Treecat Social Dynamics

cthia wrote:An aside: I never truly understood the need of a Cat to bond when they are in love with another Cat. Why would a Cat want to bond with a two-leg knowing it will undoubtedly separate them for endless months? And even when they return, they spend most of their time atop a two-leg.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:They don't. It seems you either choose to mate or you choose to adopt, not both. All cats that adopted were single and the vast majority of them male. So it seems that once they adopt, they don't feel the need to mate; they become dedicated to their two-legs.

You mean they choose to become nuns and celibate. Just seems too neat a package. Shrug.

My niece once expressed jealousy over a species who could literally find their soul mate naturally, far beyond any reasonable doubts. Such a powerful inherent bonding mechanism of natural attraction(*) which is innately embedded into a species for centuries just doesn't get turned off because of the sudden appearance of two-legs.

*This could open up a whole new chapter and can of worms regarding "natural selection."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Nimitz and Samantha were clearly a special case. There's nothing obvious why that was different from any other casual mating, aside from the fact that they were off-planet. It's possible they were also the first mating of a pair of bonded cats. Given how few females adopted, it's likely there weren't many chances before for this circumstance. And being off-planet and isolated from the clans and community drove them closer, which led to mating.

True, they are a special case. But one which lends credence to my argument. Just because you chose to bond - or are bonded to a two-leg - does not negate a lifetime of raw, unadulterated "mother nature."

cthia wrote:Cats are known to have high sex drives. Two-leg business can separate them far longer than a female Cat in heat can stand. It isn't like a Cat can fool around with another Cat while on shore leave in another system, or go to a bar and pick up a stray cat. What happens if a male Cat returns and his mate has given birth to another male's offspring. In there such a thing as Treecat infidelity.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Where did you get any of this?

That should have read "Terran" cats. Although they aren't the same, Treecat sexual drives aren't likely to be neatly compatible with two-legs'.

cthia wrote:You mean they choose to become nuns and celibate. Just seems too neat a package. Shrug.

My niece once expressed jealousy over a species who could literally find their soul mate naturally, far beyond any reasonable doubts. Such a powerful inherent bonding mechanism of natural attraction(*) which is innately embedded into a species for centuries just doesn't get turned off because of the sudden appearance of two-legs.

Your niece's insight is probably right. The treecats choose mates based on their mindglow and telepathic compatibility, not on physical attributes. I take that to mean it's not related to sexual desires. An earlier evolution of treecats could be different, since natural selection would select for the treecats that out-reproduced the others with lesser sexual drive. But once they achieved sentience and had a good understanding of the society and the balance of the population, mating for mindglow (like we do "for love") may have superseded.

But I need to point out that this means the mechanism by which a treecat finds a mindglow-mate and the mechanism of adoption may be one and the same. So a treecat may be completely satisfied by the adoption and not need or want a treecat mate.

Whether that has any impact on sexual desire is besides the point.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:You mean they choose to become nuns and celibate. Just seems too neat a package. Shrug.

My niece once expressed jealousy over a species who could literally find their soul mate naturally, far beyond any reasonable doubts. Such a powerful inherent bonding mechanism of natural attraction(*) which is innately embedded into a species for centuries just doesn't get turned off because of the sudden appearance of two-legs.

Your niece's insight is probably right. The treecats choose mates based on their mindglow and telepathic compatibility, not on physical attributes. I take that to mean it's not related to sexual desires. An earlier evolution of treecats could be different, since natural selection would select for the treecats that out-reproduced the others with lesser sexual drive. But once they achieved sentience and had a good understanding of the society and the balance of the population, mating for mindglow (like we do "for love") may have superseded.

But I need to point out that this means the mechanism by which a treecat finds a mindglow-mate and the mechanism of adoption may be one and the same. So a treecat may be completely satisfied by the adoption and not need or want a treecat mate.

Whether that has any impact on sexual desire is besides the point.

