quest


I am a woman of 64 and my quest is to find a mindmate
to grow old together as a mutually devoted couple
in a relationship based upon the
egalitarian rational commitment paradigm
bonded by intrinsic commitment
as each other's safe haven and secure basis.

The purpose of this blog is to enable the right man
to recognize us as reciprocal mindmates and
to encourage him to contact me:
marulaki@hotmail.com


The entries directly concerning,
who could be my mindmate,
are mainly at the beginning.
If this is your predominant interest,
I suggest to read this blog in the same order
as it was written, following the numbers.

I am German, therefore my English is sometimes faulty.

Maybe you have stumbled upon this blog not as a potential match.
Please wait a short moment before zapping.

Do you know anybody, who could be my mindmate?
Your neighbour, brother, uncle, cousin, colleague, friend?
If so, please tell him to look at this blog.
While you have no reason to do this for me,
a stranger, maybe you can make someone happy, for whom you care.

Do you have your own webpage or blog,
which someone like my mindmate to be found probably reads?
If so, please mention my quest and add a link to this blog.


Saturday, July 5, 2014

718. A Fascinating Novel - Jack London: Before Adam

718.   A Fascinating Novel -  Jack London:  Before Adam

I just finished listening to the audio version of this novel, available on Librivox.    And even though they may never know, a big thanks to all those volunteers, who give me the chance to listen to good books.   

In other entries, I have explained how the ability for emotional attachment is a part of the unique human evolution, which could only co-evolve along with the general cognitive and rational abilities.  My source of such ideas is reading a lot about recent evolutionary biology and psychology.  

Jack London wrote his novel in 1906/7, at times, when evolution was still a widely disputed concept.   While this novel contains certainly a lot of imagination based upon limited scientific reality, his achievement is nevertheless very remarkable.   He was able to brilliantly illustrate the evolutionary state of people, whose limited empathy and emotional attachment were in sync with their limited intelligence and their limited theory of mind.  

I doubt that anybody with current knowledge of evolutionary biology, anthropology and archaeology could write a much better novel.  

Monday, June 30, 2014

717. The Difference Between Animals And Humans

717.   The Difference Between Animals And Humans

Some people deny, that there is any decisive difference between animals and humans.   To me such a claim seems to be made by those in need of an excuse for allowing themselves the behavior of animals in disregard for the consequences. 

The most significant difference is the human ability of memorize sufficient knowledge and experience, which enables only humans for the long term anticipation of the consequences of their behavior.   Thus they are capable to recognize the harmful effects of instinctive behavior to an extent, which can lead to the conscious decision against such behavior.  

Under natural conditions, at some times animals find plenty of food, at others none.    Their instinct to eat as much as possible to store body fat is an evolutionary advantage for survival.   Until 10 000 years ago, and sometimes even much later, this was also the case for humans.
Today the reasoning ability enables humans to not always give in to the impulse to eat, because they want to avoid the anticipated consequence of obesity.    More precisely, the reasoning supplies the knowledge, but the balance between the power of instinctivity and the counter power of rationality and willpower determine the behavior.   Therefore some people are more than others able to keep their weight between healthy limits.  
Overfed pets just get fatter and fatter. 

It is the same concerning the survival of the species.    Animals do not hesitate to copulate, when they are driven by instincts, because they are unable to know, that at some time later, they will be severely punished with the atrocity of giving birth and the burden of raising the offspring.    
Only humans are capable to recognize early enough, that the survival of the species and procreation is a form of self-harming for the individual person.   The cognitive ability of a considerable number of humans to consciously reject procreation is a very unique trait of humans. 

The critical cognitive distance from instincts and the resulting freedom of decision is therefore what makes humans unique.   This ability to prevent self-harming comes along with the ability to also know, when the own behaviors cause harm and suffering to others.

 
When a cat catches a bird and drops it somewhere seriously wounded, the cat lacks any ability to recognize the suffering of the bird.  The same holds true too, when animals seriously hurt each other during struggles for the alpha position.   Animals cannot know, when the side effect of their instinctive behavior is strong suffering.
Humans can know this. Therefore it cannot be morally justified, that many humans use and consider their cognitive qualities only as a tool serving a more successful application of their instincts.   This aggravates the suffering of others instead of avoiding and preventing it.  People, who consciously follow their instinct, are knowingly cruel.  

This means that the cognitive ability to recognize the consequences of the own behavior brings along the moral obligation to avoid harm and suffering of others as much as of oneself.

 
Unfortunately, many people live by double standards.   When they benefit from using their rational brain, they do it.   But when others are concerned, they allow themselves willingly to be ruthlessly determined by instinctive drives. 

The same hunter, who during the day shoots animals feeling entitled to do so due to being a human, nevertheless claims in the evening his right to follow his animal nature by copulating like an alley dog with a prostitute, not perceiving the woman as an abused and degraded human being but only as an object.   Shooting at humans of another country or ethnic group driven by the ingroup-outgroup instinct, he also has allowed himself to be controlled by an animal instinct, even though his reason could recognize this as absurd, as animal but as certainly not human.

Who feels superior to animals due to being human should also be congruent in not giving in to his own animal urges.    Excusing and condoning animal behavior by misrepresenting it as the human nature is not only absurd, but also the consequences are fatal, usually for all parties involved.

Friday, June 20, 2014

716: Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution

716:  Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution


Definition: 
I call persons, who copulate without neither getting emotionally attached nor wishing this to happen, as alley dogs.
Copulation like alley dogs is a regression to behaviors prevalent before the specific cognitive qualities of the human brain had evolved.
  

Evolution is not a master plan. As long as a species survives, this only indicates, that in the past the evolutionary net sum of instinctive and in the case of humans also innate cognitive tendencies has resulted in a sufficient amount of procreation.  

Some millions of years ago, when the ancestors of present day humans were still only animals, they copulated by instinct as all animals do.  Some months later it was followed by the birth of the youngster(s).   
At that moment, they had no conscious memory of the copulation and they were not aware, that the agony of birth was caused by the copulation.   
When they copulated, they were also unable to anticipate, that giving birth was the punishment for the female.   
Lacking the comprehension of this causality, they also had no way to avoid the agony of further procreation.

Then the unique evolution of the human cognition began.   One of the aspects thereof is the longterm memory and the ability to anticipate the future consequences of the own and of others' behavior.  This enabled the co-evolution of purely cognitive emotions, which derive from reasoning and not from bodily sensations.   Cognitive emotions are very distinct from sensations like fear in the situation of a real danger or pain after being physically wounded.  

Some of these cognitive emotions are: 
  1. Emotional attachment based upon invisible cognitive traits.  
    It is difficult to define love or to put such feeling into words.  But with certainty, whatever there is, it cannot be called love without cognition derived emotional attachment. Traits leading to emotional attachment can be honesty, reliability, empathy, but also intelligence and education, which make it rewarding to be together.

  2. Rational empathy and a theory of mind.  
    By this someone has knowledge about how another person is going to react,  This is more than the anticipation of visible behavior, but also the anticipation of the invisible cognitive emotions.  This includes also those situations, when the reaction of the other will be very distinct from the own reaction under identical circumstances. 

  3. Responsibility and consideration.   When being in advance aware of the consequences and impact of the own behavior upon others, responsibility is the cognitive ability to prevent hurting others by the avoidance of anticipated own cognitive emotions like guilt, shame, remorse.
     
  4. Awareness for invisible emotional reactions caused by invisible experiences.   
    This includes taking full account of feelings of selfworth and identity of the self and in others and how these are elicited and effected by interactions.   Examples are appreciation, depreciation, adulation, disdain, honor, equality, indignation, injustice, pride, entitlement and much more.
Sometimes such qualities are called emotional intelligence.  

By instinct only, alley dogs are male, while females attempt to exploit a man as a provider for the children, who get her full attachment, while he gets a subscription to the repeated use of her body.

When cognition modifies the raw instincts, emotional attachment to an intimate partner happens usually fast or immediately in women.  For men usually more repetitions are needed, before the subjective experience of the alley dog copulation is converted into the emotional attachment of making love.
 
