
those that survived the competitive struggle for life were the ones that
developed certain inhibitions about their bodily functions, and they also
developed a distaste for the smell of certain chemicals in rotten materials
and waste products.
If you can imagine life as it was 50,000 years ago, you should be able
to understand how these inhibitions were beneficial to the people. For
example, by disliking the smell of waste products and rotten materials,
they disposed of those materials far away from their living area. This
resulted in them keeping their home, food, clothing, and children much
cleaner than if they didn't have a problem with those smells.
Their inhibitions about nudity and sex caused them to engage in sexual
activities and masturbation in private locations rather than in public
locations. This had a beneficial effect on their society because when people
have sex in front of other people, it is similar to watching pornography.
It will stimulate the sexual emotions of men, and sometimes of women. If
people were having sex in public, other people would occasionally become
sexually titillated, and they might start engaging in sex, thereby titillating
more people. It would be like a nuclear chain reaction, but of sexual activity.
Most animals are not sexually aroused by visual images. Most of them
seem to respond more to the scent of a female. Therefore, pornography
to most animals would not be photographs of the females. Rather, it would
be the fragrance of the female. A dog would want a "scratch and sniff"
photograph of Jennifer Lawrence, not just a photograph.
If we were to produce pornography for dogs or other animals, we would
notice that one of the significant differences between animals and humans
is that the animals would be titillated by pornography only as long as
they are in direct contact with it, but humans can be titillated
by it even after it has been taken away from them. Humans have this ability
because we have a much better memory. We can easily recall images from
our memory, thereby stimulating ourselves over an event that happened in
the past. We also have a much better ability to fantasize, and our fantasies
can also titillate us.
A dog will become sexually titillated when he smells a female dog, but
as soon as the wind changes direction, he will quickly forget about it
and notice some other smell. By comparison, when a man looks at a photo
of a pretty woman, that image will still be in his mind the next day, and
the day after. He may titillate himself with it for months.
Women also use this technique to stimulate themselves, but they don't
always do it for pleasure. For example, Jennifer Lawrence and other women
used this technique to stimulate their anger, embarrassment, and hysteria.
They reminded themselves day after day that men are looking at their naked
body, thereby keeping themselves angry and frustrated.
The human mind has the ability to stimulate itself for decades. For
example, when a woman has a miscarriage, or when one of her children dies,
some of them will spend the entire rest of their life occasionally reminding
themselves of the death, thereby stimulating feelings of sadness and misery.
sexual stimulation is annoying
If we could go back in time a few million years, we would find
that our monkey-like ancestors were not much affected by other monkeys
having sex. As their mind increased in intelligence, and as it developed
an increasingly better ability to stimulate itself with its own thoughts,
the people became more affected by sexual activities of other people. If
the people were not in the mood for sex, they would regard the sexual stimulation
as an unwanted irritation.
For example, imagine a man 100,000 years ago trying to make a flint
knife by chipping rocks. He is trying to concentrate on the task. If a
couple next to him starts having sex, or if a woman starts masturbating,
he might glance over and then quickly turn his head, but the image will
remain in his mind, and that image may continue to stimulate him, thereby
distracting him from what he is trying to do. He may find himself getting
angry at the couple for interfering with his work, especially if he destroys
his flint blade.
Likewise, a woman who sees a couple having sex might find that her sexual
inhibitions are stimulated, thereby creating an unpleasant feeling in her
mind. Even if she turns away, that image will be in her mind, thereby continuing
to stimulate those unpleasant inhibitions. She may become angry at the
couple for bringing these unpleasant feelings into her life.
Furthermore, the young boys might also become stimulated by the sex
acts, and they might react by trying to have sex with the young girls,
even if they are too young for sex. That would cause the young girls to
complain, and the adults may react by becoming angry at the couple for
stimulating the boys.
The point I am trying to make is that animals do not care if another
animal is having sex, but as humans became more intelligent, and as their
activities became more complex, both men and women would occasionally find
themselves irritated by the unwanted sexual stimulation. They would react
with anger, and they would tell the people to stop having sex and stop
masturbating in front of other people, especially in front of young boys.
The people with stronger sexual inhibitions would be more willing to
keep their sex and masturbation a secret, and the people who didn't want
to annoy other people would also be willing to keep their sex activities
a secret. However, the people who didn't have strong inhibitions, or who
didn't care what other people wanted, were more likely to continue having
sex and masturbating whenever and wherever they pleased. Their refusal
to be considerate would sometimes result in fights breaking out, and it
would cause them to develop a reputation for being crude and impolite.
