eight sexual harmonics

2 views
Skip to first unread message

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 10, 2020, 12:39:47 AM4/10/20
to
Near the end of the Recent Changes section of my
Salmon on the Thorns web page I describe my theory of
eight sexual harmonics.

For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
God as "it". However I am considering switching to
the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"And the cart is on a wheel/And the wheel is on a hill/And the
hill is shifting sand/And inside these laws we stand" (Ferron)

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 10, 2020, 5:02:41 PM4/10/20
to
On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
(in
article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org>):

> Near the end of the Recent Changes section of my
> Salmon on the Thorns web page I describe my theory of
> eight sexual harmonics.
>
> For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.

and can be identified with by everyone

Perhaps I should use God/dess but I find that awkward, and
if the word actor can be gender nonspecific I think the
word God can as well.

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 14, 2020, 5:43:01 PM4/14/20
to
On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
(in
article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org>):

> Near the end of the Recent Changes section of my
> Salmon on the Thorns web page I describe my theory of
> eight sexual harmonics.
>
> For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.

Here is a brief summary of the eight harmonics theory for those
who, like me, are reluctant to click on links in a Usenet newsgroup
post, especially http rather than https:

I have a theory of four orientations (purestraight, gay/lesbian, bisexual
by nature, and fourth orientation compatible only with bisexual by
nature of the opposite gender) and two spiritual genders, so effectively
eight harmonics (1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F). However one
must also be careful to watch for transgender cases (e.g. 1MT would
be spiritually purestraight male in a female body) and multispirit
individuals, which I define not as transgender but as individuals
with more than one harmonic, generally equal number of male
and female harmonics, and usually two-spirit, e.g. 3F/2MT, but
I did come across one four-spirit individual, 1M/2M/1FT/2FT,
compatible with everyone other than 4F and 4M, so far, and a
3M/3FT or 3F/3MT would be at least partially compatible with
everybody, and if there was an eight-spirit individual they would
be optimally compatible with everyone, as would a 1M/1F/3M/3F.

When I say bisexual by nature I mean someone who feels
sexual attraction to both genders, but can be honestly either
bisexual, straight, celibate, or gay/lesbian by lifestyle choice.
When I say partially compatible I mean less likely to
stick, so a 1M is optimally compatible with a 1F but
only partially compatible with a 3F, and I think also
that a 3F is only partially compatible with a 3M but
is optimally compatible with a 4M, 3F, or 2F.

I base my theory partly on my own sexual attractions (I think
I am 4M) but I also used it, with at least one confirmed 1M/3FT
result, when I thought I had a matchmaking siddhi (paranormal
ability) from late March 8 to early March 20, 2019, which
I hope will return someday. When I say above that I came
across a 1M/2M/1FT/2FT, that was using my ability on a
picture and it has not yet been confirmed. And through
what I call assisted shaktipat I have been trying to pass
on the ability to at least a million individuals worldwide,
who should benefit from my theory. But if not, the theory
should be able to be researched and applied through surveys.
The confusing part is that many who are bisexual by nature
are straight by lifestyle choice, and some gay/lesbian (sexually
attracted to just the same gender) are dishonestly (although
unfortunately forced in some cases) trying to be bisexual or straight.

I do not believe there are asexuals, though a 4M who has had
no experience yet with 3F might think that he is.

The Millennium Wombat

unread,
Apr 15, 2020, 2:39:42 PM4/15/20
to
On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 22:43:01 UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
> (in
> article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org>):

Wow, what a load of offensive twaddle. Let me pick out some of the worst bits.

> > For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> > deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> > non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> > God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> > the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> > and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.

"God is sexually compatible with humans" - offensive to many monotheists (and the kind of heresy that the Catholics used to burn people to death for).

> Here is a brief summary of the eight harmonics theory for those
> who, like me, are reluctant to click on links in a Usenet newsgroup
> post, especially http rather than https:
>
> I have a theory

This is offensive to me as a scientist. It's not a theory: a theory is a hypothesis plus evidence. You've been posting about this for many years and you've yet to mention ANY evidence outside of yourself. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not offer testable propositions. The best word for it would probably be to call it a "notion".

> of four orientations (purestraight, gay/lesbian, bisexual
> by nature, and fourth orientation compatible only with bisexual by
> nature of the opposite gender)

Insisting on calling bisexuals "bisexuals by nature", but not adding "by nature" to any of the others, is subtly offensive, as is adorning straight with the word "pure" but not extending that to gay people or lesbians. Your biases are showing.

> and two spiritual genders,

Offensive to non-binary, genderqueer, and third gender people directly, and all those of us who got over the idea of the gender binary decades ago.

There are not just two genders. Different cultures have different ideas about gender and they don't always define two (or any). Gender is performative.

> so effectively
> eight harmonics (1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F). However one
> must also be careful to watch for transgender cases (e.g. 1MT would
> be spiritually purestraight male in a female body)

Transphobic.