Had there been a continued linear evolution of only a growing strength of rationality and cognitive emotions like the one in the list above over instincts, this would have enabled and motivated more and more people to avoid harming others.    As a logical side effect, this would have drastically reduced procreation and maybe the human species would already have been extinct.
Until safe family planning was available, a truly considerate and responsible man would have rather refrained from physical intimacy than ever risking to cause suffering for a woman, who was not fully wishing to have children.   

But the human species did not get extinct.  Some alley dogs continue to sire alley dogs and prevail in the gene pool.  I can see several reasons. 
  1. Some people, mostly men are just like animals, because they lack the human emotional restrictions which would prevent them from copulating like alley dogs.  Their behavior is not guided or determined by cognitive emotions.    They contribute more to the gene pool by having more offspring than the considerate men.  Genghis Khan is a good example.  He is reported to have raped thousands of women and his genes are supposed be present in millions of Asians.
    1.1.  They can be generally limited in their ability to feel cognitive emotions, as in the case of Alexithymia.   They are not aware, what pain they cause to people, who want to be loved, because they themselves do not know love and are unable to experience emotional attachment.

    1.2.  They know, what they do, but do not care, because they are not able to feel guilt, shame or remorse.   They are sociopaths.  
  2. The availability of safe birth control has made the consideration for preventing the threat of pregnancy as the most drastic consequence of alley dog copulation obsolete.  
    It needs less cognitive quality to be able to refrain from doing something as drastic as making a woman pregnant. 
    To refrain from abusing a woman as a toilet for body waste because of respect for her brain, to spare the woman the invisible suffering of indignation, devaluation, objectification and humiliation requires a much higher level of cognitive quality in a man.  Less men have it.
    Being free of the fear of pregnancy is great.   But unfortunately it came with the price of the disgust of being (or at my age having been) too frequently approached by alley dogs.
     
  3. The human brain including the ability for empathy has evolved for coping with the life in small groups or communities.   Now people are suddenly (seen in the evolutionary timeline) flooded by the media with very realistic representations of extreme atrocities.  This representations are so realistic, that the subconscious brain cannot distinguish between such pictures or movies and real life. 
    Nobody can react permanently with full empathy to this extreme amount of exposure. 
    Desensitization is an unavoidable consequence.  

    When a man grows up munching chips while indifferently watching a movie, in which a woman is raped, it is not really astonishing that he will consider hurting 'only' a woman's feeling as a trifle in comparison.    

    When a woman grows up sitting in the safety of her home in front of a TV, she also gets a very biased picture.  On TV women are presented as willingly and happily doing and wanting themselves, what really only benefits selfish men.  On TV, these women get rewarded, but never emotionally harmed.  The watching real woman is thus misguided to underestimate, what she gets herself into by making the mistake of complying or imitating behavior, which really is an expression of male instinctivity and male wishes.  When this woman unexpectedly gets very hurt, she learns to understand reality too late and the hard way.
  4. When one person hurts another, no matter if it is the alley dog the loving woman or any other situation, there are two different perspectives.  
    4.1.  The difference between hurting and not hurting behavior is a choice, and therefore people with cognitive emotional quality take themselves the responsibility for what they do to others.
    They never use the behavior of the victim as an excuse, even if the victim could have avoided exposing himself to be vulnerable.

    4.2.  Under the impact of desensitization, people have a more selfish perspective based upon the entitlement to do, what they want.   Whoever gets hurt or harmed is attributed as either defective or too stupid to protect himself.  Therefore they feel justified to take no responsibility.   The victim of an alley dog is blamed for not being also an alley dog.  In the case that the suffering reactions of the victim annoy the alley dog, the victim is even blamed for diminishing the alley dog's benefits.

    This desensitization has contributed to a present social norm in many western societies, which defines alley dog copulation as allegedly healthy behavior.   Those, who get hurt, are supposed to use those remedies, which contribute to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.
It is sad.  All the amazing progress only leads to the material standard of life getting more and more comfortable.  But when it comes to the avoidance of non-physical suffering, there is no progress, but a regress to times before the evolution of the cognition.   

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

715. Love Cannot Be Defined, But A Loving Relationship Can

715.  Love Cannot Be Defined, But A Loving Relationship Can

Love is an emotion, which is felt and cannot be clearly defined.   It is easier to define, what is not love, than what is.  
The mere urge to copulate with a body is certainly not love but only a virulent expression of the procreation instinct.    Whatever form of attraction there may be, nothing can be called love with justification, unless there is the recognition and appreciation of the cognitive qualities and personality of the partner. 

The relationship of a couple can be defined as loving by behaviors, by which the quality of the bond between the partners is directly or indirectly expressed.
  
The criteria of a loving relationship:
  1. Emotional attachment and emotional intimacy
  2. Physical intimacy
  3. Some amount of intellectual intimacy, depending upon the amount of intelligence and education
  4. Exclusivity, each being special to the other in a way, which nobody else is
  5. No need or inclination to wish or to search for someone else
When all the above criteria for a loving relationship are present, and when the couple has also explicitly agreed to stay together indefinitely, then they have accepted to be a loving couple.  Obviously both experience sufficiently, whatever love means for them personally.

But when two persons share physical intimacy repeatedly with each other during a considerable time, even for years, and they do not consider themselves as a couple in a loving relationship, there can be very different arrangements.  

In the case, that it is really only physical intimacy and nothing else, then this is just a variety of reciprocal abuse and taking advantage of each other, while they prefer the practical advantage of avoiding the recurrent hunt and search for someone different.

But there is also the concept of friends with benefits (FWB), where the word friend really means true friendship, and is not just confounded as synonymous with mere acquaintance.   

A true friend is someone, with whom there are ties of emotional and intellectual intimacy in some form.    This is the essence of friendship.  When physical intimacy is added to the true friendship, then this combination contains all esential ingredients for a loving relationship.   

When the couple nevertheless explicitly puts emphasis upon the distinction of being FWB, but not being a loving couple, this means more often than not, that their are some serious personal problems.
  1. It can be a sign of selfishness and greed, when someone wants all the benefits of being in a loving relationship while also wanting all the advantages of being single.   It is an attempt to get all needs met while not having any obligations to also meet the other's needs.  
  2. There can be fear and apprehension.  
    Someone may fear commitment and obligations.  
    Someone may fear failure and getting the more hurt, the more he allows involvement.   
    Someone may be torn apart between the fear of a repetition of a very hurtful past experience and the wish to have a better relationship. Someone may fear to fail, would accepting love lead to the next step of further closeness by living together. 
    Someone may succeed to maintain the denial of such fears by insisting on the denial of any emotional involvement.  
  3. There can be unrealistic hopes and expectations.   The real quality of the present relationship is not appreciated as sufficient in comparison with imaginary ideals.  The relationship is considered as a temporary arrangement until either the ideal and perfect partner is found or until someone experiences that overwhelming sudden sensation, as which love is presented in fictional novels or movies. 


This FWB concept seems weird.

It cannot be explained by evolutionary biology.    By instinct, men want to sire as many offspring as possible with as many different sets of genes.   By instinct, women want commitment and attachment as the best way of provision for their offspring.   

While FWB does not cater for the needs of the instinct driven, it nevertheless also does not serve the specific needs of those with a very low instinctivity, the brainiacs, eggheads and intellectuals. Their needs for intellectual and emotional intimacy, for the companionship of shared extensive cultural and cognitive activities are best fulfilled in a close loving relationship.
 
Maybe FWB suits predominantly the needs of the people in the middle of the instinctivity bell curve, who are the most disturbed by their internal struggle between the contradictory forces of instincts versus rationality and self-control.  

As long as both persons implied want either love or FWB, they can get, what they want.   But sadly enough, often there is a disparity, probably when people differ very much in their level of instinctivity.  While one partner experiences all the criteria as given and thus himself as being in a loving relationship, the other is afflicted with some of the problems listed above and keeps on enforcing a distance by insisting to be only FWB.    

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

714. The Big Difference Between Childfree Women And Childfree Men

714.   The Big Difference Between Intrinsically Childfree Women And Childfree Men

A frequent topic discussed in groups or forums of childfree people is the difficulty to find a childfree partner.  