The fights and the bad reputation would make those particular people
slightly less successful with reproduction. It might have been an imperceptible
reduction, but over thousands of generations, the people who were most
successful were those who fit best into society, and they were the ones
with strong sexual inhibitions and a strong desire to follow the rules
rather than do as they please. Our ancestors inadvertently bred themselves
into a creature that has strong sexual inhibitions, and who will follow
one another like sheep.
Sexual inhibitions make a
woman appear civilized
I think another reason that female humans developed strong
sexual inhibitions is because the females with the stronger inhibitions
appeared more "civilized". Animals don't care about manners, but as the
men became more intelligent, they started noticing subtle differences in
the women. For example, when a woman has to pick something up from the
ground, if she has no inhibitions about her body, she is likely to bend
over at the hips, thereby exposing her crotch to the people behind her.
You can certainly imagine what a sight that would be in prehistoric times.
By comparison, a woman with sexual inhibitions will try to keep her crotch
hidden, and so she is more likely to squat down.
The same concept applies to women who sit on the ground. When a woman
with no inhibitions wants to sit on the ground, she will not care whether
her legs are spread apart. By comparison, a woman with inhibitions will
keep her legs together. In addition to sparing everybody from looking at
her dirty crotch, in the areas where there are lots of flies, the woman
who keeps her legs together will have fewer flies around her crotch. Keep
in mind that the people lived outdoors, and so they had no protection from
The women with inhibitions were more attractive to the men. Furthermore,
the women also preferred women to keep their crotch hidden.
The same concept applies to men. How many men or women want to look
at another man's anus? Both men and women would have a preference for the
people who keep their crotch and sexual activities a secret. The end result
was that both men and women inadvertently bred the human race into having
strong sexual inhibitions.
Furthermore, the women with inhibitions would have a tendency to cover
their crotch with clothing, and if the women were talented at making clothing,
the clothing would be a decoration that makes them look even more
attractive than if they were naked.
It is not easy to create attractive clothing with prehistoric technology.
It requires a certain artistic talent, a certain type of intelligence,
and a certain amount of finger coordination. Since the men would have a
preference for the women with attractive clothing, they inadvertently bred
women to have these particular talents.
The inhibitions that we find in women today evolved to fit life as it
was thousands of years ago. If we could go back in time, we may not even
realize that the prehistoric women were as sexually inhibited as the women
of today. For example, we would notice that nudity was much more common
in their area than it is in ours, especially with children, but none of
the women complained about it. There were no bathing suits in that era
and so both children and adults would swim and wash themselves while naked,
but none of the women would whine about the nudity.
It would appear to us as if prehistoric people had less sexual inhibitions
than people today, but it would just be an illusion. Those prehistoric
people grew up with nudity, so nudity was a normal part of life. Their
sexual inhibitions didn't prevent nudity; rather, it caused them to develop
what we would describe as "manners".
The prehistoric humans did not have pajamas or bedrooms, and so all
of the people slept near one another, and all of them were naked.
In the colder climates, the people would have some furs to cover themselves
during winter, but those furs would not hide their body in the morning
when they woke up. Every morning the children would see both naked children
and naked adults. The prehistoric children would also occasionally see
and hear their parents and other adults having sex, giving birth, breast-feed
babies, masturbate, and eliminate waste products.
The prehistoric women were just as inhibited as the women of today,
but because of their primitive technology, they could not prevent nudity.
By comparison, modern technology allows us to satisfy our sexual inhibitions
to such an extreme that it causes problems for our lives. For example,
women today can keep their bodies covered all throughout the day, and even
when they are sleeping. We can provide ourselves with homes that have isolated
rooms, thereby preventing family members from seeing one another naked,
eliminating waste products, masturbating, nursing babies, having sex, and
sleeping. We can build hospitals that women can hide inside of when they
give birth, and we have special garments that allow women to nurse babies
without anybody observing what is happening.
Prehistoric women had the same powerful sexual inhibitions as women
today, but their low level of technology prevented the women from getting
out of control. When prehistoric women satisfied their inhibitions, they
developed manners, and they became more attractive to men. By comparison,
when women today satisfy their sexual inhibitions, they cause their children
to become ignorant about human bodies, sex, childbirth, and breast-feeding.
This in turn causes the boys to develop an abnormal curiosity about women's
bodies and sex.