I would be more ready to believe that if a clan outproduced another, it would be for the same reasons most lifeforms do who live in the wild. Availability of food, water, resources, nutrients, density of predators, yadda yadda yadda. But not for any inherent lack of sexual desire.

I agree it is amusing whether natural selection would dictate the stability of a bond, thus clan, or whether marrying for love instead of hunting skills or tool expertise might not, depending on external factors at the time.

...Whether it has an impact on sexual desire is beside the point?

Whether adoption satisfies a Cat's need to mate is the point. Because if it doesn't, there are going to be some frustrated Cats. I don't readily ascribe super powers to the Cats like many seem to do. They are after all, a living species. And one thing every living thing's maker gives them is the will to survive individually, and as a species. The drive to procreate is strong in life. It isn't a want, it is a need. And a necessity.

BTW, I always assumed from the onset that the processes were one and the same. It seems intuitive. Why reinvent the wheel.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The treecats choose mates based on their mindglow and telepathic compatibility, not on physical attributes. I take that to mean it's not related to sexual desires.

When it comes right down to it at the end of the day, I'd imagine they are inseparable. Ever heard of a sexually stimulating mind? I've been told by many a mate that I give good mind. Many a Cat has probably heard the same thing I have, "You blow my mind."

cthia wrote:I would be more ready to believe that if a clan outproduced another, it would be for the same reasons most lifeforms do who live in the wild. Availability of food, water, resources, nutrients, density of predators, yadda yadda yadda. But not for any inherent lack of sexual desire.

Once a species achieves sentience and has a good grasp of societal dynamics and those beyond the self, those constraints start to matter less and less. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which was amended earlier this year to include "toilet paper" as the most basic need, still applies, in the sense that a clan that doesn't have enough food is constrained in population size. But the opposite is not true: availability of food does not mean the clan will expand to resource exhaustion. They're not rabbits.

Just look at humans: the countries with largest population growth are not the countries with the most resources available.

And, of course, the problem with aliens is that their behaviour is alien. Animal behaviour may be similar enough, but sentients may think completely different and have a completely different logic and set of priorities.

Whether adoption satisfies a Cat's need to mate is the point. Because if it doesn't, there are going to be some frustrated Cats. I don't readily ascribe super powers to the Cats like many seem to do. They are after all, a living species. And one thing every living thing's maker gives them is the will to survive individually, and as a species. The drive to procreate is strong in life. It isn't a want, it is a need. And a necessity.

You're equating "mating" with "sexual coupling." That's true for the customary meaning of the words, but for treecats we are using the verb "to mate" where a marriage would be more appropriate. And humans have a lot of examples of where marriages were done for convenience and may not have produced heirs (biologic or otherwise). Treecats do mate for procreation, but procreation and sexual satisfaction do not have to be one and the same. Without sexual norms like ours, there's nothing preventing two consenting adult treecats from coupling sexually but have no intention of procreation. Heck, we discussed the same thing about Hamish and courtesans!

With that explanation, let me rephrase with different terms: adoption of a two-legs does make a treecat less open to "marriage." Whether the treecat has to have his sexual needs satisfied is besides the point.

When it comes right down to it at the end of the day, I'd imagine they are inseparable. Ever heard of a sexually stimulating mind? I've been told by many a mate that I give good mind. Many a Cat has probably heard the same thing I have, "You blow my mind."

I don't think that applies to treecats or humans. Intellectual stimulation does not need to lead to sexual relations.

"You blow my mind" has no etymological relation to sex either. It's only recent that two separate actions have converged to use the same verb. As a non-native speaker of English, I never make such connections in English idioms. There's simply no matching set of constructions to complete the allusion.