While all childfree people are different from more average people, unfortunately the biological differences between the genders seem to be more pronounced in the childfree than in instotypicals.   (I call those people, whose instinctivity suffices to facilitate the survival of the species, instotypicals.   Thus, all instotypicals are breeders, but being a breeder does not make someone automatically an instotypical)

The following is about intrinsically childfree people by inclination, not about breeders manqué including those by political considerations.

1.  Instotypical women (IW) are driven by an instinctive urge to breed.   Breeding is a function of their body, it requires no use of the brain.  Animals are breeding successfully, unless they have become extinct.
Therefore IWs identify with their body, their focus of self-improvement is upon the body, their self-worth depends upon their looks.   They consider their body as an asset, the improvement of their looks as an investment to find the man with good genes to sire healthy offspring and the man, who can provide for them.   For IW, they are often not the same.
 
Once IW have children, they become not only emotionally attached to them but even addicted to care for them. 
One consequence is their willingness to accept self-sacrifice, which could even be called self-abuse.  They choose the agony of giving birth, health risks, plus dull, unpleasant, abhorrent and annoying activities for years.   By accepting the chores of not only regular cleaning but even the changing of stinking diapers, they make themselves the slaves of selfish, very incompetent and irrational beings, who for many years remain unfit for any intellectually rewarding interaction.   IW accept to be the slaves of pre-human beings, which are more like animals.  
Once they have made these pre-human beings the significant center of their life, once the father is legally bound to pay, the IW often looses interest in the person of the man.  For her, he has become a purse, a bank account, a handyman, a taxi driver.  

2.  Instotypical men (IM) are driven by an instinctive urge to sire.   As the breeding outcome thereof cannot be predicted, the recurrent dishomeostasis does not depend on the breeding success.   The instinctive urge to sire is an urge to have as many offspring with as many healthy women as are available, it does not imply any attachment to the women nor any inclination to take part in raising the brood.   If an IM does, it is the price he is willing to pay to be subscribed to the recurrent access to the same woman's body.   Some men prefer this over the repeated hunting for new victims for siring attempts.    

3.  A childfree woman (CFW), who is not a breeder manqué, is this by lacking the breeding instinct.   This makes a lot of the body focused behavior of the IW obsolete or at least unimportant.  To find a companion to share cultural and intellectual activities, a woman needs other traits and qualities than good looks.  
It is the absence of the dominant instinctivity, which allows childfree women to recognize breeding as an unnecessary burden to refuse it.

4. In contrast to the CFW, childfree men (CFM) cannot be explained or defined by the absence of a breeding instinct, which even male breeders do not have.   For any man, being the provider of children adds a heavy burden upon his life, especially if the number of the children restricts the mother to be only a housewife.    Wishing to avoid as much as possible of the stress of the professional rat race, and additionally disliking the deficit of benefits from being with a woman, who is an overburdened mother, is independent of the magnitude of a man's instinctivity.  
Therefore remaining childfree and finding a CFW is an expression of a general male wish to avoid for himself the disadvantages of raising children. 


This leads to a sad discrepancy: 

The CFW want men, who appreciate their non-physical, cognitive qualities.   But many CFM are attracted by the same siring instinct to the same female breeders as had been those, who have succumbed to breeding.    While they remain CFM, they feel an urge to sire, yet they want the guaranty of no success.   They just do not want to be themselves involved in breeding. 
CFM feel inclined to strive for the same stupid attributes of masculinity, like fitness, muscles, strength, ambition, success, assets, competition.  Thus they appear attractive to the provider seeking breeders, whom they do not want.   They are ignorant, that what attracts breeders often does not interest or even repulse the CFW.   They know nothing except their own struggle with their own siring instinct.   They are not aware, that only the absence of the breeding instinct makes women really CFW.

CFW have a problem finding a suitable match.   CFM are oblivious of what distinguishes CFW from wanna-be breeders, what CFW need and want and how to recognize those truly not afflicted by the breeding instinct.    CFM often get involved with breeders temporarily in the skin of a CFW. 

Sunday, May 18, 2014

713. When One Irrationality Serves To Reinforce Another

713.  When One Irrationality Serves To Reinforce Another

Wars are a manifestation of the ingroup-outgroup instinct.  

The more someone perceives, defines and identifies himself as a bearer of genes and his purpose of existence as to enable his genes to survive and to spread, the more any behavior favoring his own progeny is subjectively logical to him.  Even exploiting and killing outgroup members thus appears permissible and even mandatory to him.   
Rationality ascribing equal rights to any person on this globe makes the ingroup-outgroup obsolete.  But while this instinct it is often consciously, publicly and legally discarded and rejected, it prevails subconsciously.  

When people are torn in cognitive dissonance, when they are oscillating between rational behavior and irrational instinctive urges and tendencies, a variety of irrational beliefs are invented to ease the inner conflict.  
These beliefs allow people to succumb to and to follow their instincts without feeling bad.   For many people, this comes easier than to rationally conquer instincts.  
While denial prevents to recognize and acknowledge the irrationality of the belief itself, being guided by this belief makes the instinctive behavior subjectively appear rational.    Thus the pseudo-rationality of the belief enhances instinctive behavior, even though it is obsolete and harmful.

The following article is an interesting indication of how war is reinforced by religious beliefs. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140515153811.htm
"World War I -- the “war to end all wars” -- in fact sowed seeds for future international conflicts in a way that has been largely overlooked: through religion, says a historian and author. Widespread belief in the supernatural was a driving force during the war and helped mold all three of the major religions -- Christianity, Judaism and Islam -- paving the way for modern views of religion and violence, he said."

Monday, May 12, 2014

712. Online Discussion Forums: Observing The Peculiarities Of Behavior And The Group Dynamics

712.  Online Discussion Forums: Observing The Peculiarities Of Behavior And The Group Dynamics

The following is a fictive scenario as an illustration.

Imagine someone vacationing on a hot tropical island.   While traveling his shoe lace breaks and he needs to replace it as he needs his shoes when going back to his cold home.   Or maybe shoe laces are especially suitable to fix some item of his luggage.  In short, he has good reasons, why he wants to buy shoe laces.   But this does not imply, that he needs to discuss these reasons with any stranger.

So he asks people, where he can buy the shoe laces.   It is a simple question, and most probably people on the street, at the hotel reception or in the tourist office would give him an equally simple answer.  Either they are sorry not to know.  Or those who do know, give simply the directions how to find the shop.   Nobody in direct contact would start a discussion about his reasons to need shoe laces. 

But in the case of his asking the question on a local web forum concerning the life on this island, people probably would react very differently.   Rational behavior would be the same as that of the people when personally asked.   It would be either a suggestion about where shoe laces are sold or else no reply at all.   Instead he is prone to receive reactions like the following.
  • He may get more or less serious suggestions like those to wear sandals or to walk barefoot.  
  • He may get advice based upon some hearsay or subjective experience, like the one to better wear boots, because of someone having been bitten by a snake.
  • He may be asked to publish a picture of the shoes and the broken shoe laces.  
  • He may be criticized for being too stupid to carry spare shoe laces when traveling.
  • He may be attacked by some locals as being one of those stinking rich foreign tourists, because some other tourists have done mischief. 
  • Some people may divert to discuss their preferred color of shoe laces or the high prices on this island.  
  • Some people may start a game about the most creative ideas of what to use instead of shoe laces.


Reading forum discussions and also being the recipient of reactions to having myself asked questions, the following are my generalized observations.  

The online behavior on forums is determined by the combined effect of the specifics of written and at least impersonal, if not also anonymous communication, and of some behavioral tendencies, which can be partly explained by evolutionary psychology.   
There is also a discrepancy when important but different uses of the web are confounded:  In my example, this is finding information and needing publicity for pursuing a goal vs. social dynamics.   
My example above illustrates this discrepancy, when someone joins any forum for no other reason except getting answers to one or more specific questions, but he is unvoluntarily exposed to weird and unwarranted reactions of many kinds.

1.  Specifics of written communication

Suitable written postings in any forum are not too long, so they are read, but they nevertheless contain sufficient information for the intended purpose.  Therefore when someone asks any simple question like in my example concerning the purchase of shoe laces, then it suffices to express the question in an unequivocal and precise way.   He could specify, where on the island he stays to be directed to the nearest shop.   But his reason to buy shoe laces are irrelevant.   

Indirect communication without being exposed to the other's direct reaction, and the anonymity of never going to meet in person disinhibits people from being rational, civilized, polite and considerate. 

2.  Distorted reactions for ego benefits

Being able to help and to give advice makes some people feel good about themselves.   Not knowing something, even if this just means a shop selling shoe laces does not trigger this reaction.  Some people even feel bad, when they have to admit to not know something, even a trifle.  

Some people do not listen long and carefully enough to what others are really telling them, before they blur out what they belief to know.  Pouring out their alleged superior knowledge over others makes them more to feel good than just listening. 
Giving advice without being asked for in written communication is a similar behavior.   It is a form of disregard for the abilities of the other and the unknown preceding efforts.   Giving unwanted advice insinuates, that the person is unable to have himself thought of and considered these options already.    

In a posting asking a simple question it suffices, when the question itself is well expressed.   Information inviting and enabling qualified but unwanted advice is not and needs not to be provided.  Any advice, asked for or unwanted, can never be any better than the information, upon which it is based. 

Some people do not so much feel good about the absolute amount of their own knowledge and skills, instead they get the most personal benefit when they subjectively experience an apparent superiority.  They need not so much to know, but to know better and to be right compared with another person.   In the case of any lack of real superiority, they derive this benefit by instead putting others down towards an apparent inferiority.

3.  Dealing with lacking information

Lacking information and being aware thereof makes wise and rational people cautious.   If possible, they acquire more information.   Else they are aware of not being able to know, which of several possible interpretations should be chosen.   They allow themselves and give to others the benefit of the doubt. 

But there are others.   They misunderstand things, they overlook important information, they jump to conclusions, they interpret statements based upon subjective experience.  They do not doubt their own interpretation of what they hear or read.   They project their own needs, attitudes and behavioral tendencies upon others.   They have no clue, that their projections are as incorrect as the others differ from them.

They are usually biased towards an unfavorable devaluation of and an underestimation of the poster of the question.    

This can mainly be explained by:

3.1.  The Dunning-Kruger effect

When people perceive and believe their own knowledge as the general baseline, they often are unable to comprehend, what others write, say or think.   Instead of doubting themselves, and of acknowledging a lack of information, they consider anything incomprehensible automatically as the others' flaws, ignorance and deficiencies. 

They feel entitled to patronize those asking the question.  They often believe to do a favor to those, to whom they proffer unwanted and uninvited advice.  
Without explanations and background information, uninvited advice is often ridiculous and completely irrelevant.   Such advice usually includes options or apparent options, which had already been considered and discarded.   The Dunning-Kruger effect impedes the comprehension, why advice is not needed, unless it is asked for.

3.2.  Attribution of a place and role

For some people, the web is a source for information.   For some questions, the best place to ask a question is a forum, which also has become a social structure formed by the most active members of the forum group.   The person simply asking a question does not automatically intend or wish to be given a place therein.   But the wish to simply get an answer is often not accepted.   Instead any posting on a forum triggers behavior towards attributing a place to the person, who is perceived as a prospective new member to be dealt with. 

Depending on the circumstances, this attribution process can either elicit competition based upon the hierarchy instinct.  In this case, the person gets forced into status struggles, even when the person does not fight, but is passively beaten towards the role of the underdog without any attempt of self-defence.   Luckily enough, those doing this beating can attribute a low place on the hierarchy, but they cannot know, if the target really feels the beating or is protected by a shell of indifference to competition.  

Else people are so different, that the question asked suffices to perceive and to drive away the person as being outgroup, who is not considered as suitable to be allowed into the ingroup. 

The methods for driving someone towards the role of the underdog or towards exclusion are the same.   Anything real or apparent, that can be interpreted as unfavorable is used as a tool for criticism and bashing.  
Alternatively, neither the question nor further clarifications are taken for serious, instead the poster of the question is the target of jokes.  

4.  Herd behavior

The general reactions to a question depend to a certain extent upon the hazard of who reacts first and how.  When the first reply happens to be useful, then all is well.   But if the first reply starts as one of the distorted reactions mentioned above, the herd often follows this tendency.

5.  How to react

When there is no answer to the question, but instead false interpretations are believed, the question is criticized, unwanted and absurd advice is proffered, then further participation in this forum is unwise and futile.  

When people are attempting to push a person into the role of the fool, the incompetent or the underdog, when misunderstandings and omissions are purposefully used to put someone down and to make him appear stupid or wrong, then all elaborate explanations are a waste of time. 
Writing explanatory postings would be like cutting off any of Hydra's heads.   It only instigates nine more heads to grow.  Any careful attempt to explain something only leads to more willful search for using new misunderstandings and more biased misinterpretations for more attacks. 

Sometimes group members like humble newcomers.   When somebody puts himself down and asks for help, calling himself a loser, then he is usually well received.   Somebody admitting weaknesses and placing himself at the bottom does not elicit any attempts to push him there.   As long as he stays at the bottom of the hierarchy, he is treated with pity and kindness.    

Asking rational questions is not an expression of being humble.  Self confidence is perceived as a provocation.    Merely asking questions after already having figured out what to do shows self confidence.   No wish to fight a way up in the hierarchy is also perceived as a provocation.  
Provoking people can be an unavoidable side effect of the pursuit of an important goal.   But when provocation only means reacting to a power struggle, this brings no benefits.

As soon as the search for information is turned into some other people's struggle to gain secondary benefits, the wisest reaction is to withdraw.   There will be no answer and it is better to move on. 

Thursday, May 1, 2014

711. Using A Non-Native Language

711.  Using A Non-Native Language

According to some feedback to this blog and to emails, some men perceive me as appearing hard, harsh, cold and even scary, while I mean to be blunt, direct, sincere and rational in my approach to cope with my emotional predispositions and needs.   My rejection of and discomfort with the typical gender roles adds to this.

This misrepresentation of my person is predominantly caused by my inability to ever reach the full and exact knowledge of how a native speaker of English intuitively and subtly perceives my utterances.    
I am aware of this trap, but this does not suffice.   Communication is between two sides, and this trap can only be avoided by the awareness on both sides. 

People never having experienced this themselves are often not aware of the subtle implications of seriously communicating in a non-native language.   Never having used a foreign language beyond coping in shops and restaurants during vacations, they tend to perceive and interpret any utterances alike, without distinguishing between native and non-native speakers.   It just does not occur to them to consider, that what they hear or read may not be exactly, what was meant and intended to be expressed.
  
In verbal speech the foreign accent serves as a reminder, that someone is a non-native speaker.  But when in written text grammar and spelling are mostly correct, this misleads the native speakers to overlook the problem.  Their spontaneous reaction to their perception and interpretation omits the benefit of the doubt.
Thus non-native speakers like myself are prone to be too often judged by how they express themselves before getting a chance to be evaluated by what has been written.   This precludes not only comprehension but even an attempt to comprehend.  

In entry 32 I already pointed out some of the reasons, why I may be misunderstood:

1.  Inexact use of words

"My knowledge of the meaning of words is sometimes fuzzy, inexact, missing subtlety.  (What I say about words, mostly is also valid for expressions.) I have learned many words by guessing their meaning out of the context, which started with a rough idea and got better with every time seeing it in a different context.   But this is still not the exact meaning, that it has for a native speaker.   
Also, using a dictionary is misleading.   Looking up a word and finding a corresponding word in English misleads me to think, that it would be an exact translation, while it really is not, but has different connotations in the two languages.
This leads to misunderstandings, when I use words, that do not exactly mean, what I think that they would mean."

2.  Apparent exaggerations
 
"Words in the native language have a felt magnitudes and sometimes inhibitions as a result.    The corresponding word in English is just a chain of letters or sounds.   
I have grown into strong inhibitions to use vulgar language in German.   I would recoil from using the German word for a**hole, while not using the English word is a conscious decision by knowing it being inappropriate, but not by feeling inhibitions. 
Whenever I want to put emphasis on something in English, I am using the strongest word, that I can think of, because no word ever feels strong enough, therefore I am probably sometimes appearing to exaggerate without knowing it."  

3.  The style of language depending upon the source of learning

A child grows into learning first the everyday variety of the spoken native language by being immersed into it.   Having learned any foreign language at school and/or having mainly used and still digesting materials like novels and scientific or newspaper articles has also an impact upon my way of expressing myself.    Using words, because they are frequent in those 19th century novels, which are available as audio books on librivox may appear odd and I cannot know this.  


So far, this was based upon my own subjective experience of the difference between using my native German and using other languages.  

But I just read about a study of similar tendencies:  
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140428120659.htm
 
" moral choices could depend on whether you are using a foreign language or your native tongue. A new study from psychologists finds that people using a foreign language take a relatively utilitarian approach to moral dilemmas, making decisions based on assessments of what’s best for the common good."

"That pattern holds even when the utilitarian choice would produce an emotionally difficult outcome"

"The researchers propose that the foreign language elicits a reduced emotional response. That provides a psychological distance from emotional concerns when making moral decisions."

"People are less afraid of losses, more willing to take risks and much less emotionally-connected when thinking in a foreign language."

"You probably learn foreign languages in less emotional settings like a classroom and it takes extra effort. The emotional content of the language is often lost in translation."

Superficially this study seems to suggest, that people may be prone to change their morals and attitudes with the language used.   I doubt this.   It seems to me more probable, that the foreign language allows people to be more genuine in what they say.   The use of a foreign language may instigate a process of introspection, which leads to free people from some emotional thought inhibitions acquired during childhood.   Having gained a better insight into their true attitudes, people are able not only to be more sincere to themselves but they have also the new option to be more consistent and sincere in what they admit to others.

Friday, April 18, 2014

710. Commemorating Not Just One But All Victims Of Cruelty

710.   Commemorating Not Just One But All Victims Of Cruelty

Today christians commemorate the atrocious death of one man, whom they call Jesus and who is presumed to be one of those cruelly killed by the Romans about 2000 years ago.  

There is no rational reason to limit commemoration to just that one guy, the way christians do.  He was not special, even if he ever existed.   There is no reason to commemorate only him for any alleged qualities of his mythical person.    He he was merely one of many thousand victims, who had been crucified by the Romans:
"Crassus crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' followers hunted down and captured after his defeat in battle." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Ancient_Rome

It is good to commemorate his sufferings but for what he really is:  A proxy and a representative of all those billions of people, who over the long human history have been made suffer fatal atrocities.   
A minority of them may have deserved their suffering after having first themselves caused extreme agony to others, but most of them are the innocent victims of behaviors caused and even allegedly justified by animal instincts and/or irrational and foolish beliefs.   Nothing can ever justify torturing innocent people and causing them the agony of a slow death like by being crucified.   Each of the unknown and long forgotten victims is as worthy of commemoration as is this christian mythical Jesus.  

Today is a good occasion to commemorate all victims of atrocities, and to remind oneself and to focus the awareness upon the innate option of the members of the species homo sapiens.   We can be human by behaviors clearly distinguished from those of animals. 

Being endowed with the capacity for rationality, for empathy and for having a sufficient theory of mind is not only a chance for a better life for oneself, but it also bears both the appreciation for and the obligation of consideration and responsibility for others. 
  
True and real humans have the choice to not behave like animals.   

Those who do not have this choice, are animals.   Being genetically a member of the species homo sapiens does not suffice to be called human.   This title has to be earned by dignified behavior, which includes to refrain from causing atrocities to other human beings.  



Thursday, April 3, 2014

709.   Monogamy Exists In Nature

The more men are not only promiscuous by instinct, but also abusive by attitude, the more they also demand women to accept self-abuse as their natural purpose.   
These men excuse this by claiming, that allegedly monogamy were unnatural and would not exist as an innate inclination in any species. 
They misrepresent monogamy as a cultural artifact repressing the freedom of pursuing the fulfillment of needs, which are allegedly not only male, but the same for both genders.   Such men are in denial, that in reality they demand an unrestricted freedom for abusive male selfishness.  

Here is an example of the contrary, even though of course the sample is small:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140318212248.htm
"A new study shows that Azara's owl monkeys (Aotus azarae) are unusually faithful. The investigation of 35 offspring born to 17 owl monkey pairs turned up no evidence of cheating; the male and female monkeys that cared for the young were the infants' true biological parents."

Friday, March 14, 2014

708. Men's Implicit Disrespect And Disregard For Women's Minds

708.  Men's Implicit Disrespect And Disregard For Women's Minds


Men are afflicted by feeling recurrent urges, for which they consider women's bodies as the best remedy.   But this is biologically asymmetrical, there are by far not as many women with complementary needs.    
Depending on many factors, men are coping quite differently with this asymmetry.   Unfortunately, these methods of coping show implicitly a lot of disrespect, disregard, denial and depreciation for women's brains and cognitive qualities.  
  1. In some cultures more than in others, men feel entitled to abuse women, whenever their social or physical power enables them to do so.   They do not even consider to owe anything to their victims.
  2. Men feel entitled to abuse women's body, whenever the women seem to sell their self-abuse as prostitutes as an alleged choice.
  3. Gender roles in many societies generally attribute to men the role of being a source of material benefits, even when there is commitment and no abuse.    In marriage and often also in cohabitation, the man provides all or parts of the standard of living for his wife or partner.  During phases of courting and dating, or in any other forms of non-cohabitation, men feel obliged to pamper women by spending money on her for invitations to restaurants and events, and expensive gifts.   This is a social norm, women are encouraged to expect this.   Nevertheless men implicitly compensate for their asymmetrical physiological needs by material benefits.  
  4. If men do not want to pay and nevertheless also do not want to feel as abusers or recipients of a favor, they (as pointed out in entry 707) belief the myth, that they could sufficiently please women physically and that in this case women would not experience and perceive the asymmetry.   This is a fallacy based upon male ignorance of biological facts. 
In all these constellations, men asymmetrically want access to female bodies, but they either give nothing or only material, non-personal advantages.  

They do not give anything of real value.   They do not give themselves.  
 
They either do not feel a need or they feel no reason and not obligation to share their mind, their cognition, their cultural and intellectual pursuits, their thoughts and feelings.   They want to connect bodies without connecting minds, without creating a unit of bonding, attachment and togetherness.  

This is a very blatant disregard, disrespect and depreciation of women.    I acknowledge, that many men are not even aware of this.  They are ignorant of more appropriate alternatives to the indignity of merely material compensation.   But this ignorance can only explain the plight of women, it does not justify it.   


Where are those few men hidden, who have true mindmate quality, who have a stronger need for the connection of the mind than for the connection of the body?

Thursday, March 13, 2014

707. Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

707.   Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

Recognizing the biological reality, that only a man has a recurrent physiological urge to get rid of body waste, which women do not have, enables him to acknowledge, what a woman really does, when she contributes to his maintenance of his homeostasis.   He appreciates this as a gift of love from her.   As a caring and equal partner, he returns his own gift of love, by equally fulfilling her needs: He bonds with her in committed monogamy, he reciprocates her emotional attachment and the feeling of belonging together, and of being a unit, he shares intellectual intimacy, he enables her to feel significant and protected in a reliable save haven. 

But there are also those men, who want access to women's bodies without giving any of the above, and nevertheless they avoid to experience themselves as selfish or abusive.  The complete denial of the biological asymmetry is their method.  
These men have created a myth, which is perpetuated by the male dominated media:   This myth is a collective male delusion and fallacy, that allegedly women would have the same need for sex as men and would therefore also equally benefit.   This claim serves as these men's justification to refuse giving anything to the women or to ever accept any obligation to fulfill women's different needs.  

But it gets even worse.   Not all women are brainwashed by the oversexed social norms, some are quite aware of their own reality, that a behavior, which every animal without a rational brain does by instinct, is just too banal and stupid to be bothered about it.   For an intellectual woman, the question, how much or how little she enjoys a book, an art exhibition or a theater play is so much more significant than the question, how much she enjoys food or sex.   When a woman states this comparison about food, most men are able to grasp this.   But not about sex, which blurs male brains.   Whenever a woman has the self-confidence to insist, that she considers the male needs merely as an unavoidable banality in a relationship, most men are just unable to accept or respect this attitude.   Instead of recognizing, that some women's cognition is above such banalities, these men defame such women as flawed, inhibited or repressed.  

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

706. Puzzled About The Five Second Rule

706.  Puzzled About The Five Second Rule

I first heard about the five second rule when visiting the USA.   Until then I had never thought twice about throwing away dropped food unless it could be washed.   The city sidewalks have a layer of dirt, which contains stuff like spittle, vomit, dog feces.   On the soles of my shoes, I bring particles thereof onto the floor at home.   The thought of eating these particles causes me disgust.  I would never eat anything unwashed from the floor. 

When googling the five second rule, the result surprised me.   There were dozens of articles seriously discussing the question, how many germs a piece of food gets contaminated with in a few seconds and how dangerous this could be.   In most of those articles, the possibility of feeling disgust is not even mentioned.   

Today I found another example of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140310102212.htm
"Food picked up just a few seconds after being dropped is less likely to contain bacteria than if it is left for longer periods of time, according to new research. The findings suggest there may be some scientific basis to the '5 second rule' -- the urban myth about it being fine to eat food that has only had contact with the floor for five seconds or less. The study, undertaken by final year biology students monitored the transfer of the common bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Staphylococcus aureus from a variety of indoor floor types (carpet, laminate and tiled surfaces) to toast, pasta, biscuit and a sticky sweet when contact was made from 3 to 30 seconds."

"The Aston team also carried out a survey of the number of people who employ the five-second rule. The survey showed that:
87% of people surveyed said they would eat food dropped on the floor, or already have done so
55% of those that would, or have, eaten food dropped in the floor are women
81% of the women who would eat food from the floor would follow the 5 second rule"

I am wondering, if those people following the five second rule generally feel less disgust, or if they are less aware of what is on their floor or if for them only exists and counts, what is big enough to be visible.   

But after doing an extensive search, I finally I found one quote, where even an American expresses disgust: 

http://www.drozfans.com/dr-ozs-advice/dr-oz-5-second-rule-debunked-eat-food-off-the-floor-or-not/
"Personally, I am disgusted by the idea of eating something that has fallen on the floor… the same place you walk with the bottom of your shoe… which is the same place that steps on things like dog poop.  Yuck! "

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

705. Age Is No Protection

705.  Age Is No Protection  
In entry 246, I wrote about how women's lives are overshadowed by conscious and subconscious realistic fears.  
 
Mentioning my apprehension, that male libido can be a hazard to women, I have been getting the reaction, that at my age I were too old to be at risk.   Unfortunately, this is not the case.   

I just read in the newspaper, that a woman of 64, which is also my age, has been brutally raped by a 15 year old boy, while alone doing exercises in the forest.  
Age is no protection against the risk of becoming the victim of sexual violence or of the insult of the uninvited approach with the proposal of self-abuse.  

This risk depends on three factors:
  • the man's libido
  • the man's cognitive control
  • the triggering power of the attraction of the victim's body

The attraction of women's bodies diminishes with age.   As long as young women are available, they are predators' first choice as victims.   This keeps the focus away from the old ones and this puts the young women at the highest risk.   

Men become dangerous predators, when the libido is stronger than their cognitive control.   Male libido also diminishes with age, while growing maturity usually adds to the cognitive control.  
Therefore the younger a man, the higher the probability of his being a dangerous predator.  

But cognitive control can not only be weak because of mere immaturity.  It can be lacking also due to mental or emotional disturbance and derangement.   
In the case of (predominantly young) men with high libido and insufficient cognitive control, young women would be the preferred victims, but if none is available, any woman of any age is at risk.    

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

704. The Irrational Distinction Between The Abuse Of Women And Of Children

704.  The Irrational Distinction Between The Abuse Of Women And Of Children

A German politician has been caught as suspicious of owning child pornography.  Reported in the medias has been his possession of pictures of naked boys, which are not explicitly sexual.  Such pictures are actually not illegal in Germany.  

The German newspaper "Rheinische Post" writes today.  
"Die Bundesregierung plant, den Handel mit Nacktfotos von Kindern zu verbieten. Niemand dürfe mit den Körpern von Kindern und Jugendlichen Geschäfte machen" 
The federal government plans to make the trading naked pictures of children illegal.  Nobody should deal in bodies of children and adolescents.  

"Diese Bilder verletzen die Rechte von Kindern". 
These pictures violate the right of children.
http://www.rp-online.de/politik/handel-mit-kinder-nacktfotos-wird-verboten-aid-1.4046914     

Of course I agree with these quotes.   But it makes me angry, that all outrage and wish to protect is reserved to children, while the exactly the same treatment of adult women is considered as acceptable, normal and reasonable.   

There is a cruel fallacy in this arbitrary distinction of the victims by their age.   This fallacy is the entire focus upon the biological suitability of the victims for male needs and the subsequent denial of the damage done to victimized women.   

Abuse (by men) can be defined as the selfish, inconsiderate and irresponsible use of another human being's body, which a man in the state of dishomeostasis uses as an object for the purpose of getting rid of his body waste.  

Children are not biologically suitable for this.   Therefore nobody disputes children's need to be protected from all abuse, direct and indirect by pornographic representations.

But whenever women are concerned, the view is distorted.   Even though adult women are biologically suitable for sexuality, this does not imply any justification for abuse.  Women are entitled to be only targeted for a form of sexuality, which is no abuse, because it fulfills their emotional needs. 
It is generally accepted, that humans do not exist to be exploited as slaves, just because humans are suitable to do hard labor and others feel a need to make a profit from it.   Women do not exist to be abused, just because they are biologically suitable and men have physiological urges.   This still needs to be accepted.

This first distortion not only justifies the abuse of female bodies by their biological suitability, but the consequence thereof is also the male denial, that using a woman's body without emotional attachment and commitment even is abuse.  

The second distortion is the different interpretation of the damage done depending on the age of the abused victim. 
Only the damage done to children is recognized as such and attributed to the abuse.  
When abused women become drug addicts, alcoholics or psychiatric cases, this is not recognized and acknowledged as a consequence of what men have done to them.  Instead it is falsely attributed to genetic or personality defects.   
According to male attitudes, a sane and healthy woman can be abused without suffering, a woman, who cannot be abused without harm and trouble is defective and flawed.   Women are not considered to need protection against abuse, they are expected to be willing to be fixed, if they lack sufficient resilience.  
Women's self-abuse in exchange for material benefits is mistaken as a choice and as a healthy disposition.   Men's denial, that such self-abuse needs to be attributed to social problems depriving women of other options adds to the other male justifications of abuse.   The frequent delay between the abuse and self-abuse and manifestations of being damaged adds to the male denial of the true causes for the damage.
 

Therefore I am correcting the above quotes:  
Nobody should deal in bodies of other human beings, no matter the age.  

These [naked or pornographic] pictures violate the right of human beings of any age.

Suitability does not suffice to justify harming others.   

Those men, who consume pornography, who abuse prostitutes, who are promiscuous treating and perceiving women as mere toilets for their body waste, are hypocrites, if they demands more protection only for children. 

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

703. Differing Effects Of Varieties Of The Visual Objectification Of Women

703.  Differing Effects Of Varieties Of The Visual Objectification Of Women

The objectification and commodification of women by visual representations is nothing new.  
"The female nudes in Roman mosaics exalt beauty, the carnality and eroticism, while male bodies reflect determination, strength and power. This is one of the conclusions of research that analyzed the cultural construction and ideological implications of these artistic representations in which female predominate as compared to those of males."

"The deeply asymmetric treatment of male and female bodies is evident and, therefore, constitutes a reflection of relationships based on power, according to the researchers. "

"the main male figures tend to be gods, heroes and mythological beings, or else wrestlers and athletes."

"One very revealing example is a representation of Ariadne or the Nereid that shows a nude female figure lying on a marine animal, with one arm behind her head in a position and with a gesture that has been interpreted as "availability to the other.""

The text of this video is in Spanish, but it shows some good examples of the mosaics:  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKVwl4leLkU

 
These mosaics are expressions of the misperception, that women were objects existing to be used by men. This misperception had been women's plight through history.  
But there is a fundamental difference between the effects upon men's brains by ancient mosaics, frescos, statues or pottery decorations and the contemporary effects by the overexposure to more or less pornographic life like representations of female bodies.

No matter how provocative and explicit the ancient representations, they were nevertheless clearly and unequivocally artifacts.   Looking at a mosaic with whatever fantasy cannot have the same desensitizing effect upon a man's subconscious instincts as that which follows the abuse of a real woman.   (I consider any use of a female body without emotional attachment and without commitment as a form of abuse.)

Today the situation is much worse.   Visual representations, especially by high quality colorful moving pictures, are so much like real life people, that the male subconscious mind cannot distinguish between seeing a real woman and seeing a filmed representation of her.  (Thanks to Kanazawa for this insight).   The fantasy of abusing a filmed woman therefore contributes to the desensitization of men as if they had abused a real woman.  
This makes pornography so devastating.  Frequent abuse causes desensitization.   Desensitization lowers the threshold for attempting and intending more abuse.   It also blurs the male awareness, that approaching a woman for abuse is often perceived by the target as an insult and offense.          

Would any model or actress enact the exact scenes of the Roman mosaics, as far as there is an effect, that by the mosaic and that by the photo of the inaction on a man's brain would be very different. 
The mosaic would reinforce a man's conscious attitude, that women are there to serve him and to be used.   The photo would trigger his instincts, and subconsciously he would perceive the picture as an available real woman. 
 
I personally cannot see any additional artistic value of nudity compared with dress in any work of art and I also see no harm in nudity, when the represented naked body is obviously and unequivocally an artifact and not a real naked body presented for abuse and commerce.    But the contemporary pictures are too much resembling real life women and thus they are confounding men's instincts.  Such pictures have a very detrimental effect upon male brains, which those Roman mosaics could never have.  

Sunday, February 9, 2014

702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women

702.   The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women

I just happened to read for the first time about the NoFap movement.   My first superficial reaction was to welcome the rejection of pornography.   But then I found out, that this is not the objective, but an unintended side-effect.   The real objective is men's very selfish intention of some weird form of self-improvement.   Reducing the plight of women is not the goal.   Women are insignificant in this concept.

The man watching pornography indirectly damages some women.   His victims are the women, who are abused by the production of pornography.   By his demand for pornography he contributes to producing more and thus abusing more women.  
He also desensitizes himself towards perceiving women as objects and not as persons, which harms women, who by mistake get involved with him with wrong expectations.  
But even though the pornography temporarily enhances his dishomeostasis, his subsequent solitary manual restoring of homeostasis has no direct victims.  
In the case of a not partnered man, there can even be a collateral benefit, when thus restoring temporary homeostasis, this can reduce his being a nuisance to all women, who do not want to be involved with him.    

The man on a NoFap project refrains from pornography but only as a collateral side-effect.   This is not his goal, the pornography has only lost its utility.  On a small scale this abstaining does unfortunately not suffice to reduce the market and the abuse of producing more.   
The not partnered man's goal is the self-improvement of learning to live with his urges.   During his NoFap periods, he lives in the state of permanent and growing physiological dishomeostasis.  Would he not get innately into such states, he would never have developed those habits, which he now wants to discontinue by NoFap.   This makes him anything between a nuisance and a hazard to all women around him.    
Even if he does not transgress boundaries by harassment, assault or rape, any interaction with him can be very unpleasant and unsuitable for a woman.   Though a woman wants a rational, decent and serious conversation, this is not available from a man, who is disabled and deranged by his instincts craving for her body.   So while in a state of homeostasis, he could be an interesting person, his NoFap inner battles deprive her of a rational interaction with him.

NoFap is not an appropriate solution for the male physiological affliction.   Instead it is necessary that men take full responsibility to cope with their biological predisposition in a way, which eliminates all abuse of women.  

There cannot be any doubt, that men in a state of homeostasis are much better not only for women, but for everybody around them and even for themselves.   The recurrent male dishomeostasis needs to be remedied.   
Men need to learn, that the best, if not the only non-abusive way of coping with their biology is forming stable, bonded, monogamous relationships, in which intellectual and emotional attachment with a woman as a person prevents abuse.   
Otherwise men's manual remedy needs at least to be mentally separated from any imagination or observation of the abuse of any living woman.   Men need to learn and to comprehend, that while their biological urges are real, this does not mean, that women exist to be abused for this purpose.   

Women are there to connect with emotionally and intellectually, or else they are not to be touched.   NoFap does not help men to learn this.    

Sunday, February 2, 2014

701. Some Stupidities Might Be Correlated

701.  Some Stupidities Might Be Correlated

I do not suffer from insomnia.  But for the case that I ever would, I know a remedy, which is much better than any sleeping drug:  Watching 22 guys' aggressive disagreement over the possession of one ball.  Especially on a TV-screen, which enables me to turn off the annoying noise.   I just cannot imagine anything more boring than watching football, except watching other sports.   

It is beyond me, how people can find football interesting and at first I was very puzzled, when reading this.    
Therefore I read the source:
After the final play of the Super Bowl, millions of fans will go through withdrawal symptoms from not being able to watch football for months.
Loyola University Medical Center psychiatrist Dr. Angelos Halaris describes the effects this has on the brain and offers tips on how fans can cope.

Halaris explains that when a person engages in a pleasurable activity, such as watching a football game, a neurotransmitter (brain chemical) called dopamine is released in a part of the brain called the nucleus accumbens.

When the pleasurable activity ends, the person is left with a feeling of deprivation. It's similar to what a smoker feels when deprived of a cigarette - except there's no quick fix like a cigarette for the football fan.

"When the football season is over and there's no other game on the schedule for months, you're stuck, so you go through withdrawal," Halaris said.
  • For hard-core fans, the feeling can be similar to post-holiday blues, Halaris said.
    Halaris offers these tips for fans who suddenly have to face months without football:
  • Don't go cold turkey. Watch football on YouTube, or on recordings, in gradually diminishing amounts.
  • Share your feelings of withdrawal and letdown with a friend or spouse.
  • While it can be unpleasant, football withdrawal is not serious enough to require antidepressants or other medications. And do not self-medicate with drugs or alcohol.
  • Most important, buck up. "You're just going to have to basically tough it out until football starts up again," Halaris said.
Halaris is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and medical director of Adult Psychiatry at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.
Coming from ScienceDaily made me wonder, if it were a hoax or a joke.   But when getting aware, that the Loyola University is a Jesuit institution, I was much less puzzled.  
If this article is meant to be serious, then it is one more case of anecdotal evidence for the correlation of two stupidities.  
Jesuit facilities are predominantly attractive to catholic clients.   Obviously so many of these clients are afflicted football fans, that their problem caught the focus of attention.   It is also interesting to note, that this psychiatrist implicitly presents football as cognitively appropriate for his (catholic) clients.   In his opinion the stupid interest in football does not suffice to indicate a cognitive problem, but only the withdrawal.

Thursday, January 16, 2014

700. Research Concerning Female Self-Abuse

700.  Research Concerning Female Self-Abuse

This is entry 700 and I am still blogging to find a mindmate, who is not predominantly an instinct driven animal, but someone, who values a woman's brain more than her body.  
All I want is to find one such man.  Where is he?  

Sometimes in matchmaking sites they suggest answering among other questions, what one would change, if one were a deity able to create a better world.  
My answer:  I would change the male biology.   I would recreate a different version of men, who would never feel an urge to abuse a woman's body and remain emotionally unattached.   I would create men, who crave for emotional attachment and monogamous bonding and who would only consider, need and experience physical intimacy as a consequence of this.   I would create men, who never touch a woman, unless they also want and intend to share their lives with her.    

A few such men do exist, but if all men were like this, the world would be a much better place for women.  

In entry 688 I listed some of foolish women's reason for participating in self-abuse.  

I omitted one more unfortunate reason for female self-abuse.   Many foolish women compete for whom they perceive as alpha males and reject the others, whom they could have for themselves without competition.  
In long bygone times, women competed for men by their looks, the social status of their parents and their quality of character and personality.   
Due to male power over the media, the present social norm of promiscuity has the side effect of many women having been brainwashed to accept self-abuse as the unavoidable price to be accepted by men.   Today women compete by making themselves available for self-abuse and by presenting themselves in a way to trigger men's wish to abuse them.   These women have the delusion to get a relationship with alpha men by allowing their bodies to be abused before another woman makes her body available.     