To summarize this: Humans developed strong sexual inhibitions simply
because we prefer people who keep their crotch and sexual activities a
secret. Nudity, sex, and masturbation is not evil. Children are
not harmed by learning about sex or nudity, and a woman will not
suffer if somebody sees her naked body.
Why were the women upset
with those photos?
When the photos of the celebrity women were posted on the Internet,
some of those celebrities, and many other women around the world, became
angry or hysterical. The women demanded that the photos be removed, but
since those photos were not actually harming anybody, why would any woman
care? What exactly was going on inside their mind that would cause them
to become so angry?
It might help you to understand this if you imagine what the
world would be like if voodoo dolls
were real. Imagine somebody creates a voodoo doll of you,
and he sticks a needle into that voodoo doll. Even though he may be on
the other side of the planet, you would feel the pain of that needle. If
you were walking down the street, the pain might cause you to stumble and
fall down, and that might cause you to chip one of your teeth. If you are
a surgeon who is operating on a patient, your muscles would twitch from
the pain, and you might hurt the patient.
The point I want to make is that every time a needle was put into the
voodoo doll, you would feel the pain, even if you could not see the person
who is doing it, and even if you did not know who he is. If 100 needles
were put into that voodoo doll, you would feel the pain 100 times. You
would not know if 100 different people each put one needle
into the doll, or one person put 100 needles into the doll,
but you would know that it was 100 needles.
Now consider how this concept applies to the photos of the celebrity
women. I have not seen any of those photos, so imagine somebody emails
a set of them to me. If I look at a photo of Jennifer Lawrence, would she
feel any pain? Would she realize that a man has just looked at her photo?
If I then look at a photo of Kate Upton, would Upton suddenly feel pain?
Obviously, the answer is no. So why
would they care if a man looks at the photos?
The women are creating the impression that every time a man looks at
one of their photos, they experience pain, and that as more men look at
the photos, they experience more pain. When the photos were first posted,
only a few men saw the photos, and so the women expect us to believe that
they experienced only a small amount of pain. They wanted the photos removed
before other men saw those photos because they expect us to believe that
as more men see the photos, their pain will increase. They are behaving
as if voodoo dolls are real.
Before I continue, consider the difference between men and women in
this regard. If you are a man, imagine if photos of your
naked body, and photos of dozens of other men, were put on the Internet,
and women around the world began downloading them and looking through them.
Would you stop whatever you are doing, contact a lawyer, and threaten to
file a lawsuit against any website that did not immediately remove those
photos? Would you become angry and hysterical?
I suspect that many men would be proud to think that women want
to look at their bodies. Furthermore, I suspect some men would wonder
men the women enjoy looking at the most, and they would be disappointed
if they discovered that women were ignoring their
photo and looking at photos of the other
If the women in those photos were fat, ugly, or deformed, I could understand
why they would be embarrassed to have their naked body exposed to the world,
but Jennifer Lawrence and the other celebrity women have nothing to be
embarrassed about. They could have reacted in a sensible manner, such as
by calmly describing it as a crime in which somebody has broken into their
private collection of photos.
Furthermore, the women had the option of choosing to react to the situation
with pride. They could have been proud that men consider them to
be attractive. If the women discovered that some teenage boys were looking
at the photos in order to learn about women's bodies, they could have been
pleased to think that they were helping to compensate for the sexual ignorance
of modern society by allowing the teenage boys to see a variety of naked
Women are sexually inhibited
Why would a woman choose to become angry and hysterical when
a man sees her naked body, rather than choose to remain calm and ignore
it, and rather than be proud that men enjoy her appearance? The reason
is because when a man looks at a naked women, it triggers her emotional
inhibitions about nudity. That emotion then creates an unpleasant feeling.
The purpose of that emotion is to make her so uncomfortable that she covers
up her naked body, and as soon as she does that, the emotion will turn
off, and she will be able to relax.
In a primitive era, that emotion would be triggered when a man looked
at her naked body with his eyes, and the woman would react by either changing
her position so that she is not pointing her crotch at him, or by covering
up her crotch. Unfortunately, that emotion was not designed for photographs
or the Internet.
When Jennifer Lawrence was told that her naked body was on
display at a website, her mind visualized a man looking at her photo. Unfortunately,
that image triggered her emotion exactly as if a real man was looking at
her naked body with his eyes. Her emotion then yelled at her: "A
man is looking at your naked body! Cover your crotch!"
Unfortunately, as long as she foolishly continues to visualize men looking
at her body, she will keep that emotion in an active state, and it will
continuously yell at her, "He is still looking
at your naked body!"
The only way she can turn that emotion off is if she stops stimulating
it. She has to stop imagining that men are looking at her naked body and
think of something else, or she has to become proud that men enjoy her.
She has to learn how to control her thoughts and emotions.
When a woman becomes upset that somebody is looking at a photo of her
naked body, she is making herself become upset. The person who is looking
at the photo is not hurting her in any way. She is solely responsible
for her misery. She is stimulating herself, but in an unpleasant manner.
She is masturbating, but not for pleasure. She is masturbating in
order to torture herself. We could describe people who do this as
foolish, or as idiots, or as masochists, or as stupid monkeys who have
no understanding or control of their emotions.
How is a woman who stimulates her sexual inhibitions in public any more
desirable than a man who masturbates sexually in public? I would say that
both of them ought to do it in private rather than in public.
If we give pity to Jennifer Lawrence, we are creating a social environment
in which we encourage people to make a public spectacle of stimulating
themselves into a state of anger or pouting over the thought that somebody
has seen their naked body. We should not encourage this type of behavior.
We should encourage people to understand their emotions, control their
emotions, and make intelligent decisions on how to behave.
The actress Emma Watson posted the remark
"Even worse than seeing women's privacy violated
on social media is reading the accompanying comments that show such a lack
of empathy." What exactly does Emma Watson want us to do? Are we
supposed to cry for the women? How is "empathy" going to help society or
deal with this crime?
The women are behaving like young children who are upset, and who want
mommy to stop what she is doing, rush over to comfort them, and give them
a kiss. That type of behavior is acceptable for young children, but we
should not encourage adults to behave this way, especially not in public.
If a woman wants to be treated like a little girl, she should do it with
her boyfriend or husband in the privacy of her own home.
If voodoo dolls were real, and if somebody was sticking needles into
voodoo dolls of famous women, then each of the women could truly claim
that she is being injured every time somebody stuck a needle into her doll.
She could justify asking for medical assistance and pity. However, when
somebody looks at a photo of her naked body, whatever pain she feels is
self-inflicted. She does not need or deserve our pity.
I agree that a crime was committed when somebody posted those photos,
but we will not improve society by giving pity, pampering, or money to
the women. We need to deal with the crime from the point of view of how
to improve life for everybody. We don't need to be concerned with the emotional
pain that Jennifer Lawrence has brought upon herself. Let her cry. That
is her choice. We should not feel guilty when an adult chooses to make
Women are encouraging one another to become hysterical over a meaningless
issue. All throughout history humans have regularly been exposed to naked
bodies. Nobody is harmed by the sight of a naked body. Women are letting
themselves get carried away with their sexual inhibitions. Women need to
be told to learn about life, get control of their emotions, and stop acting
like stupid, sexually inhibited monkeys.
People torture themselves
over money and fame, also
Women are not unique for tormenting themselves over imaginary
issues. Men do it also, but for different reasons. Men torment themselves
over the thought that other men have a larger salary, a more impressive
job title, a better office, more fame, a better wive, more sex, a larger
house, or a more expensive watch.
Every American who has a job or is on welfare is incredibly wealthy
compared to people in the past. Even the poor Americans have electricity,
houses, glass windows, medical and dental technology, refrigerators, foods
from around the world, and all sorts of other amazing luxuries that people
a few hundred years ago did not even dream about.
Every day that an American wakes up, he has the option of enjoying the
amazing luxuries of the modern world. Even the people in the poor sections
have the option of enjoying their luxuries. They could be thankful that
they were not born hundreds of years earlier. They could be thankful that
they have sewers, running water, toilets, bicycles, and trains.
Unfortunately, a significant percentage of the population choose
to focus on what other people have,
rather than enjoying what they have. They remind themselves over
and over that somebody else has a larger house, or a more expensive car,
or maids to clean their house. Just like Jennifer Lawrence, they torment
themselves, and they do it day after day, year after year.
Some of the people who do this are above-average in wealth. They have
more money than almost everybody on the planet, but they cannot enjoy it.
They instead focus on somebody else who has more money than they do.
Why do people torment themselves over their lack of money or status?
I think the main reason is because animals are competitive. Men
have a natural craving to compete with other men for leadership, and to
compete for the attention of females. The women have a natural craving
to compete with other women for both status and men.