Like how the Tolkien newsletter was named Vinyar Tengwar, with vinya "new" and tengwa "letter" (-r is the nominative plural in Quenya for those words). But tengwa stands for "letter" in the sense of "character" and Elves do not need to name missives composed of letters, words and paragraphs "a letter." In my native language, those two things do not share the same word. The name of the newsletter could mean "novelty characters" ("characters just invented").

cthia wrote:I would be more ready to believe that if a clan outproduced another, it would be for the same reasons most lifeforms do who live in the wild. Availability of food, water, resources, nutrients, density of predators, yadda yadda yadda. But not for any inherent lack of sexual desire.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Once a species achieves sentience and has a good grasp of societal dynamics and those beyond the self, those constraints start to matter less and less.

I totally disagree with that. I'll accept that they may become less of a prohibiting factor. May. But they will never matter less, if indeed they are sentient beings. Even for sentient humans it still applies, and I imagine it always will. Albeit, some particulars may take on traditionally different facades. For instance, the notion of predator may come to mean "criminal elements" in one's neighborhood, school system or government. Consider the alarming cases of unsolved, unpunished rampant rape in Haiti. Which is a vastly different, but just as dangerous, manifestation of "in the wild."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which was amended earlier this year to include "toilet paper" as the most basic need, still applies, in the sense that a clan that doesn't have enough food is constrained in population size. But the opposite is not true: availability of food does not mean the clan will expand to resource exhaustion. They're not rabbits.

Perhaps if Maslow had lived he would have gotten it right. My sister, the psychologist, doubts it. I've argued with her that his notions have merit. She says it is as misleading as an all inclusive array of tests for college admissions, and a dangerous weapon for irresponsible politicians. (I agree with her on that one.) However, between she and I, she is the one qualified on the subject. It is too class (and country) specific and it even diverges too much within each class.

I agree that if these factors were not an issue it doesn't imply a population explosion. Of course not. I never said my notion is commutative. And, there will always be scatter points. But certainly, even within a sentient society the most educated of the sentients may be more aware of the pitfalls of birth. Far too many people plan their births around their bank account even now. That is certainly a reality even in 21st century America. And it varies across classes, religions, geographical and geopolitical regions. In the Midwest, higher birthrates are preferred because the offspring are necessary to assist the family by working the farmlands. The entire infrastructure in the region caters to the notion, including the school system which has shorter days to accommodate both the students' chores, and the needs of the specific clans in the Midwest.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Just look at humans: the countries with largest population growth are not the countries with the most resources available.

One reason that is so is the existence of one important resource. Education - which includes school systems, sex education and clinics. And perhaps even laws, religions, and governments supporting the right of abortions, which leads to the access of birth control. See my notion above, the more educated may generally become more aware of the stalls and pitfalls of rampant unplanned births. And they instill that notion in their offspring.

You don't have to look far to find evidence to support my notions. Look at the Welfare System in America which awards families with higher births with greater access to food and health care, prompting many families to plan more births. It is indicative of an old contention rearing it's ugly head prompting the Trump Administration to close our borders.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And, of course, the problem with aliens is that their behaviour is alien.

Indeed! Alien in the above context also means foreign.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Animal behaviour may be similar enough, but sentients may think completely different and have a completely different logic and set of priorities.

Which is the impetus behind my sister's recommendation to flush Maslow's Hierarchy down the toilet. Especially if the "animals" - referenced by the current administration - are the humans who are currently fighting for equal rights to these same prohibiting resources.

cthia wrote:Whether adoption satisfies a Cat's need to mate is the point. Because if it doesn't, there are going to be some frustrated Cats. I don't readily ascribe super powers to the Cats like many seem to do. They are after all, a living species. And one thing every living thing's maker gives them is the will to survive individually, and as a species. The drive to procreate is strong in life. It isn't a want, it is a need. And a necessity.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:You're equating "mating" with "sexual coupling." That's true for the customary meaning of the words, but for treecats we are using the verb "to mate" where a marriage would be more appropriate.

For the sake of my leg of the conversation and considering what I originally posited, I see no need to distinguish between the two. If a Cat chooses to adopt a naval officer, he, or she, has very limited access to another Cat for sexual gratification, procreation, or marriage. Even if a Sphinxian Cat mirrors the short time it takes a Terran cat to mate, even less than a minute is irrelevant if there is no other Cat onboard ship, no bars, no Cat courtesans, and no shore leave in other systems featuring this access. Which may be why some Cats find the forestry service or adopting on-planet desirable.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And humans have a lot of examples of where marriages were done for convenience and may not have produced heirs (biologic or otherwise).

That includes a can of worms I don't wish to tackle in this forum of sexually repressed mores, which includes the notion of "gold digger - male and female," and the despicable notion that a man cannot legally rape his wife. Even Nimitz chased Samantha.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Treecats do mate for procreation, but procreation and sexual satisfaction do not have to be one and the same. Without sexual norms like ours, there's nothing preventing two consenting adult treecats from coupling sexually but have no intention of procreation. Heck, we discussed the same thing about Hamish and courtesans!

Nothing preventing them except their life of traipsing across a galaxy completely devoid of their kind.

Yes, and Hamish had the same problem. Access.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:With that explanation, let me rephrase with different terms: adoption of a two-legs does make a treecat less open to "marriage." Whether the treecat has to have his sexual needs satisfied is besides the point.

I still can't agree with the latter, but do you really believe the former? Of a species who have a "mettle detector" which detects the perfect mettle in a soul mate? Their perfect Soul of Steel? I agree they may be less apt to find that soul mate while adopted. But if, BAM! TREECAT LIGHTNING strikes, you don't think that could change? To be "madly in love" is probably species concentric.

When it comes right down to it at the end of the day, I'd imagine they are inseparable. Ever heard of a sexually stimulating mind? I've been told by many a mate that I give good mind. Many a Cat has probably heard the same thing I have, "You blow my mind."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I don't think that applies to treecats or humans. Intellectual stimulation does not need to lead to sexual relations.

Not only does it lead to it in many cases. It leads to it in many cases when it shouldn't. It also has a tendency to lead to marriage. There's no such thing as bad sex to a man. Only bad after-sex, for them both, because there is no common denominator to fuel or support any "emotionally bonding" discussions. "Surely you've heard or have been party to, "There was simply nothing to talk about after the deed was done."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:"You blow my mind" has no etymological relation to sex either. It's only recent that two separate actions have converged to use the same verb. As a non-native speaker of English, I never make such connections in English idioms. There's simply no matching set of constructions to complete the allusion.

What??? Well, since you aren't American that may account for the misnomer. In America it began as a sexual connotation. Wiki says it's conception (pun intended) is a song in 1965. There is also . . .

Didn't I blow Your Mind

Blow Your Mind

Blow Your Mind

Ad nauseum.

There is also mind-blowing orgasms. And kisses. The point is that the mind is a very erotic device. I anticipate that notion to be cataclysmic amongst a species of empathic "Cats," who find their Soul Mate.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Like how the Tolkien newsletter was named Vinyar Tengwar, with vinya "new" and tengwa "letter" (-r is the nominative plural in Quenya for those words). But tengwa stands for "letter" in the sense of "character" and Elves do not need to name missives composed of letters, words and paragraphs "a letter." In my native language, those two things do not share the same word. The name of the newsletter could mean "novelty characters" ("characters just invented").

Clan specific.

cthia wrote:One reason that is so is the existence of one important resource. Education - which includes school systems, sex education and clinics. And perhaps even laws, religions, and governments supporting the right of abortions, which leads to the access of birth control. See my notion above, the more educated may generally become more aware of the stalls and pitfalls of rampant unplanned births. And they instill that notion in their offspring.

I would never have characterised the availability of education as a resource in the same way as food. It is indeed a crucial asset that changes how people behave in many ways, not just reproduction and pairing. Most importantly, as you've noted, the fact that the more education there is, the less it seems people produce offspring. The same goes to access to healthcare: the more you have, the fewer children you need in order to ensure some survive and to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

But the fact is that only sentients can have education, learn, understand our impact in the environment and culture around us, and make non-immediate plans (yes, there are animals that can plan for the non-immediate future, but nowhere to the same level as us). My argument was that treecats, as sentients themselves, do have this kind of thinking, which allows them to override the natural urges and apply rational limitations. And treecats most certainly do have education.