> and multispirit
> individuals, which I define not as transgender but as individuals
> with more than one harmonic, generally equal number of male
> and female harmonics, and usually two-spirit, e.g. 3F/2MT, but
> I did come across one four-spirit individual, 1M/2M/1FT/2FT,
> compatible with everyone other than 4F and 4M, so far, and a
> 3M/3FT or 3F/3MT would be at least partially compatible with
> everybody, and if there was an eight-spirit individual they would
> be optimally compatible with everyone, as would a 1M/1F/3M/3F.
>
> When I say bisexual by nature I mean someone who feels
> sexual attraction to both genders, but can be honestly either
> bisexual, straight, celibate, or gay/lesbian by lifestyle choice.
> When I say partially compatible I mean less likely to
> stick, so a 1M is optimally compatible with a 1F but
> only partially compatible with a 3F, and I think also
> that a 3F is only partially compatible with a 3M but
> is optimally compatible with a 4M, 3F, or 2F.
>
> I base my theory partly on my own sexual attractions (I think
> I am 4M) but I also used it, with at least one confirmed 1M/3FT
> result, when I thought I had a matchmaking siddhi (paranormal
> ability)

Perceived paranormal powers cannot be supporting evidence for a theory, because evidence must be testable, and by definition, supernatural things aren't testable in the natural world.

> from late March 8 to early March 20, 2019, which
> I hope will return someday. When I say above that I came
> across a 1M/2M/1FT/2FT, that was using my ability on a
> picture and it has not yet been confirmed. And through
> what I call assisted shaktipat I have been trying to pass
> on the ability to at least a million individuals worldwide,
> who should benefit from my theory. But if not, the theory
> should be able to be researched and applied through surveys.
> The confusing part is that many who are bisexual by nature
> are straight by lifestyle choice, and some gay/lesbian (sexually
> attracted to just the same gender) are dishonestly (although
> unfortunately forced in some cases) trying to be bisexual or straight.

That's the confusing part?

> I do not believe there are asexuals, though a 4M who has had
> no experience yet with 3F might think that he is.

Need I mention to which group this is offensive?

Jon.

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 18, 2020, 7:16:10 PM4/18/20
to
In article
<0001HW.244665E300...@news.eternal-september.org>,
A 4M would be asexual with respect to 1M, 1F, 2M, 2F, 3M, 4M, 4F
but not with respect to 3F, but would be with respect to a
2F pretending to be a 3F, and also with respect to a 3MT.

And, as should be obvious from my above statements,
a 4F who has had no experience yet with a 3M might think
that she is asexual. Also some gays and some lesbians
might claim to be asexual, and are certainly asexual
with respect to the opposite gender. And some people
might be low in some hormones and could benefit from
hormone supplementation.

A 4F would be asexual with respect to 1M, 1F, 2M, 2F, 3F, 4M, 4F
but not with respect to 3M, but would be with respect to a
2M pretending to be a 3M, and also with respect to a 3FT.

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 18, 2020, 7:37:43 PM4/18/20
to
In article <175b2f66-fe4e-4fde...@googlegroups.com>,
The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 22:43:01 UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
> > (in
> > article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org>):
>
> Wow, what a load of offensive twaddle. Let me pick out some of the worst
> bits.
>
> > > For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> > > deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> > > non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> > > God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> > > the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> > > and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.
>
> "God is sexually compatible with humans" - offensive to many monotheists (and
> the kind of heresy that the Catholics used to burn people to death for).

and God can be identified with by everyone

Also I am an individual neopagan, not a Catholic any more.

> > Here is a brief summary of the eight harmonics theory for those
> > who, like me, are reluctant to click on links in a Usenet newsgroup
> > post, especially http rather than https:
> >
> > I have a theory
>
> This is offensive to me as a scientist. It's not a theory: a theory is a
> hypothesis plus evidence. You've been posting about this for many years and
> you've yet to mention ANY evidence outside of yourself. It's not even a
> hypothesis, because it does not offer testable propositions. The best word
> for it would probably be to call it a "notion".

A theory is something that can be tested by searching for
evidence, as mine could be by surveys/interviews.

>
> > of four orientations (purestraight, gay/lesbian, bisexual
> > by nature, and fourth orientation compatible only with bisexual by
> > nature of the opposite gender)
>
> Insisting on calling bisexuals "bisexuals by nature", but not adding "by
> nature" to any of the others, is subtly offensive, as is adorning straight
> with the word "pure" but not extending that to gay people or lesbians. Your
> biases are showing.


I use bisexual by nature since some bisexuals (attracted to
both genders) are straight by lifestyle choice (choose
to have sex just with the opposite sex), and also
unfortunately some gays and lesbians try to act bisexual
or straight (though this is forced in some societies/religions).
Also I think bisexuals are far more common that surveys
might indicate.

Perhaps purestraight is not a good term, since they are not
particularly pure, especially when they have a series
of relationships with bisexuals of the opposite gender,
but are when they get hooked up with a purestraight of
the opposite gender. But in my theory I have two types of
straight: purestraight, optimally compatible with purestraight
of the opposite gender, and fourth orientation, compatible
only with bisexual(s) of the opposite gender, and also
many bisexuals say they are straight.
>
> > and two spiritual genders,
>
> Offensive to non-binary, genderqueer, and third gender people directly, and
> all those of us who got over the idea of the gender binary decades ago.