During prehistoric times, this craving for competition was beneficial
because it pushed the men and women into competing for beneficial things,
such as food, tools, and clothing. The competition between women to look
pretty inspired them to keep themselves clean, make nice clothing for themselves,
and keep their home attractive. The people benefited from that type of
In this modern world, however, our technology allows men and women to
get carried away. Men and women are struggling to acquire houses that are
so large that they don't use all of the rooms, and some women are accumulating
so much clothing and jewelry that they need gigantic closets to hold it,
and they lose track of what they have.
A man who torments himself over the thought that other men have larger
houses is just as foolish as a woman who torments herself over the thought
that a man has seen her naked body. Actually, these people are not merely
"foolish"; they are a disruption to modern society because
they encourage bad attitudes and undesirable behavior.
If everybody in a city could get control of their emotions and stop
convincing themselves that they are miserable because somebody else has
a bigger house, or because somebody saw their naked body, or because somebody
else has more fame, our social environment would be noticeably more relaxed
and pleasant. There would be no whining about "poverty", and no anger and
bitterness that somebody else has more money. The men would compete for
something that makes sense, such as bringing improvements to our social
affairs, transportation system, holiday celebrations, city parks, and economic
Furthermore, if everybody could stop worrying about who has a bigger
pile of material items and a larger home, we could create a city in which
all of the homes are identical in quality, and everybody has free access to material
items and food. However, I plan to discuss this in more detail in the next
Sexually titillating photos
of women are everywhere
A significant aspect of the Jennifer Lawrence Affair is that
it shows one of the irrational aspects of modern society. Specifically,
it is acceptable to produce advertisements, movies, magazines, and photos
that are sexually titillating for both young boys and adult men, as long
as the photo doesn't show a woman's nipple, vagina, or anus.
The reason this is an idiotic policy is because allowing us to see nipples,
vaginas, and anuses will not increase the sexual titillation or
cause harm to anybody. Actually, women are more attractive in certain
types of clothing than they are naked.
|I think a woman's vagina and anus looks better in clothing
than naked. Their breasts look better in certain types of clothing,
Advertisements, television shows, and movies are allowed to
show all parts of a woman's body except for those three tiny areas. However,
I think women are more sexually titillating when those three areas are
covered with pretty clothing.
If other men are similar to me, then men are more titillated by the
"acceptable", non-sexual photos than they are by the supposedly more dangerous
I do not want to look at Jennifer Lawrence's anus, and I doubt if her
vagina is much more attractive than her anus. Her nipples are just larger
versions of what I have on my body. I have no fascination with men's nipples,
and women's nipples are just bigger versions of ours, not better versions.
I think women look better in pretty clothing.
Why do all advanced societies have a policy of hiding those three tiny
areas of a woman's body? And why do we have to hide the penis of a man?
This policy is the result of people who follows their emotions like an
animal. Our sexual inhibitions are triggered by nipples, vaginas, penises,
and anuses. The curly hair that we have in our crotch may also trigger
When we see one of those body parts, our sexual inhibitions are triggered,
and that causes an unpleasant feeling in our mind. That emotion was designed
to make our prehistoric ancestors cover up those particular areas of the
body, but people today are interpreting that unpleasant feeling to mean
that those areas are bad or dangerous. Adults foolishly believe
that they are protecting their children by hiding those particular areas.
Ironically, by hiding naked bodies and allowing advertisers and television
shows to expose boys to women in beautiful clothing, they are sexually
titillating the boys more than they would be if the women were naked.
This irrational policy is creating more sexual titillation, not
Most of the women in the Jennifer Lawrence Affair already have lots
of sexually titillating photos of themselves in magazines, movies, and
on the Internet. This is especially true of the women who do modeling.
There are hundreds of photos of them in various attractive dresses,
bikinis, underwear, jumpsuits, wedding dresses, and skirts.
If I am correct that the women are more titillating in clothing than
they are naked, then why do so many men have such a fascination for naked
women? I think it is because naked women are extremely rare in modern society.
The greatest fascination for naked women is with boys, not older
men who have seen lots of naked women. After a man has seen a lot of naked
women, he starts to notice that women are more attractive in certain types
of clothing. A young boy might be excited at the thought of becoming a
gynecologist, but after looking at a few dozen vaginas, he is going to
realize that they are not very attractive.
Why were prehistoric women
tolerant of nudity?
Prehistoric women not only tolerated nudity, but they could
nurse babies in front of other people, and they gave birth in front of
other people. How could they handle nudity so much better than the women
The primary reason seems to be because humans are frightened of the
unknown. We behave like trains on a track. When a child grows up in a prehistoric
environment, nudity is a part of his daily life, so he becomes accustomed
to nudity. By comparison, when a child is raised in modern America, he
rarely, if ever, sees a naked body, sex, childbirth, or breast-feeding.
He will be accustomed to people who hide their body, and he will assume
that this behavior is "normal". He will want to behave like everybody else
and follow the crowd, so he will become an adult who continues practicing
this fear of nudity without ever thinking about the issue.
I think that we have created an inappropriate social environment for
ourselves as a result of going too far in our attempt to satisfy our sexual
inhibitions. We are doing such an effective job of preventing children
from learning about human bodies, sex, and childbirth that they are becoming
ignorant adults who develop idiotic and irrational cravings and curiosities.
Boys in prehistoric times did not have any curiosity about a woman's
body. The teenage boys did not waste any of their time wondering what a
girl looks like. The prehistoric girls were not bothered by boys who struggled
to look underneath their clothing. The prehistoric boys did not have a
fascination with women's breasts or nipples. None of the teenage boys wondered
what sex was, or what childbirth was, or how babies were breast-fed. They
knew all of this, and more.
The fascination that men today show for naked women and breasts is the
result of an improper social environment. The boys and men who are showing
a fascination with naked women could be described as "emotionally
crippled" as a result of growing up in a sexually inhibited environment
that is the result of people getting carried away with their desire to
satisfy their sexual inhibitions.
Society should educate children
about their bodies
In other documents I suggested a society encourage nudity at
public beaches. There are valid reasons to keep naked people out of public
buildings and off of furniture, but I think that nudity and breast-feeding
should be encouraged at certain beaches and parks in order to provide
children with the opportunity to see a variety of different naked bodies.
Furthermore, I suggest the schools provide additional information to children
about sex, their digestive system, childbirth, and other issues that parents
are currently struggling to keep a secret from their children.
We will never know for sure what the best environment is for us, and
there may be subtle differences in sexual emotions between the different
races of humans, but I predict that this type of policy would give young
boys such a good understanding of naked bodies and sex that they will become
teenagers who don't have
any fascination with nudity. I suspect
that our societies would become much more pleasant for both men and women.
By the time a boy became sexually mature, he would have seen hundreds of
naked women of different ages. He would not have a craving to see what
a girl's body looks like. Actually, I think most boys will be tired of
looking at naked girls, and they would become more interested in the girls
who are wearing pretty clothing.
The adult men 50,000 years ago did not giggle like children when they
saw a naked body, and they did not yell at women to cover themselves when
they were nursing babies. So why are men today giggling like children over
nudity and becoming hysterical over breast-feeding? It is because we are
raising boys in an improper environment.
However, we need to make a distinction between nudity and pornography.
When I suggest that we encourage nudity at public parks, I and referring
to nudity, not sexual titillation. I am not suggesting that people
have sex or masturbate at public parks, or that women behave in sexual
manners at a park.
We should increase the restrictions
on our activities
As I mentioned in another document, one of the changes that
has been going on in human societies is that we have begun restricting
our activities. For example, we restrict the elimination of waste products
to the areas that have been designated as bathrooms. These restrictions
deny us some freedom, but provide us with other freedoms. For example,
we deny ourselves the freedom to pee and poop wherever we please, but we
provide ourselves with the freedom to know that wherever we walk, we will
not have to worry about stepping or sitting in somebody's waste products.
If we increased the restrictions on waste products, such as keeping
wild animals and pets out of certain areas of the city, we would interfere
with the freedom of pet owners and the people who want to feed wild animals,
but we would provide ourselves with the freedom of knowing that we can
go into those sections without having to worry about getting messy from
For another example, if we restrict courtship to only the designated
courtship activities, then men and women will be denied the freedom to
pursue one another whenever they please. However, it provides a woman with
the freedom to relax as she rides a public train or swims naked at a beach.
She would be able to say hello to the men without worrying about them interpreting
it as a sign that she has a romantic interest in them. She will realize
that any man who is interested in meeting her will go to the designated
For another example, if we put restrictions on cell phones, such as
blocking their reception in certain restaurants, music concerts, or parks,
we deny people the freedom to chat on the phone whenever they please, but
we give people the freedom to know that when they go to those areas, they
won't be bothered by their phone, or by the phones of other
Of course, restrictions on our activities are worthless if the people
don't want to voluntarily follow them. For example, if a city restricts
pets from a certain park, some pet owners may take their pets into that
park anyway and justify it by claiming that they clean up after their pets,
and some pet owners may respond, "I don't tell you
what to do, so don't tell me what I have to do."
Because people have slightly different personalities and intellectual
abilities, it is impossible for a society to please everybody. There will
always be some people who do not like the rules of behavior. This is not
a problem if they are willing to obey the laws, but there are a lot of
people who do not want to obey the laws that they don't like.
No society has yet been able to deal with this problem of people who
violate laws, so it may seem to be a difficult issue to deal with, but
businesses and other organizations have been dealing with it for centuries.
tell the employees that they must follow the rules or they will
be fired. Employees are told that if they don't like something about the
business, they either remain quiet, or they make intelligent suggestions
to their supervisors.
We could apply the same policy for a society. Specifically, a city would
tell its residents that they either follow the laws, or they will be evicted
or put under restrictions. Any citizen who doesn't like a law would be
allowed to provide intelligent suggestions or constructive criticism, but
he would not be allowed to participate in riots.
The pet owners who take their pets to areas that have been designated
to be free of animals need to be either evicted, or restricted to certain
at the edge of the city where they won't bother the rest of us. Likewise,
the men who cannot resist flirting with women in public areas rather than
at the courtship activities, need to either be evicted, or restricted to
a certain area of the city, or prohibited from being near women.
We have to stop trying to fix the misfits, and stop being intimidated
by their temper tantrums and their riots. Life will be much more pleasant
when we are living among people who behave properly because
they want to, and that requires getting the misfits out of our
lives; either by pushing them to some section of the city where they won't
bother us, or by evicting them.
How many people can handle
Modern technology can be useful, but our emotions were not
designed for it. For example, our ability to produce food can be used to
provide us with a variety of healthy meals, but our emotions respond by
encouraging us to eat excessive amounts of food, and to eat the foods that
taste the best even if they are not healthy for us.
We also have the ability to produce a wide variety of clothing, and
we can use that technology to produce durable clothing that protects us
while we are working at our jobs; decorative clothing for social affairs;
and practical clothing to keep us warm on cold days and dry during rainy
days. However, if we cannot control our sexual inhibitions, we will create
clothing to cover our bodies to such an extreme that children become ignorant
about human bodies. And if we cannot control our cravings to follow tradition,
or our cravings to follow other people, we will mimic the clothing of our
ancestors or the Hollywood celebrities, rather than develop sensible clothing.
Everybody has some ability to control their emotions, but if we could
measure a person's ability, I suspect that the majority of people would
only be able to handle the technology of 10,000 BC, and that only a small
minority can adequately handle 21st-century technology.
This document discusses one example; namely, most people cannot handle
21st-century clothing. If the people alive today had been born 10,000
years ago, they would have had no problem coping with the nudity and primitive
clothing of that era, but when provided with 21st century clothing, they
create a sexually dysfunctional world in which children are ignorant about
human bodies and sex, and in which there is fascination for nipples and
Food is good example of how some people cannot handle modern technology.
If the people alive today had been born 10,000 years ago, they would have
no problem dealing with food, but when provided with 21st century foods,
many of them struggle to control their weight, and some become anorexic.
As technology improves, food will become even more desirable. The future
apricots and cantaloupes, for example, will have been bred into much tastier
fruits. The future generations will also develop foods that we haven't
even imagined. Nobody 10,000 years ago would have believed that there could
be such a thing as potato chips, sausages, lasagna, or bacon. We cannot
imagine what type of foods will be available 10,000 years from now.
There are a lot of cheeses available in the world today, but many people
have trouble with dairy products, and humans do not actually like the consistency
of cheese. Cheese is gluey, sticky, and slimy. We don't eat cheese because
we like it's consistency. Rather, we like the aroma. Therefore, as biologists
learn more about bacteria and mold, they may figure out how to grow the
tasty bacteria and mold on something more desirable than milk, thereby
creating a type of cheese that has a better texture, and which doesn't
cause allergic reactions or digestive problems. This will make the cheeses
of the future even more irresistible.
Some of the people who are controlling their consumption of food today
might have a difficult time controlling their consumption if they were transported
10,000 years into the future.
This problem is also evident with pornography. Nobody 10,000 years ago
had a problem with pornography because pornography didn't exist. Today
there are some people who spend hours every week with pornographic magazines,
videos, and inflatable dolls. Some of the people who can control their
craving for pornography today might find it more difficult if they had access
to future technology, such as sex robots and headsets that give realistic,
3-D images of women.
There are also lots of people who have trouble controlling their craving
for material items. This problem will also increase in the future because
there will be an even greater variety of material items. Also, and if we
continue on the path we are on right now, the discrepancy between the poor
and the rich will increase, causing even more people to struggle to be
one of the rich.
People are breeding dogs to become more like what our emotions want.
The dogs that the women are attracted to are becoming more like babies,
and the dogs that men are attracted to are becoming better substitutes
for friends. The future dogs will have been bred into creatures that are
even more emotionally titillating to us. People who can resist pets now
might have a difficult time resisting pets in the future. And the people
who have just one or two pets now might want dozens of pets in the future.
Not many people today can adequately cope with the modern world. They
are primitive savages in a human world. In this
recent poll of British women, about 65% of them admit that they have trouble
saying the words ‘vagina’ or ‘vulva’. That poll also shows that many adult
women are so sexually inhibited that they have trouble going to gynecologists.
More amazing yet, the poll claims that only about half of the younger adult
women could identify a vagina on a diagram of a female human body.
We must expect children to have trouble controlling their emotions,
but in order for adults to truly fit in this modern world, they should
be able to discuss the issues that we face, including their own health
issues, and that requires they be able to say the words in our language,
and be able to talk to doctors. Schools should help children deal with
these issues, but most parents have so little control over their sexual
inhibitions that they won't allow schools to teach sex issues. The majority
of people are just primitive savages who are inadvertently creating a world
of sexually dysfunctional people.
Many parents want to stop schools from teaching children about sex,
and they claim that parents should teach these issues, but how is a mother
going to teach these issues when she is so inhibited that she doesn't know
what a vagina is, and cannot say the word?
Animals never developed a curiosity about the world, or about their
own bodies. An animal has no need to identify its body parts on a diagram.
Animals are only concerned with surviving and reproducing. As animals evolved
into humans, the men began developing a curiosity about the world and a
desire to explore it. Men developed a curiosity about everything; the rocks,
the trees, the pigs, and human bodies. Men began exploring everything around
them, including their own bodies.
Unfortunately, women never developed much of a curiosity about anything.
As we see with female birds, human women prefer to sit on a nest, take
care of children, and chat with other women. They are not interested in
exploring the world, becoming leaders, fighting for territory, or looking
closely at their bodies. They have no interest in knowing what is between
their legs, how their digestive system works, where babies come from, why
they have a blind spot in their eye, or how their knees work.
How many adult women are truly able to cope with modern society? Most
of them are sexually inhibited monkeys, not advanced humans. However, I
am not implying that men are better than women. If the men were truly better
than the women, the men would provide intelligent guidance and advice to
the women. Instead, most men are so overwhelmed with the modern world that
they don't know what to do. Most of them end up pandering to the women,
thereby encouraging their sexual inhibitions and their feminist attitudes.
Neither men nor women are better than the other. We are simply different.
Men are not as sexually inhibited as women, but men have problems controlling
other emotions, such as their arrogance and their craving for territory
We must put better people
in control of the world
Why is the world the way it is? Because the people make it
this way. An organization is whatever the people make it. For example,
this world is sexually dysfunctional, and there is widespread hysteria
and paranoia of nipples and penises. The reason is simply because the world
is dominated by people who cannot control their sexual inhibitions.
Why is there so much fighting for money? Why are so many people spending
more money than they have and getting into debt? Why are so many business
leaders struggling to become billionaires? The reason is simply because
most people have trouble controlling their craving for material items.
Why are so many people obese or anorexic? It is simply because they
have trouble controlling their emotional cravings.
When we start experimenting with new cities, we must restrict them to
the people who show a better ability to control their emotional cravings
and cope with the technology and social issues of the 21st century. We
have to pass judgment on who among us can deal with this modern world,
and who is just a savage who should be chasing after a wild pig with a
We are allowing our governments, businesses, schools, and media to be
dominated by people with very crude characteristics. They are cheating
us, lying to us, and treating us as peasants. We need to raise standards
for people in leadership positions, and we need to stand up to the people
who cannot cope with the modern world and tell them that they don't have
the qualities necessary to vote or influence the future.