For the sake of my leg of the conversation and considering what I originally posited, I see no need to distinguish between the two. If a Cat chooses to adopt a naval officer, he, or she, has very limited access to another Cat for sexual gratification, procreation, or marriage. Even if a Sphinxian Cat mirrors the short time it takes a Terran cat to mate, even less than a minute is irrelevant if there is no other Cat onboard ship, no bars, no Cat courtesans, and no shore leave in other systems featuring this access. Which may be why some Cats find the forestry service or adopting on-planet desirable.

Agreed that a treecat that adopts a Naval officer or anyone who goes off-Sphinx has very limited access to other treecats, especially for sex as there was exactly one female treecat in the Navy.

I don't see where this argument leads to.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And humans have a lot of examples of where marriages were done for convenience and may not have produced heirs (biologic or otherwise).

cthia wrote:That includes a can of worms I don't wish to tackle in this forum of sexually repressed mores, which includes the notion of "gold digger - male and female," and the despicable notion that a man cannot legally rape his wife. Even Nimitz chased Samantha.

We don't have to address why they happened or the thinking behind each of the partners. We just have to recognise that they do.

For the record, I was mostly thinking of noble families in Europe who married children off for the sake of alliances. See also Game of Thrones.

Nothing preventing them except their life of traipsing across a galaxy completely devoid of their kind.

Naval treecats are the extreme minority of treecats that adopt. The vast majority of treecats who adopt two-legs stay on Sphinx, mostly even with the Forestry Service, which means their access to other treecats is almost unrestricted (they probably live with their humans, which probably means away from a clan's range).

And we've been told these treecats, almost all of them male, do not choose life-time mates. But we are not told that they are celibate.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:With that explanation, let me rephrase with different terms: adoption of a two-legs does make a treecat less open to "marriage." Whether the treecat has to have his sexual needs satisfied is besides the point.

cthia wrote:I still can't agree with the latter, but do you really believe the former? Of a species who have a "mettle detector" which detects the perfect mettle in a soul mate? Their perfect Soul of Steel? I agree they may be less apt to find that soul mate while adopted. But if, BAM! TREECAT LIGHTNING strikes, you don't think that could change? To be "madly in love" is probably species concentric.

What is there for me to argue? The word is given: treecats who adopt seldom ever also find mates. You or I don't have to think this is how the story should have been told, but we're not the author. David decides and he decided they don't.

I'm also not saying what you described never happens. It's impossible to prove it will never happen, even in-Universe. Even if it's a random mutation allowing it. What we can tell is that it has either never happened so far or happened so seldom that it's not worth mentioning.

We may also not know why it happens (treecat neurological studies have only just begun), but we know there's a high correlation between treecats that adopt and those that don't mate. It seems that the adoption is the cause of the lack of mating, but we may be falling into the correlation is not causation fallacy. It would be interesting to know if there are single treecats in the clans and if those have a higher propensity for adoption.

Anyway, here's a maxim I use with junior developers I work with: do not argue with the evidence. Instead, seek to explain how what we've observed is possible.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Like how the Tolkien newsletter was named Vinyar Tengwar, with vinya "new" and tengwa "letter" (-r is the nominative plural in Quenya for those words). But tengwa stands for "letter" in the sense of "character" and Elves do not need to name missives composed of letters, words and paragraphs "a letter." In my native language, those two things do not share the same word. The name of the newsletter could mean "novelty characters" ("characters just invented").

cthia wrote:Clan specific.

Nai Ilúvatar tana calá cellórain (may Ilúvatar show the light to the blind)

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I would never have characterised the availability of education as a resource in the same way as food.

Why not? If God is real, it begets everything else.

Education is the opening wager of being highly sentient. It begets "food for thought" and "food for the soul."

Then there's the notion of giving a man a fish so he can eat for a day. And teaching him to fish so he can eat a lifetime. And eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

****** *

John 4 wrote:Jesus and the Samaritan Woman

1 When Jesus realized that the Pharisees were aware He was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John 2(although it was not Jesus who baptized, but His disciples), 3He left Judea and returned to Galilee.

4Now He had to pass through Samaria. 5So He came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6Since Jacob’s well was there, Jesus, weary from His journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink. 8( His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

9“You are a Jew, said the woman. “How can You ask for a drink from me, a Samaritan woman? (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

10Jesus answered, “If you knew the gift of God and who is asking you for a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.

11“Sir, the woman replied, “You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where then will You get this living water? 12Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock?

13Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again. 14But whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a fount of water springing up to eternal life.

15The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water so that I will not get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.

16Jesus told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.

17“I have no husband, the woman replied.

Jesus said to her, “You are correct to say that you have no husband. 18In fact, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. You have spoken truthfully.

19“Sir, the woman said, “I see that You are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the place where one must worship is in Jerusalem.

21“Believe Me, woman, Jesus replied, “a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But a time is coming and has now come when the TRUE worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” ( called Christ) “is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.

26 Jesus answered, “I who speak to you am He.

The Disciples Return and Marvel

27Just then His disciples returned and were surprised that He was speaking with a woman. But no one asked Him, “What do You want from her? or “Why are You talking with her?

28Then the woman left her water jar, went back into the town, and said to the people, 29“Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ? 30So they left the town and made their way toward Jesus.

31Meanwhile the disciples urged Him, “Rabbi, eat something.

32But He told them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.

33So the disciples asked one another, “Could someone have brought Him food?

34 Jesus explained, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to finish His work. 35Do you not say, ‘There are still four months until the harvest’? I tell you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are ripe for harvest.

36Already the reaper draws his wages and gathers a crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may rejoice together. 37For in this case the saying ‘One sows and another reaps is true. 38I sent you to reap what you have not worked for; others have done the hard work, and now you have taken up their labor.

Many Samaritans Believe

39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in Jesus because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did. 40So when the Samaritans came to Him, they asked Him to stay with them, and He stayed two days.

41And many more believed because of His message. 42 They said to the woman, “We now believe not only because of your words; we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man truly is the Savior of the world.

cthia wrote:When it comes right down to it at the end of the day, I'd imagine they are inseparable. Ever heard of a sexually stimulating mind? I've been told by many a mate that I give good mind. Many a Cat has probably heard the same thing I have, "You blow my mind."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I don't think that applies to treecats or humans. Intellectual stimulation does not need to lead to sexual relations.

cthia wrote::lol: Not only does it lead to it in many cases. It leads to it in many cases when it shouldn't. It also has a tendency to lead to marriage. There's no such thing as bad sex to a man. Only bad after-sex, for them both, because there is no common denominator to fuel or support any "emotionally bonding" discussions. Surely you've heard or have been party to, "There was simply nothing to talk about after the deed was done."

ThinksMarkedly wrote:"You blow my mind" has no etymological relation to sex either. It's only recent that two separate actions have converged to use the same verb. As a non-native speaker of English, I never make such connections in English idioms. There's simply no matching set of constructions to complete the allusion.

cthia wrote:What??? Well, since you aren't American that may account for the misnomer. In America it began as a sexual connotation. Wiki says it's conception (pun intended) is a song in 1965. There is also . . .

Didn't I blow Your Mind

Blow Your Mind

Blow My Mind

Ad nauseum.

There is also mind-blowing orgasms. And kisses. The point is that the mind is a very erotic device. I anticipate that notion to be cataclysmic amongst a species of empathic "Cats," who find their Soul Mate.

It would be remiss of me not to point out that originally, "rap music" had a very different meaning which involves sex.

The original rap music included such artists as Barry White, who was influenced by his predecessor Isaac Hayes. Their music featured sexually stimulating conversation with the objective of literally talking a woman out of her undergarments. That is what is originally referred to as "rapping."

I Stand Accused Isaac Hayes

Love Serenade Barry White

Love Serenade Lyrics:

Take it off, baby, take it all off
I wanna see you the way you came into the world
I don't wanna feel no clothes, I don't wanna see no panties
And take off that brassiere, my dear, everybody's gone
I'm taking the receiver off the phone because baby you and me
This night we're gonna get it on to love serenade
You know I get in these moods, well you know how it is
And I'm very glad to know that you feel the same way too
Baby we're gonna lay here and gonna make love
And we're gonna do it like it's supposed to be done
Heaven only knows what goes on behind closed doors
The very depths of our souls will reach out tonight
You and me, baby in love serenade, oh baby, oh baby
Make me want you, tempt me, tempt me, tempt me
Make me need you, let me long for you
You'll know what it's like when a man and woman becomes one
And the only real way you can do that baby
Is when we're makin' love to each other
When you reach that, that simple feeling
When you're makin' love it's, it's like you're in another world
Help me, help me, oh baby help me
Lord have mercy on me

****** *

Sexually stimulating conversation is a very powerful sexual device which manipulates the mind. It is almost a form of brain washing. Very suggestive lyrics set to music is irresistible if used properly by the right "courtesan." Unless attempted by a complete cad, the music does the work for you. It never failed to achieve the desired results.

I used the device with reckless abandon as an oversexed teenager. I recorded cassette tapes with nothing but this type of mood music. I labeled various tapes "Panty Lines."

They were so powerful that friends would beg to borrow them. They would swear by them. Male and female alike across all boundaries. Of those tapes, Panty Lines #1 may be responsible for a population explosion in the era of baby boomers after I took them to college and released them into the wild. LOL

The mind is extremely sexually arousing.

In fact, "rapping" also refers to the method which Pimps used to talk a woman into prostitution in the old days. It is seen in most of those old movies of the genre. And in some current ones too.

Mind control is a notion tossed about regarding treecats. Perhaps Cats subtly rap their way into your heart, with the mind blurring speed of thought. Perhaps it is a highly evolved form of subliminal programming.

OMG, are treecats simply Pimps? LOL

OMG, and some of them sing too.

cthia wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I would never have characterised the availability of education as a resource in the same way as food.

Why not? If God is real, it begets everything else.

To be clear: I didn't mean that it shouldn't be done. I meant to say it had never occurred to me to do so.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:My argument was that treecats, as sentients themselves, do have this kind of thinking, which allows them to override the natural urges and apply rational limitations. And treecats most certainly do have education.

I can't agree with that either. Override God's manifesto - and hardwiring - to "Go forth and multiply."

Even two-legs have a hard time (no pun intended) of doing so as well. That is why we need target rich environments which include bars, bunny ranches, courtesans and groundside shore leave. Even porno. We can side step the multiplication with subtraction. Abortion, manual stimulation, condoms, IUDs, and birth control. But the need, urge, and desire will always remain. Lest advanced age or failing health. If humans can't copulate, we become irritable, and some people oftentimes become criminal. In cases of failed equipment, the ever present desire prompts us into getting surgery to implant pumps to enable "saluting the flag."

None of these options are available to a cat. Their mind cannot turn off their innate desire, and need, to procreate. Now, I may be open to a suggestion that adoption may alter a cat's sexual cycle to coincide with a two-legs' - in the same manner that several women living together will eventually experience concurrent menstruation - but that argument no more solves a cat's problem than it solves the two-legs'.

Armies of old had a convoy of women marching behind them as a sexual resource. Or they took what they needed as they conquered. Perhaps treecats onboard ship should have cat courtesans onboard to help out. Shrug.

The author may say the adoption simply flips a switch. If such a switch exists in humans, we'd have it disconnected.

The need is so innate and raw that kids find themselves frightened by the sudden changes and urges in their body overpowering them.