But self-abuse is detrimental for women, as two studies indicate:

1.  There is a study showing the distinction between the attitudes of the genders concerning what is the best pursuit of self-interest.   

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125164745.htm
"In the largest, most in-depth study to date on regret surrounding sexual activity, a team of psychology researchers found a stark contrast in remorse between men and women, potentially shedding light on the evolutionary history of human nature."

"They suggest that men are more likely to regret not taking action on a potential liaison, and women are more remorseful for engaging in one-time liaisons."

""For men throughout evolutionary history, every missed opportunity to have sex with a new partner is potentially a missed reproduce opportunity -- a costly loss from an evolutionary perspective." Haselton says. "But for women, reproduction required much more investment in each offspring, including nine months of pregnancy and potentially two additional years of breastfeeding. The consequences of casual sex were so much higher for women than for men, and this is likely to have shaped emotional reactions to sexual liaisons even today.""

"According to the findings:

    The top three most common regrets for women are: losing virginity to the wrong partner (24 percent), cheating on a present or past partner (23 percent) and moving too fast sexually (20 percent).
    For men, the top three regrets are: being too shy to make a move on a prospective sexual partner (27 percent), not being more sexually adventurous when young (23 percent) and not being more sexually adventurous during their single days (19 percent)."

These asymmetrical regrets reflect the impact of the current social norm of promiscuity, which represents the men with the strongest urge to abuse as if they were average.   Male regrets are about failing to perform as much abuse as prescribed by the norm.    Women regret to have been misled by the norm to act in a self-damaging way, hurting themselves by the denial of their emotional needs.  
Men are encouraged to feel entitled to more abuse, women learn the stupidity of self-abuse often only, when it is too late. 

2.  A study indicates, that self-abuse is unhealthy:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00224499.2013.848255#tabModule
"“Hookups” are sexual encounters between partners who are not in a romantic relationship and do not expect commitment. We examined the associations between sexual hookup behavior and depression, sexual victimization (SV), and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among first-year college women. In this longitudinal study, 483 women completed 13 monthly surveys assessing oral and vaginal sex with hookup and romantic partners, depression, SV, and self-reported STIs. Participants also provided biological specimens that were tested for STIs. During the study, 50% of participants reported hookup sex and 62% reported romantic sex. "

"hookup behavior during college was positively correlated with experiencing clinically significant depression symptoms. Sex in the context of romantic relationships was not correlated with depression."

"Approximately one-quarter of the sample reported at least one instance of SV by way of physical force, threats of harm, or incapacitation during the yearlong study."

"hookup behavior during the study was a significant predictor of incident STIs"

"The potential for negative health and social outcomes suggest the need for proactive educational efforts"
This is a tragic vicious circle.   Women are misled to mistake self-abuse as the only successful method to find a partner for their emotional needs.   This instrumental compliance reinforces the male delusion, that women would benefit when in reality they are abused.   Thus even those men, who would not abuse a woman, were they aware of what they are really doing, do not hesitate to abuse women pretending their compliance to be their true wish.  The male delusion of mistaking purposeful self-abuse for beneficial self-interested behaviors bears the risk, that sometimes men may believe to do something beneficial and pleasing to not consenting victims.       



Wednesday, January 1, 2014

699. Is The Own Body A Merchandise?

699.   Is The Own Body A Merchandise?
"French MPs have approved a bill that will penalise anyone paying for sex.

The bill, which was adopted by a vote of 268 to 138, with 79 abstentions, establishes a fine of at least 1,500 euros ($2,030) for buying sexual acts."

"The 1,500-euro fine is for first offenders - subsequent offences could be more than double that."
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/12/across-europe-growing-sense-legalized-prostitution-isnt-working/7777/

Opposition to the new law comes not only from men, but also from misguided feminists, who are probably too desensitized to be aware of the fallacy of their thinking.  

Prostitution fills the asymmetrical gap between the magnitude of most men's biological urges and the lack of the same amount and urgency in the majority of women.   If women would enjoy copulation without emotional attachment and without commitment as much as men, enough women would want this and no men would have a reason to pay for it.
  
Prostitution is enabled by the combination of the asymmetrical male urges and men's onesided advantages of physical and/or economical power.


There are two fallacies in the demand for legalized prostitution:

Fallacy 1.

Prostitution is called sex work.   Whenever there is no direct coercion, it is alleged and claimed to be a more or less fair deal.  
It would only be a fair deal and a free choice in the case, when a woman has a real, not only a legal right and chance to get all the schooling and training she wants and a well paid agreeable job, and when in spite of this she nevertheless prefers to sell the self-abuse of her body.     
Defining a woman's last straw in a dire need for survival as a free choice and as a fair deal is a fallacy of desensitized people. 

Fallacy 2.

There is a claim, that women should be completely free to do with their own bodies, whatever they want, including selling it.  

If this is to be accepted, then this has to be applied fully and with no other restrictions.   Women then should be given the full freedom of choice, how to use their bodies as a source of an income and what kind of harm they are most willing to suffer.
  
Right now, except selling blood, in most countries other methods are not legally available.   If there are illegal practices, the owner of the bodies get themselves very little, while criminal agencies make profit.   


Comparing the non-financial costs and benefits, prostitution is undoubtedly the worst option for the abused women themselves:

1.  Prostitution 

When a prostitute sells her self-abuse, she serves as a toilet for a selfish man's body waste. 

The costs for the women are the disgust and agony during the recurrent abuse and the long-term psychological and physical damage, for example often substance abuse and the inability to ever emotionally bond with a man.
 
The only benefits are what the abusers perceive as pleasure.  

2.  Selling body parts

Would the women be allowed the choice to sell a kidney (or any other body part, which can be sold without disabling oneself) instead, this would not merely enable a man to acquire selfish abuse, but it would help someone to survive and it would also safe resources needed for the general health care.   Recurrent dialysis is extremely expensive and inconvenient.   A woman (or any person) could be paid the amount of money saved by preventing some years of dialysis.   

The costs for the women are the risk of an operation and the loss of one kidney.  
 
The benefits are for all persons getting off dialysis and having a normal life with a working kidney.

3.  Selling unwanted babies.

Even the uterus and its contents are a part of a woman's body.  If unwillingly pregnant women are allowed any choice at all, it is between abortion and donating the child for adoption.  While it is considered as suitable to impose the paid more general abuse upon women's reproductive area for the mere satisfaction of men's instincts, there is no logical reason, why they should not be allowed to sell the use of the filled uterus instead.    
Women should have the right to the alternative of selling unwanted children or of producing babies for other people as surrogate mothers.  This should be a fair option for the avoidance of the agony of prostitution.  

The costs for the women are the inconvenience, suffering and expenses of pregnancy and giving birth.   For those women, who do not want to breed, there are no emotional costs. 

The benefits are the fulfilling of the breeding urges of those people, who are unhappy without children.  They would be spared futile fertility treatment and more babies would be available to be adopted.  The benefits are also for the babies, who grow up as wanted.

 
Selling body parts and babies has to be restricted as a direct deal between the giver and the health insurance or the receiver, without any greedy third party making profit from it.


Of course I cannot know it, but I am convinced, that many prostitutes would prefer to sell a body part or a baby, if only they were allowed to do this to prevent the agony of being abused. 

Either the own body is a merchandise to be freely used by its owner, then all forms of use have to be legal.   If it is not a merchandise, then prostitution cannot be defined as an exception, only because those powerful men with the influence over legislation are too often themselves the abusers wishing to perpetuate their privileges.   
 
It is an outrage that even in rich countries, some women are deprived of any other means of survival except the use of their bodies.   But it is even more an outrage, that these women are not even allowed a fair choice, how to use their bodies to acquire survival with the least harm for themselves.   

As long as it is considered as morally wrong to sell body parts or a baby, prostitution cannot, neither logically nor ethically, be justified by the right of women to do with their body, what they want.  
As long as it is legally impossible to sell a body part or a baby, men taking advantage of women selling self-abuse as this being their only legal option are abusers, who deserve to be punished.