I think those are what I call multispirit individuals, though
some may be simply transgendered.

> There are not just two genders. Different cultures have different ideas about
> gender and they don't always define two (or any). Gender is performative.
>
> > so effectively
> > eight harmonics (1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F). However one
> > must also be careful to watch for transgender cases (e.g. 1MT would
> > be spiritually purestraight male in a female body)
>
> Transphobic.

1MT would be optimally compatible with 1F but might have
to settle for 3F. When I say watch for I mean in
seeking evidence for the theory.

> > and multispirit
> > individuals, which I define not as transgender but as individuals
> > with more than one harmonic, generally equal number of male
> > and female harmonics, and usually two-spirit, e.g. 3F/2MT, but
> > I did come across one four-spirit individual, 1M/2M/1FT/2FT,
> > compatible with everyone other than 4F and 4M, so far, and a
> > 3M/3FT or 3F/3MT would be at least partially compatible with
> > everybody, and if there was an eight-spirit individual they would
> > be optimally compatible with everyone, as would a 1M/1F/3M/3F.
> >
> > When I say bisexual by nature I mean someone who feels
> > sexual attraction to both genders, but can be honestly either
> > bisexual, straight, celibate, or gay/lesbian by lifestyle choice.
> > When I say partially compatible I mean less likely to
> > stick, so a 1M is optimally compatible with a 1F but
> > only partially compatible with a 3F, and I think also
> > that a 3F is only partially compatible with a 3M but
> > is optimally compatible with a 4M, 3F, or 2F.
> >
> > I base my theory partly on my own sexual attractions (I think
> > I am 4M) but I also used it, with at least one confirmed 1M/3FT
> > result, when I thought I had a matchmaking siddhi (paranormal
> > ability)
>
> Perceived paranormal powers cannot be supporting evidence for a theory,
> because evidence must be testable, and by definition, supernatural things
> aren't testable in the natural world.

So yes, it is based mainly on my own sexual experiences and
attractions, but the matches that I intuited from late March 8
to early March 20, 2019, including e.g. 4F Joni Mitchell
with 3M Tom Waits, are testable.
>
> > from late March 8 to early March 20, 2019, which
> > I hope will return someday. When I say above that I came
> > across a 1M/2M/1FT/2FT, that was using my ability on a
> > picture and it has not yet been confirmed. And through
> > what I call assisted shaktipat I have been trying to pass
> > on the ability to at least a million individuals worldwide,
> > who should benefit from my theory. But if not, the theory
> > should be able to be researched and applied through surveys.
> > The confusing part is that many who are bisexual by nature
> > are straight by lifestyle choice, and some gay/lesbian (sexually
> > attracted to just the same gender) are dishonestly (although
> > unfortunately forced in some cases) trying to be bisexual or straight.
>
> That's the confusing part?

Yes, if you survey people and some bisexuals say they
are straight and some lesbians say they are bisexual.
That would have to be accounted for in testing the
theory; orientation must be based just on who one
is attracted to.
>
> > I do not believe there are asexuals, though a 4M who has had
> > no experience yet with 3F might think that he is.
>
> Need I mention to which group this is offensive?

I commented on asexuals more in another followup a little
while ago

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 18, 2020, 7:54:41 PM4/18/20
to
In article
<dalton.nfld-648A...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
As for non-binary people, I think they are probably
what I call multispirit, though some may be simply
transgendered (for example one I observed last
March is a 3MT, spiritually bisexual male originally
in a female body, but has partially transitioned).

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 18, 2020, 8:10:05 PM4/18/20
to
In article
<dalton.nfld-3BBD...@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
David Dalton <dalto...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <175b2f66-fe4e-4fde...@googlegroups.com>,
> The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 22:43:01 UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
> > > (in
> > > article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org>)
> > > :
> >
> > Wow, what a load of offensive twaddle. Let me pick out some of the worst
> > bits.
> >
> > > > For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> > > > deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> > > > non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> > > > God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> > > > the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> > > > and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.
> >
> > "God is sexually compatible with humans" - offensive to many monotheists
> > (and
> > the kind of heresy that the Catholics used to burn people to death for).
>
> and God can be identified with by everyone
>
> Also I am an individual neopagan, not a Catholic any more.

But I do refer to God as "it", not "he".

Steve Pope

unread,
Apr 18, 2020, 9:08:24 PM4/18/20
to
Rather then commenting on the whole thing, I'll just say that
the preferred term is transgender, not trangendered.

Steve

David Dalton

unread,
Apr 22, 2020, 4:26:46 PM4/22/20
to
On Apr 18, 2020, Steve Pope wrote
(in article <r7g8a7$7dv$1...@blue-new.rahul.net>):
OK, thanks. But then why are the newsgroups named
alt.transgendered and soc.support.transgendered ?

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Early morning jubilators/Up to no good instigators.../Sons of long
forgotten races/That the darkest night embraces." (Hynes/O'Doherty)


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages