128. Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 2

Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 2

Aspect 2.  Mistakes and Transgressions

Interpersonal courage or cowardice concern not only weaknesses, but also mistakes and transgressions.
Weaknesses are tendencies to behave, mistakes and transgressions are actual acts of inappropriate behavior with bad consequences on another person.   (Mistakes without a consequence on another person are irrelevant in this context.)    Mistakes are the result of ignorance, bad judgement, irrationality, carelessness, thoughtlessness, that cause any damage.   Transgressions are moral failures, that hurt someone else.  

Impulsiveness can be a weakness, a rash action is a mistake.    The lack of a hesitation to lie is a weakness, but the actual lie is a transgression.

A weakness has no impact upon another person, only the attempt to hide it can do damage to the partner as explained in entry 126.
A mistake or a transgression is an act with a detrimental consequence on someone else.   One person's act causes another person's pain or damage.   

Everybody makes a mistake or transgression once in a while.   The focus of taking responsibility is to undo the damage.   Outside a relationship, in rare cases it is possible to be responsible and to make amends for a mistake without the damaged person ever knowing of it.   If it is a transgression, then undoing the emotional damage always requires to own to it and to earn forgiveness.    

Taking responsibility includes four main steps:
1.  To acknowledge to have acted with an impact upon another person
2.  To consciously evaluate the own behavior
3.  To take notice of the subjective perception of the action by the other
4.  To decide, what are the appropriate consequences
Based on a realistic evaluation, a mature person feels and acts with accountability and liability, he makes restitution and amends, when this is needed to repair the damage.  

An interpersonal coward avoids responsibility by denial of some or all of the first three steps.   

1.  He denies to have caused the damage or pain.  
2.  He feels to have done, what is right and what he feels entitled to do.
3.  He denies that any damage or pain has happened to the other.
4.  He preserves his self-esteem, his haughtiness or his grandiosity delusion by never feeling remorse, contrition, guilt, shame or regret, when mature people with interpersonal courage would.    He is too much a coward to have a conscience.


As I am writing about what I am expecting as suitable or unsuitable behavior in a partner, further considerations here are limited to transgressions between partners involved in a relationship.  

Interpersonal cowardice is a character flaw.   In addition, there can be other reasons to cause a man not to take responsibility for a transgression:

A.  A viable bonded relationship is based on shared basic values and attitudes, and on a shared strategy of solving problems and sharing decisions.    That means that even when it takes long discussions about conflicts, there is always ultimately the possibility of a basic agreement concerning what is right or wrong in how to treat each other.    When a couple cannot reach consent about what is right or wrong, then they are not a match and cannot become bonded as a devoted couple.  
If their value systems are very different, the man might believe himself to be entitled to do or in extreme cases being a good person because of doing, what she experiences as a transgression.   She does not feel treated correctly, while he feels to behave correctly.   

A drastic example is a monogamous egalitarian woman in a society, where men are legally allowed polygyny.   When her husbands marries a second wife, he might perceive himself as an obedient follower of the demands of his religion, while his first wife feels herself entitled to the basic human right of equality.   

B.  People treat other people in accordance to their esteem for them.   The higher they value a person, the better the treatment, that they concede them to deserve.  
When a woman perceives a man's behavior as a transgression, while the man considers it as appropriate treatment, as the best that the woman deserves, then this indicates clearly, that she has no value for him.   He devalues, disrespects and depreciates her and puts her below him in a position of ascribed inferiority.  

C.  As an aggravation of treating her according to low esteem for her, as in B., his low esteem could be connected to his belief, that she is a defective and flawed person.   This allows him to interpret her reaction to his transgressions not as a healthy outrage but as further evidence of how flawed she is.   That lowers his esteem for her even further and justifies even worse transgression, that he does not consider as such.


A mature person feels a moral obligation to avoid doing hurtful, unpleasant and damaging things to other people, but it is sometimes an unwanted duty. 
A partner in a bonded relationship with intrinsic commitment cares for the emotional wellbeing of the partner.   His urge to avoid hurting her is a part of caring.  

When a man commits a transgression, but does not consider it as one, the woman experiences the man's transgression as a serious damage to the foundation of the relationship, if she is an egalitarian woman with the illusion to be with an egalitarian man.   Because this transgression tells her drastically, that he considers her as not good enough for any better treatment.  

To repair the relationship of equals, she needs some clear proof of a compensation and counterbalance for the abasement and degradation expressed by the transgression.    She can only forgive him, when she has been given back her rightful place as an equal partner, who deserves better treatment than what the transgression was.   
If he wants to repair the relationship, he has to take responsibility for the transgression, he has to make amends and restitution to her by earning her forgiveness.   That means, he gains full insight, what he had done wrong, why it is wrong, what treatment she deserves instead, how to avoid a repetition of the same transgression in the future.   If they both care for each other, he will be motivated to do this, and she will support him and cooperate with him in his learning process.  


To sum it up.   A man, who does not take responsibility for his transgressions towards me is unsuitable as a partner.  

127. Four Months of This Blog

Four Months of This Blog

Today is the last day of October, this is entry 127.   I have written a lot during the four months, since I have started this blog.   I keep on writing, because the more I write about a variety of topics, the more this blog shows up in google searches.  

By now I have said enough for my mindmate to recognize himself when reading this blog.   He has not found me yet.   Bad luck for him and for me, life together would be so much better.   It is not good to be alone.   But it is still better than to be with an unsuitable man.  

Blogger has a page, where I can check the number of pageviews and from which country they come.   In the month of October, there has been a total number of about 750 pageviews. 

Obviously, some people are looking at this blog.  I have no clue, how many of them are actually reading the pages after opening them.   I have also no clue, how many are considering this blog as a lot of mental diarrhea.  Those who do, do not bother to telling me so. 

Besides the few comments, I got a bit of positive feedback in private correspondence.   When I am daydreaming, I am hoping, that one of these days someone stumbles upon this blog, who has access to some very popular and highly frequented webpage.   Even if he would recommend this blog only as an amazing curiosity, it still may catch the attention of my mindmate.   

But reality is not like this.   I am neither impressive enough nor weird enough to achieve, that this blog can be distinguished from thousands of others.   
Every new entry is like throwing another bottle into the ocean.   Only I am not throwing one bottle into a vast ocean, I am throwing one more bottle between millions of other bottles floating there already.  

126. Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 1

Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice

I never wanted a hero or daredevil, who risks his life and health in dangerous activities.  He would only make me worry.   Therefore I consider a man, who avoids real risks, as wise and reasonable and not as coward.   He is no more a coward than I am myself when being cautious.

But there is one kind of courage, that is of paramount importance for me in my future partner:   Interpersonal courage.   I have no tolerance for interpersonal cowardice, because it is a method of avoiding pain by making another suffer instead.   In the relationship with an interpersonal coward, I would be the one, who suffers.
   
This concerns two aspects:   Weaknesses and Mistakes/Transgressions.  

In real life, especially at work, it is sometimes necessary to hide weaknesses and to correct mistakes secretly to avoid bad consequences.   A mature man knows, that the same interpersonal courage, that is required between trusting partners, can be very foolish with strangers.   But in a committed relationship, this is detrimental cowardice and not acceptable.

Aspect 1.  Weaknesses

In this context I use the word weakness for anything, that somebody has been born with or he has acquired later, and what he wants to hide.   It is about invisible weaknesses.   A physical ailment is not a weakness, but being a hypochondriac is.   Being bald is not a weakness, being ashamed of it is.     
It can be something, that he considers himself as a weakness, no matter if this is only his personal opinion, or if others think the same.    Or it can be something, that he believes that others consider as a weakness, even when he himself does not agree. 

As a few examples, people have emotions like fear, anxiety, phobia, paranoia, shame, helplessness and embarrassment, they are allergic to some situation and overreact sometimes and they prefer to keep this as private matter.

It is wise to avoid being vulnerable with the wrong people.   But it is also wise to be aware of the own weaknesses, so one can work on overcoming and conquering them instead of being determined by them.   That includes accepting support from trustworthy people.  

Partners bonded as a committed, trusting couple support each other, cooperate to cope and grow together.   This of course is based upon a solid basis of appreciation, respect and validation of each other, that cannot be damaged by the knowledge of real or subjectively ascribed weaknesses.  

The interpersonal courage between two committed partners requires, that they both are absolutely sincere and honest with each other, with no restrictions, censoring or withholding of any information, not only about facts, but also about themselves, their feelings, perceptions and experiences, no matter how difficult or painful it is to admit something.    But when there is a bond of trust, it should not be painful.  


When one or both hide their weaknesses, something is very wrong with the relationship.   It is like with trust.   Trust requires trustworthiness as the complement.    Interpersonal courage about weaknesses requires as the complement, that an admitted weakness is never used to justify depreciation and devaluation or in any other way to the disadvantage of the other.   

When a man hides his weaknesses from a partner, there are two varieties of the dynamics.   Both are based on the faulty concept, that a relationship is and should be a hierarchy.    He often is not even aware of this fatal error in his judgement.  
= He considers himself as superior and he wants to feel superior.   In this situation, he hides his own weaknesses, and the woman's onesided interpersonal courage is detrimental.    Admitting a weakness does not gain her the benefit of receiving support, but it leads to more depreciation and being treated as even more inferior.  
= He attempts and believes to be an equal.  He is worried, that by admitting his weaknesses, he risks to appear to or to be considered inferior by his partner.   He may think, that hiding weaknesses is a part of his role as a man.
In both varieties, his hiding of his weaknesses has behavioral consequences, that have a detrimental impact upon the partner and the relationship.  


A man in an intrinsically committed relationship shares every decision with his partner, whenever this decision has any impact upon her and the relationship.   That implies sharing all relevant information, not only external facts, but also needs and feelings, before they agree on a decision based on the joint information.   That decision is rationally convincing to both.   They both know, that shared decisions are better for them than any solitary decisions could ever be.  

But when some task or problem requires a decision, and the men hides his feelings and needs, then he impedes a shared decision.   He cannot convince his partner of his reasons for what he wants to decide without revealing all his reasons.    When they therefore do not agree or when he already knows, that he cannot convince her, then he even keeps her ignorant of whatever goes on in his mind.   Instead he forces his solitary decision upon her.   

Whatever leads to it, when a woman is taken by surprise by a man's solitary decision, this has very bad consequences on the relationship:

1.   A decision, that is not the result of a rational procedure to solve a problem, but is distorted under the pressure of strong emotions is often very bad, inappropriate and detrimental even to his own most selfish interests.    Sometimes he may successfully fight against his weakness for a while, but when he finally yields to it, the sudden act of weird behavior does more damage than what he wanted to avoid.
Thus, he does damage to himself by depriving himself of her support, her information, her cooperation.

2.   By forcing a solitary decision upon her, he sometimes upsets common plans or interferes with her life in a way, that triggers a reaction from her.   When she is suddenly the target of behavior, that is incomprehensible for her, then she cannot react any better than what her limited knowledge of the situation permits.  
In ignorance of what problem his is coping with and what he is hiding from her, her reactions can unintentionally make things worse for both.   Her own confusion and irritation can set off sequences of dynamics destroying or damaging the relationship.   

3.  When he forces his solitary decision upon her, his behavior comes for her out of the blue, it is incomprehensible and even stunning.   After a few repetitions, he becomes a walking time bomb for her.    She learns, that at any moment, he might again do some hurtful things to her, and she is not able to understand, why.
This has severe consequences:
She is helpless, because it is not in her power to protect herself against anything, that is done to her out of the blue.   No matter, how wise, mature and intelligent she may be, she is not allowed to use her skills to improve anything, not for both, not for him, not for herself.   She is the target without an influence.
Even if he explains his motives and reason afterwards, being unprepared for his actions takes away from her the reliability and predictability of a relationship being a safe haven.   By doing, what he feels compelled by his own emotions, without consulting her, without giving her a chance to participate in a solution not damaging to her, he destroys her trust.  She cannot relax, but is on her guard, even scared, because instead of a safe haven, for her the relationship is a source of stress, strain and depletion of energy.  

4.  When a man hides the true reasons for his decisions, when his actions appear too often incomprehensible, irrational, stupid, absurd, preposterous, this can have a much more drastic effect upon the woman's evaluation of a man than a weakness, that is a minor issue in need of her support.   He wants to hide something of little importance to her to preserve her appreciation, but the very actions to hide it are very drastic, sometimes unforgivable and do cause the woman to loose the respect for him.    He achieves a hundredfold of what he wanted to avoid.  
Not being able anymore to take a man for serious, drives an egalitarian woman as much away as does being treated as inferior.   But when she is treated as inferior by the same man, who causes her to loose respect for him by his own behavior, this is the certain end of the relationship.  

To sum it up:  Once I have fully accepted a man as suitable (more in entry 83 and 102), then a few weaknesses cannot destroy my appreciation.    But the interpersonal cowardice of making me suffer by any attempt to hide those weaknesses will be a dealbreaker.    Interpersonal courage has to grow along with trust as a part of emotional and intellectual intimacy, before the bond is sealed by physical intimacy.   

125. Out-Of-Place-Behavior With a Partner

Out-Of-Place-Behavior With a Partner

This continues entry 123.

When a woman gets hurt by toxic behavior because of her premature onesided bonding, this can be due to her getting involved with an unsuitable man afflicted with immature bonding-disability, like I have already described some varieties of.

There is a difference between an attitude and behavior.   Considering, perceiving and treating a woman for example like a dog with benefits or like a source for narcissistic supply is an attitude, that is toxic, deviant and preposterous.   
Some very hurtful behaviors can also be a consequence of this behavior being out of place in a relationship.    That means, the behavior itself is not generally unhealthy, toxic or weird.    It can be wise, reasonable and appropriate in some limited circumstances and situations.    But it is toxic in a committed relationship.   
For every set of such non-commitment behavior, that is out-of-place in a relationship, there is a complementary set of commitment behaviors and there are situations and circumstances, where it is appropriate.  

A man, who does not feel bonded and committed, treats the woman the same way as he treats any other person, with whom he has no special ties or is related in a less close relationship.   For him, this is logical and appropriate.    It is just not, what the woman expects.

There are different cases:
1.  It is the similar to case 1 in entry 123.   He knows both sets of behavior and when to apply which.   He has just not yet entered intrinsic commitment, so he considers his behavior subjectively as correct, while it is toxic for the woman.
2.  He only knows the non-commitment behavior, he has never learned commitment-behavior.    One very common reason can be the influences of the surrounding society or subculture, that prescribes, how to treat a woman in a way, that is very different from what the woman needs and expects.   Some men get so brainwashed, that they never have a clue, what they do to the women.  

This is another example of the hen or egg question about a man, whose behavior with a partner is non-committed and therefore out of place:  
Is a man bonding-disabled and can no woman ever become more special to him than anybody else?   Can he therefore never learn mature commitment behavior and attitudes and when to apply them?  
or
Is he ignorant, that mature bonded people treat a partner differently from any other person, and has this ignorance impeded him to learn appropriate behavior even while being involved in a relationship?    Has his lack of knowing appropriate behavior caused him destroy every relationship, before he could experience, what it means to feel bonded?


Examples of behavior, that may be appropriate under limited conditions, but is unsuitable in a committed relationship, will follow in future entries, together with an explanation, how that behavior destroys the relationship.

124. Caring Man or Jerk - 1

Caring Man or Jerk - 1

Caring for each other as a devoted couple means to care for the other's wellbeing, not only for the physical wellbeing of the basic needs, but also for the emotional wellbeing.

But how can a woman find out, how much a man is caring for her?  One possibility is the 'hunger test'.

General scenario:  
A dull, ticky-tacky, expensive looking restaurant, with white table cloths and servile waiters, that could be anywhere.
A charming, picturesque little eating place, very typical for the country and with excellent food.   That place can be found by walking around searching for another hour.  

Situation:
A couple is on vacation in another country.   He gets hungry and stops in front of the restaurant. 

There are four different scenarios, depending on the kind of attitude of the man towards the woman. 

1.  The dominant jerk decides to eat in that restaurant.   What she wants, is of no importance.   If she hesitates or resists, he gets angry and starts to make a public scene.   This way, he coerces her into the restaurant.   There he enjoys his food.   He is completely oblivious of how she feels.   If she sits there uncomfortable in a place she does not like, unhappy because she is helpless against his domination, he does not even notice.   He has ordered enough food for her too, so he has no clue, that there is anything wrong.    Would she even attempt to tell him, how she feels, he would consider and treat her as if something were wrong with her.  

2.  The grudging jerk does not dominate directly, but he feels entitled to dominate.   He  unwillingly gives in to her dislike of the restaurant.  He feels deprived of his right to eat there, he considers her resistance to his wish as her flaw.  When they eat in the cute local place, he is angry, that he had to continue hungry for another hour.  He reproaches her forever for this, as if she had failed her duty to put his needs above her own.    He blames her to have got her way.  He is oblivious that they both are getting their needs, he for the food, and she for enjoying the picturesque place.    Having such a grudge, he spoils her pleasure, and there is tension between them.   

3.  The fair compromising partner accepts, that he has no right to get only his needs fulfilled, but that his partner has the same right to get her own needs.   They both get their individual needs fulfilled, not as a couple, but as two travelling companions.   

4.  The caring partner enjoys himself more, when he knows, that his partner is enjoying herself as much as he does.    For him, the proverb:  "Joy shared is joy doubled" describes, how he perceives himself as a devoted partner.   When he suggests to enter the restaurant, he does it only as a question, what she would want to do, and he is eager himself to find some place, that is pleasant for both of them.   Therefore the fair compromise is what he wants too, so they can have a joyful and happy dinner together. 


Both varieties of a jerk will cause devastation to the woman, if she stays long enough with him.   The dominating jerk will achieve this by giving her the feeling of being helpless under pressure, the grudging jerk will cause her strain and stress in her never ending struggle to defend her own needs.   
The fair compromise can be a phase of transition during the time of growing attachment, but if is lasts too long, then there is a risk, that both partners start to feel, that something vital is missing between them. 

Only two caring partners can be happy together.  

123. Premature Involvement is a Hazard to Women's Dignity

Premature Involvement is a Hazard to Women's Dignity

A woman, who is sensitive, healthy, and whose promiscuity-inhibition has not been destroyed, experiences the beginning of physical intimacy at least as a strong enhancement of any preexisting attachment, it creates the bond of intrinsic commitment.   The following is about such a woman and not about all women. 

A woman's decision to seal a bond by the physical marriage, with or without formal marriage, is based on two evaluations:   The woman feels enough emotional and mental intimacy to justify it, and she assumes, that the man feels the same, because she is convinced, that he is not a manipulative psychopath but able to get bonded. 

If her judgement, that he feels the same, is an error, the she gets involved on the wrong premise, that he feels the same emotional and mental intimacy as she does.  The result is the situation, that the woman feels bonded in a relationship with a man, who is not committed.  

She then expects from him all the behavior and attitudes of commitment, mutual trust, reliability, predictability, responsibility, binding obligations, sharing his feelings, information, decisions, in short all, that makes the relationship a safe haven and a place of security. 

But for him, there is no commitment, and lack of commitment makes his behavior toxic for her, his lack of commitment behavior destroys the relationship. 


There are three possible outcomes from this situation:
1.   The man is capable to be bonded, the involvement was just precipitate.   He cares about the woman's wellbeing, asks her, what of his behavior is toxic for her and as a consequence he changes his behavior.   That means, he deliberately behaves like a bonded man by learning from her, what behavior would be natural and spontaneous by intrinsic commitment.   He accepts to act temporarily by submitting to the requirements of extrinsic commitment, until he grows into feeling intrinsic commitment. 
2.  He is ignorant, that she experiences his behavior as toxic or in any way inappropriate.  Therefore she gives him feedback, she gives him a chance to learn.  If he continues his toxic behavior, then she can interpret his behavior in two ways:
2.1.   He is capable to be held responsible, and he feels no remorse and guilt, then she has to acknowledge, that she has got involved with a jerk, who is morally unsuitable.    Her love for him turns into anger and outrage.
2.2.   He is too immature and psychologically troubled to comprehend, why his behavior is toxic for her.   She discovers, that she got involved with a pathetic helpless creature.  Her love turns into compassion and pity. 
In both cases, she looses the respect for him as an equal being, and starts to despise him.  Therefore, by getting involved with him by error of judgement, she has hurt her own dignity.   She had the illusion of having mutually created a bond of commitment between his and her inseparable mind and body, but in reality, she had allowed a worthless man to use her body.   

There is only one way to avoid hurting her dignity.   That is to postpone physical involvement, until she estimates the probability of his feeling sufficient mental and emotional intimacy as very high.    It may need hundreds of hours of intense constructive communication to reach this point.   For the woman, this is well invested time and effort.   Because if during this process she discovers, that the man is not suitable, she can refrain from further pursuit with her dignity unharmed.  

Unfortunately, most men's brains are fogged by their instincts.   The higher their instinctivity, the worse it is.   The fog in their brain distorts their perception.   They drool over a woman's body, and they are oblivious that this means inappropriate disrespect for her dignity.   Logically, it is an illusion to expect these men to even consider to avoid harming a woman's dignity, while they do not even know, that it exists.   

Therefore, it is entirely the woman's own responsibility to protect her dignity.   She cannot expect any empathy or support from a man for the protection of her dignity, she is forced to protect it against his instincts. 

When the still uninvolved man does something inappropriate to her, she is not responsible for being hurt as the target of this behavior.  She has made no mistake for which to blame herself.  If the behavior is bad enough, she can end the contact with no impact upon her self-respect.    
But when the involved partner does the same hurting act, her getting aware, that he is worthless, causes much more pain.  She can blame the man only for the inappropriate behavior.   But only she herself is responsible for hurting her own dignity by letting a worthless man use her body.  She consented by her own error, her own bad judgement, her own stupidity, by her own weakness.   She can only blame and reproach herself for the damage to her self-respect. 


Therefore my search for a mindmate, who is hypoanimalistic, monogamous, non-promiscuous, mature to bond by intrinsic commitment as a devoted couple is also an attempt to find a relationship without a risk to my dignity. 

_____________________________________________

This is in reply to the comment.   

Have you been in relationships in the past? How come it didn't work out?

This blog is about what and whom I am looking for and whom not.  I am revealing as much as I consider necessary to explain my quest.  Beyond that, my personal life history is private.   When I find a mindmate, I will tell him all about myself, as soon as there is a basis of trust.

122. Men's Emotional Intelligence

Men's Emotional Intelligence

I just happened to read, that October has been declared as the Emotional Intelligence Awareness Month.  
http://www.e-ii.org  
There is also some valuable material for reading about emotional intelligence on this site. 

Concerning relationships, this is, again in my own opinion, one important facet of men's emotional intelligence:

When a man guided by emotional intelligence wants a woman, he does not get involved with her, unless he has verified, what attributes and requirements make a man suitable for that specific woman.   He verifies this not only in his own opinion, but also by checking with the perception and evaluation of the woman herself.
If he discovers to be unsuitable for her, then he either makes himself suitable, if he is able and motivated, or he does not get involved.  

121. Are Immature Bonding-Disabled Men Doomed?

121.  Are Immature Bonding-Disabled Men Doomed?
Googling for adult emotional immaturity results in countless sources, mostly about the problems of the victims and some few vague theories about what could cause it.  But what I could not find was some good information, how people achieve to avoid getting mature, maybe at a slow pace, in spite of living and interacting with other people.   
So my following thoughts about immaturity and maturity are once again only my own speculations.

McWilliams wrote in a book on narcissism:  "the most grievous cost of a narcissistic orientation is a stunted capacity to love".   I generalize further.   This is true for all varieties of men, who are immature and bonding-disabled.  

When comparing an immature person with a non-criminal psychopath (Anti Social Disorder), then they have an amazing lot in common:   Both enjoy life feeling entitled to take, be given, usurp, use and take advantage of whatever they can get without any need to earn it or to give anything back.   Both do not feel responsible for what they do and they shun away from taking responsibility and accepting obligations as binding.
But there is one fundamental difference.   The psychopath knows fully well, that he in the opinion of others an person without morals, a bad person.    The immature person has the honest believe to be a good person entitled to behave as he does.  

Therefore if someone is really selfish or enjoys the benefits of being selfish so much, that he does not want to give it up, but also has a strong urge to consider himself as a morally good person, the only way to achieve this is to never grow mature.   At some early age, a child is allowed to feel entitled to get all his needs taken care of without earning it, while being considered a good person for nothing more than not doing bad things.   

Growing mature is a process of learning in exchange with the environment and by introspection.   As long as someone perceives and receives information from the social world around, in a healthy person this automatically compels the person to grow mature.    Staying immature while being fully exposed to all influences of social life would be more amazing than growing mature.   The person in interaction with the social world gets information from perceiving and observing others' reactions to themselves, and from proffered feedback.   That person gets the whole variety of human experiences, praise and criticism, success and failure, without seeking any of it.  It happens to everybody as the dynamics of everyday life.  

To stay immature requires the information input to be curtailed somewhere before or while it is processed as learning or as an experience.   

- Brain damage can of course impede the processing or any other step on this way. 
- Peculiar wiring of the brain like autism can filter, what information is perceived and processed.
- Psychological reactions can make someone avoid the input or processing of information.   This can be denial, distortions, delusions, defenses of many types.  While some unpleasant and painful information is meant to be filtered and kept away from the consciousness, as a side effect, this also deprives the brain from the information needed to grow mature.   


Therefore I can see two kinds of dynamics to explain immaturity.   Either the brain is first cut off from information input from outside, and staying immature is the consequence.   Or staying immature is so beneficial, that it is a goal, and the brains is protected against all influences, that are a hazard to maintain immaturity.

Independently of the dynamics, the result is a wall around the immature bonding-disabled man's brain, that blocks vital information from entering.   The four delusions (120. Immature Men and their Delusions) make him mindblind to the existence of that wall, they impede him from perceiving his own bonding-disability.   The wall protects his delusions, and it successfully impedes the woman outside from having any influence on him.   He is oblivious, that maturity and the knowledge, how to have a healthy relationship, are outside of the wall, out of his reach and beyond his vision.  

To have a healthy mature relationship requires to remove the wall.  But he is not even aware, that he holds the wall up, and the woman from outside cannot remove it for him.

Therefore he seems to be doomed to stay a prisoner behind the wall forever.   The only remedy, that I could think of would be, that he gets shocked out of his delusions.   But what shock would be strong enough to make a delusional immature bonding-disabled man learn, how to treat a woman?   I wonder, how many rejections and failed relationships he would need to start even doubting his own demeanor?

There is a vicious circle, and the man with those delusions is doomed in it: 
Only if such a man would be very deeply attached to a woman, loosing her could be enough to shake him out of his delusions.    But unfortunately for him, he would need to be shaken out of his delusions first, before he might become able to get deeply attached to a woman.   

It looks rather bleak for such men, and I am determined to avoid them.   I called them unsuitable before, and I am convinced, they stay unsuitable for a long time.

120. The Delusions of Immature Men

The Delusions of Immature Men

When someone has a delusion, people not sharing this delusion experience themselves as outside a wall around the delusion-afflicted mind.   Every rational challenge to the delusion bounces off from that wall.   The delusion protects itself successfully.   Information reinforces the delusion gets in, rational arguments against it do not.   Else it would not be a delusion.
With rare exceptions, the only cure for a delusion is a strong experience, that forces the truth upon the mind against all defences and resistance.  

When someone gives homeopathic water to the dog, and the dog gets better by coincidence, this enhances the delusion, that there is a healing difference between homeopathic water and tap water.    When someone prays, and by coincidence the wished for event happens, this enhances the delusion, that there is a deity answering prayers.  
Skeptic people can waste a lot of time in the attempt to logically debunk such delusions, it is rarely successful.   They can influence the ignorant and mislead people, but not those with a delusion.   Only if someone gives homeopathic water to a sick person, or prays for the healing, or both, and the person dies in spite of it, then this can sometimes shake up the delusion.


I have called the previously described varieties of the immature bonding-disability a disability in full awareness of the meaning of this word.   Because there is one disabling flaw in this immature attitude to a woman.    That flaw consists of any combination of four delusions.  

The first delusion of an immature man is the one, that whenever he wants something, he is entitled to have it, and if there are obstacles in taking possession of it, that is bad luck, injustice or a world full of enemies denying him his rights.  Those obstacles are always outside his own person, he never doubts his entitlement.  Even though he accepts the requirement to pay money for what he cannot get for free, he feels entitled to acquire, what he wants, as soon as he decides to pay money for it.   Any personal sacrifices to earn something are beyond his horizon.

Nobody buying an item or taking a gift home wonders, if the object wants to be bought or taken.   When in traditional societies women were sold or slaves were made concubines, to many of their buyers and masters it also probably never ever occurred to wonder, if the woman or slave wanted to be sold.  
In the times of equal rights, wanting control over a woman is not the same as being entitled to have her.   Someone, who confounds this, has a delusion, that disables him to have a relationship.   Yet such an immature man either never considers the possibility, that a healthy woman would not want him, or he automatically believes, that when he wants a woman, she automatically wants him too.  

Getting involved in a relationship is a two-sided process.   Wanting a relationship with someone because of being attracted, infatuated, feeling any kind of love and expecting benefits and advantages is futile without reciprocity.   When a reasonable and mature man wants a woman as a partner, his task is not to take possession of her, but to be wanted in return.   He has to start with the full awareness, that she does not automatically want him, but that it is his task to make her want him.  
If he wants to win her in an honest and decent way for a long-term relationship, he has to achieve this on two levels, emotionally and rationally.  This means treating her in a way, that makes her feel better with him than without him, and convincing her, that her life with him will be more beneficial than without him for a long time to come.  

The second delusion of an immature man is his belief, that he knows, how to make a woman want him.  He has a simple concept of a prototype woman, and what makes such a woman feel good and what is beneficial for her.   He has a kind of instruction manual for handling people in his head, and how to treat a woman in several situations are like chapters from that book.  
But the manual focuses on what to do to get which benefits and advantages.   The page with the instruction, how to care for a woman's emotional wellbeing, seems to be missing.
Therefore he thinks that by behaving accordingly, he automatically acquires possession of her, or that this justifies his entitlement to gain possession of her.   He is oblivious of the fact, that women are individuals and very different.   What makes one woman feel good, may well hurt another.  

The mature man finds out, how to treat a specific woman by asking her, how she wants to be treated and by listening carefully to her answers, explanations and her feedback.  This way he gains knowledge, what makes her feel good and is beneficial for her, and what hurts and damages her.   Based on this knowledge, he has two options: 
- He considers himself capable to treat her like she wants and needs to be treated, and he is willing to attempt and to learn to do it as his contribution to a healthy relationship.
- He either knows, that he cannot treat her like that, or that the personal sacrifice in doing so would be more than the benefits, he expects to get from her.  Then he acknowledges, that they are not suitable for each other.  

The mature man knows, that the woman only experiences him as suitable, if he treats her as she wants to be treated, and he considers a woman as suitable only, when he values her enough to be motivated to treat her as she wants to be treated.
The immature man is oblivious of this.   He wants her, even when they are not mutually suitable.

As a third delusion the immature man believes, that once he has acquired control and possession of a woman, she is his forever or as long as he wants her.  He is oblivious of the simple reality, that if he fails to treat her how she wants or needs to be treated, he either looses her or the benefits, for whom he had acquired her. 

A couple could have got involved based upon different premises due to a wrong evaluation of each other.     She could have accepted him by ignorance of his immaturity or of other reasons.    He could be treating her following his instruction manual, but in ignorance or defiance of her real needs.   As a consequence, when the relationship becomes toxic for her, her motivation to be with him changes.         

The mature man knows, that kindling her wish to be with him is a permanent task.   Here the second and third delusion are connected:     The mature man knows, that he looses her, when she subjectively feels treated badly and that therefore he needs to continue to check regularly from her feedback, how she feels treated.   He knows that her wish to be with him is not some mystical unconditional love, but a direct reaction to how she is treated.  

The immature man is unaware, that it depends upon his own behavior, if his possession one day vanishes or stops to be of any use for his needs.

The forth delusion of the immature man is his blind belief in his instruction manual, which means that if treated following the instructions, a healthy woman is supposed to be automatically happy with him.   Otherwise there is something wrong with her.   The delusion is his flawed logic:   The instructions are correct, therefore if the result is not satisfactory, then she is the problem.   The application of inappropriate instructions is an explanation, that just does not occur to him.  

Being afflicted with those delusions impedes a immature man to ever have a healthy relationship.   Most of the times he gets rejected before getting as far as entering a relationship, and usually he has no clue why.   When he does get involved and then the woman defines the relationship as toxic for her, he firmly believes, that this is the woman's flaw and defect.  

Being confronted with such delusions, a woman has no influence.   Whatever she says in disagreement with his delusions, just bounces off from his mind with no effect.   He believes in his perfectness and her flaws with the same delusion as a religious person believes in the existence of his deity.


A man, who has any of these delusions, is not suitable for me.

119. Predators and Prey: A True Story

119.  Predators and Prey:  A True Story

While I was a student, I went alone on a bicycle tour for several days, staying in youth hostels.  

In one hostel, I met a couple of about my age from the next big city.    She was the type of a spoilt child and very female.   He was a stud and a macho, originally from a Mediterranean country, with slightly oriental looks.   He was living a free life, selling books on flee-markets.    I will call her F. and him S. 

They were travelling in his car, heading next for the same town as I was.  For a reason, that I did not yet understand, I was invited to come along with them, putting my bicycle into the trunk.   They went there to meet a friend, whom I will call B.   B. owned a business, was at least wealthy, and the tie-and-suit sort of a man.  
B. and S. were each the prototype of two different kinds of men, who both attract wanna-be-breeder women's instincts.  One was affluent and successful, the other very physically fit.  

We met at a hotel, where B. had booked two double rooms.   During dinner, a kind of weird situation arose, because three persons were all soliciting to be allowed to share the room with F.  
I was glad, that it was summer, because when it had got too late to be admitted in the hostel, I started to see myself spending the night on a park bench.  I could not afford a room for myself in such a hotel.  
Finally F. decided to share the room and her inclinations with S., the stud.   Luckily for me, B. was a wise loser, he left to go to another hotel, that he pretended to like better.  I was allowed to have the second room to myself.
    
The next morning at breakfast, while S. was waiting for F. to join us, he told me the gist of the story:   The whole encounter had been arranged, because B. and S. had made a bet, who would spend the night with F. 
I did not need to ask for any more information.  By inviting me, S. had intented to have a number-two choice prey in reserve for the loosing one.   If S. was not sure of winning, he did this mainly to preserve his own macho ego.   Otherwise maybe by supplying B. with some substitute for F., he wanted to avoid rupture between the two men.  
I was not just the fifth wheel on a couple's excursion, I was a pawn in two men's game.  

I was young then and people behaving like this still stunned me.   With more knowledge, now I can see this as a classical case of the savanna principle:   F. chooses by instinct the fit stud to get herself pregnant, and then she would marry wealthy B. to have his resources to raise her progeny.   This is only speculation, because I have no clue, what became of these people afterwards.  

118. Unsuitable Men 5: Confounding a Partner with a Utility

Unsuitable Men 5:  Confounding a Partner with a Utility

The bonding-disabled man believes to love the woman, but he confounds infatuation and love.   Whatever qualities and values that woman might have, he is oblivious of them, he only perceives her as a body.    When the body does not attract him anymore, his bonding-disability impedes him from perceiving any further value in her. 

He loves her as he loves to eat cheese or he loves the high utility value of his bicycle.   He loves her as an object.

As long as the infatuation with her body lasts, he values the body enough to care for it.   He may consider her as a valuable property, like the bicycle, that needs good maintenance, and what grease is for the bicycle, is food and other basic necessities for a woman's body.  

People do not ask, if the beloved cheese wants to be eaten or if the beloved bicycle wants to be ridden.   They do not ask, if they are loved back, when they love cheese and the bicycle, nor how the cheese or the bicycle feel.   As long as cheese and bicycle are available, people are content.    When a man loves a woman's body the same way as he loves such an object, it is logical, that the same questions also never occur to him concerning the woman.

As long as he keeps her body in good maintenance, he subjectively feels being a good man, who does all, that is required from him as a partner.   Would he neglect the maintenance, he would not feel a bad conscience towards her, but like a fool depriving himself of the usability of his utility. 
If he has temporarily no need for a utility, he puts it in storage and feels entitled to find it there, whenever he attempts to retrieve it.
 
He is infatuated with her body, but when the infatuation fades and is gone, and there is nothing else, that attracts the man to be with the woman, then logically one day he gets rid of her, moving on to find a new infatuation with another body. 

Perceiving himself as the owner of the utility, dumping a woman is the same as discarding of an object having become useless, he considers it as his right.   Since he does not perceive a utility to have any feelings, he has no conscience about whatever he does with it, no matter if the utility is a broken tv or a woman.


Obviously, the woman's needs do not get fulfilled, when she is mistaken for an object.   But they would not get fulfilled even if she were recognized as being different from an object.  

If someone is stuck in the immaturity of an age of selfishness and selfcenteredness, then he forever feels entitled to get everything for free.   Earning is not a part of his morals or his behavioral dispositions.   Giving something in return for a benefit or advantage is only done, when there is no alternative.   The suggestion of something to be earned is perceived as an outrage by a person, who feels entitled to be given and served by others. 

Subjectively, he does not experience to ever receive from the woman anything given voluntarily.   She is not allowed a choice or an own decision.   Not only does he expect her to serve all his needs as if it were her duty, but nothing else, that she could offer, has any value for him.    She is supposed to function, as if her only purpose on earth were fulfilling every one of his needs.   Whatever he gets out of her, he considers it as his by entitlement.

Never receiving anything from her except what he considered owed to him, logically he gives nothing to her and does not care about her needs.  

117. Unsuitable Men 4: Confounding a Partner with a Child

Unsuitable Men 4:  Confounding a Partner with a Child

In this variety of the bonding-disability, a macho confounds a partner with someone naturally inferior and in need to be improved like a child.

Often a child's immature perception of his social environment misleads him to the concept, that marriage is a deal between a superior powerful man and an inferior woman. As a consequence that child starts to believe in his wrong impression, that all women are innately inferior, even though they may not appear to be so.   
The deal of his role models is simple, the husband gives money to the wife, and the wife in return works as a servant in the house, raises the kids and serves all his needs in obedience.   Their mental and emotional worlds are separate and they may spend very little time together.  Either they do not bond or they appear not to be bonded to the child.
In the case of the bonding-disability of such a child as an adult, he may well have the delusion, that all he is required to do is spend money on the woman, and if he spends enough, she should be happy and not expect anything else.  

Even if the man were rich and the woman poor, it is more than doubtful, that an educated woman would be satisfied with a man offering her dinners at restaurants, dresses and household appliances and nothing of immaterial value.   But it gets weird, when the bonding-disabled man wants to spend money on her, that is half hers, because they are sharing expenses.       

Spending money on his partner or even just attempting to do so allows him to identify with his male role models including the justification to feel superior.    While he superficially appears to spend the money on the woman, in reality he buys his reasons to feel superior. 
As a consequence, he not only projects his own needs upon her, but he makes also the complementary mistake of believing, that she wants him to spend money on her.  When she does not react as he expects according to his projection, then he believes, that something is wrong with her.  If a woman does not appreciate his spending money and fulfill his needs in return as a duty, then he believes that she needs to be fixed.   He feels entitled to force his will upon her to improve her, and has the delusion to do her a favor.    

But it can even be worse than that.   If he has observed his father as a role model treat his mother like a child, in a similar way as he was treated himself really being a child, then he can confound the two roles of child and wife.   He can come to the wrong conclusion, that they way, how he experienced to be educated and improved as a child is the same way how a woman should be educated and improved.   As an immature adult he imitates his father's behavior towards him in his way of treating a woman.   

What for the woman is her simple right to be an equal partner, appears to him as a defect.   He might not enjoy his power to hurt her, as in the other scenario, but he might feel, that by improving her, hurting her is unavoidable and therefore he is justified in doing it.   He considers it his right, even his duty to fix her into accepting the role, that he has for her.

Again, if the woman resists too much to his attempts, when he does not get his needs met, he dumps her without a conscience.   She failed in her function for him, and he perceives her as ungrateful for not letting him improve her.

116. Unsuitable Men 3: Confounding a Partner with a Source of Narcissistic Supply

Unsuitable Men 3: Confounding a Partner with a Source of Narcissistic Supply


A narcissist gets involved with a woman for the purpose of obtaining a reliable and always available source of narcissistic supply.    If the woman is slightly inferior but not too low, then this is the optimal kind of supply for his needs,.   Because the higher a narcissist evaluates the person admiring and adulating him, the more he values the narcissistic supply.   But if the woman is not inferior, she does not give him such supply but insists instead to be treated like an equal. 
Only in the case, that a woman acknowledges her inferiority, and delivers the narcissistic supply in exchange for something of value to her, this could work. 
But when the woman considers herself as his equal, while he needs her inferiority, this makes the relationship toxic for the woman.   The woman can be wise, educated, mature, she can attempt to care for him, to support him, to be understanding for his problems, this is her reality only and improves nothing for her.   He needs her inferiority, so she has to be inferior in his subjective perception, even if this means that his perception of the reality is distorted and that he is in full denial of most or even all of her qualities.   He has the grandiosity delusion of her being inferior, and logically only to himself, he treats her as inferior.    

He feels superior, and that means, that he also feels capable to know better than her, what to do.  Therefore he has an entitlement delusion, that justifies, that he dominates and gets his will. If she dares to disagree, than the delusion allows him to impose his will upon her as his moral right.   He decides without consulting her, and her role is to comply.   He dominates by either just doing, what he wants to do, or by threatening and coercing her to comply.
He projects his own narcissistic needs upon her, but with a distorted perspective.   Her struggle against his unwarranted dominance and for equality is perceived by him as if she would want to dominate herself and get narcissistic supply too.

When the struggle gets so bad, that getting narcissistic supply out of her becomes too tiresome and difficult, he dumps her without a bad conscience, because he believes that she has failed in her duty to him.

115. Unsuitable Men 2: Confounding a Partner with a Mother

Unsuitable Men 2:  Confounding a Partner with a Mother


When the man gets involved with a woman, and he has no other role model of previous interaction with a mature adult female, she is at the risk of becoming for him a mother with benefits.   

The relationship between mother and child is asymmetrical, where the mother gives services and benefits and the child perceives her as a nothing more than a source of them, owing her nothing, while she by law is obliged to care for him.   The mother gets biologically addicted to give the child unconditional love, while the child takes her for granted, as a utility to serve his needs.    A child turns to his mother, whenever he wants a need fulfilled, and he feels entitled that she is always there to serve his needs.   When the child has other interests, he pursues them and the mother fades into oblivion, until he returns and wants again something from her.    For the child, the mother's only purpose of existence is being a source of benefits for him.  

He is oblivious, that the mother has a mind, a personality, feelings, needs for herself.  
He feels subjectively being a good kid, when he does, what he is told to do, even when this is only to his own good like attending school.   To care for the mother's needs is beyond his imagination, until he reaches much more maturity.   

At some phase of development, the child goes through obstinacy, opposition and defiance towards the mother.  In this phase, as part of a power struggle, the child does the contrary of what the mother asks for.   But when a man is stuck in this phase and then starts to treat his partner like he behaved with his mother, this turns a relationship into a very toxic experience for any woman.  
Not only does he take it for granted, that he woman has to serve his needs, while she is not considered to have any needs of her own, but due to his defiance she is powerless to avoid being hurt.    If she does not tell him, what hurts her, he continues to repeat it unknowingly.   If she tells him and asks him to stop hurting her, he enjoys his defiant power to repeat on purpose, what hurts her, so it gets worse for her.   Stuck in the defiance of a toddler, it is beyond the comprehension of a bonding-disabled man, that this is a moral transgression.

A child feels entitled to run away from home, when he has the whim, but when the child decides to come back, he expects to be embraced and welcome with the onesided unconditional love of a mother.   But a partner is not a mother, and a man is not entitled to be taken back after having dumped a woman.   A man with this variety of the bonding-disability does not know the difference.   He has the delusion that a dumped woman continues to stay eternally available for him, because he confounds her bonded attachment with the unconditional love of a mother.   Intrinsic commitment is conditional, it ends, when it is not honored by reciprocity.  

114. Immature Bonding-Disability and the Attachment Theory

Immature Bonding-Disability and the Attachment Theory

So far, I have been describing my own definition of the kind of relationship and the kind of man, whom I am looking for as a mindmate, and I have just started to describe the kind of men, who are not suitable for me. 

I have been and am still assuming, that the ability to feel intrinsic commitment as a mutually devoted couple is something, that starts with maturity and can be destroyed by several kinds of behavior. 

This is not in contradiction with some scientific text, that I found googling, but it is also not confirmed, so it remains still my personal assumption. 

There are several attachment theories, distinguishing between attachment styles.   It seems, that my ideal of a devoted couple bonded by intrinsic commitment would correspond to having secure attachment on the emotional level. 

There is also a theory describing on the behavioral level three areas of bonding behavior or motivation for behavior: attachment, caring and sex.   My use of the expression 'combined emotional, intellectual and physical intimacy was meaning something similar, if not the same, even though I omitted to directly mention caring considering this as a part of commitment.  

Only the importance of the absence of promiscuity and of entanglement with previous intimate partners is not mentioned in any of what I have read.   Maybe most of the scientists behind those theories are themselves promiscuous men and thus blind to what is important to at least some women.


Therefore, in the framework of those theories, the deficiencies of the non-psychopathic, immature bonding-disabled man as described in entry 113, can be described as lacking the ability for secure attachment, and being only loosely or not getting attached at all, his caring limited to rudimentary physical caring, he gets fully involved only physically.    

I like this description, which is a quote from http://www.idc.ac.il/publications/files/329.doc :

".... (a) a target for proximity seeking; (b) a source of protection, comfort, support, and relief in times of need (“safe haven”); and (c) a “secure base,” encouraging the individual pursue his or her goals in a safe relational context [....] These three functions are mainly found in long-lasting, highly committed romantic relationships."

This quote expresses, what so far I did not express well enough, that I want a relationship to be emotionally a safe haven and a secure base for each other.

113. Unsuitable Men: Immature Bonding-Disability

Unsuitable Men: Immature Bonding-Disability

I explained already, why promiscuous men can be devastating to bonding women.   I omitted one variety, semi-promiscuity:
The semi-promiscuous man gets infatuated with a specific woman's body, and just as the promiscuous man, he develops no bond with her personality, and he knows it.  But instead of replacing every female body after the first use, he continues to use the same body as if by subscription, until he tires of her.   He may just not be inclined to chase, or it is not easy to find another so often.   But he has to be distinguished from the bonding-disabled man, who superficially seems to behave in a similar way.

So far, it is obvious, that I will not get near any promiscuous men, they are unsuitable.   But there are other unsuitable men, those with a non-promiscuous bonding-disability in combination with immaturity and who are no psychopaths.   Even though they are also tragic to themselves, they are a very serious hazard to bonding women, because they do not even know themselves, that they are such hazards.  

Imagine a wolf in a sheep skin, who looks into a mirror and believes from what he sees, that he is indeed himself a sheep.   But his behavior is still that of a wolf.  Therefore he hurts all sheep, who come close enough to him, because he appears to be a fellow sheep.   He is oblivious of hurting the sheep.


I am using the expression Bonding-Disability for the special case, that someone lives in a monogamous and apparently intact relationship, but without forming a bond with his partner, not becoming a devoted couple bound by intrinsic commitment (entry 98), even though his promiscuity inhibition has not been destroyed.  
The word 'love' has so many different meanings in different situation and for different people, it is too ambiguous and vague, I prefer to call it bonding, when two partners merge into becoming a mutually devoted couple.

There are lots of reasons besides promiscuity, why mature people may not be able to bond, but that is a topic for another entry.    This is only about the combination of bonding-disability and immaturity.

Immature bonding-disabled men
- enter a relationship without accepting obligations
- perceive a relationship as asymmetrically serving their needs only
- dump without a conscience

There is a basic pattern of this bonding-disability and the man afflicted with it:

• The bonding disability is either a psychological problem of an adult being stuck in the immaturity of a child or is a neurological problem of some peculiarity in his brain.
• Outwardly he displays the decency and level of morals of a well educated teenager or child.   He does not lie, he does not cheat.  He sincerely believes to be a decent partner behaving correctly.  
• He is ignorant of the moral and emotional obligations connected with commitment.   He lacks the capability to feel responsible and accountable for what he does.    He does not consciously fail to fulfill obligations, he is oblivious of having accepted them implicitly by getting involved.
• He believes in all sincerity, that he loves the woman, but whatever he feels, it is far from bonding, devotion or the kind of love, that she feels and needs from him.  He has the delusion of giving the woman, what she wants, but he has no clue, what she is missing or even that there is something important missing in her perception.
• They are physically together but emotionally alone in an asymmetrical relationship.   He decides, what benefits and advantages he wants and takes from her.  He defines her role in his life.   What else she offers, would be of high value to a bonded partner.   His bonding-disability makes him mindblind to even perceive, that she has anything to offer beyond what he takes.   He is alone because the capacity to bond does not exist in his predispositions, and she is alone, because bonding is impossible without a bonding partner.  
• He perceives her as inferior without doubting this.   He is not capable to profit emotionally from her wisdom, maturity, education as a potential provider of support and of the emotional home of being a mutually devoted couple.  
• He appears on the outside to behave as if he were bonded.   This enhances the disaster for a woman, who not only feels herself in a secure situation to get bonded without emotional risk, but who also may spend some time under the delusion of mutual bonding, until her illusion gets shattered.
• He sincerely believes to fulfil her needs, but he only projects his own needs upon her or he makes assumptions without verifying them in communication with her.   Whatever he wants from her, he projects, that she would want the same from him.   Whatever he gives to her, he believes is what she wants and needs.   But her mind, her non-physical needs, her feelings, her personality do not exist, because he is completely mindblind to perceive them.   He is incapable to bond his mind to a mind, of whose existence he is completely oblivious.  
• He has no conscience and he never feels guilty for anything, that he does to her.  He has the delusion to be a loving partner and to treat her correctly.   Whenever she gives him feedback, that she feels hurt by his behavior, he sincerely believes, that there is something wrong with her.   If she is with him and she suffers, then he believes that she needs to improve and to be fixed.    He is convinced that the relationship could last, if she would accept his behavior as correct and appropriate.   He has no insight, that his own behavior is toxic.  
• It lasts, until the woman does not serve his needs anymore.  Then he dumps or deposits her at his convenience without any bad conscience.   Not serving his needs is in his opinion automatically an indication, that she is defective.   She cannot avoid being dumped first.  By feeling bonded and by feeling compassion she gives him too many chances, before she acknowledges the futility.   Thus he dumps her, before she is ready to give up and free herself.   She cannot avoid being dumped as defective, because no healthy woman feeling bonded can persist under his toxic treatment without getting devastated.   

There can be varieties of this pattern, but they are not mutually exclusive.   Any bonding-disabled man could be afflicted by any combination of them.   The resulting experience of the woman is similar.   

Variety 1.  Bonding-Disability by confounding a woman with a dog with benefits.  

I already described this scenario in entry 30.   The bonding-disabled man has a clear conscience, as long as he cares for her in a way, that the animal protection society would approve of for a dog.   He feels entitled to leave her and retrieve her at his convenience, just like a dog, therefore he has no bad conscience for what by her and by other mature people is defined as dumping.    

More varieties will be described in future entries. 

112. Pseudo-Liberation

Pseudo-Liberation

Many people declare themselves as having been liberated during the wave of liberations in the 60s in several western countries.   But overthrowing the permission of a deity in church for physical intimacy in favor of promiscuity was like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.   It was only replacing the brainwashing and pressure to conform with traditions and the church and allow to the brainwashed instead to conform with pseudo modernity and the peer group.  

The same instinct driven particles, who before like sheep submitted to religion and to procreation in the name of their deity, now like sheep submit to promiscuity because it is proclaimed as progressive by some men, whose own emotional dysfunction impeded them to get bonded.   

True liberation does not come by imitation of others or following a trend, true liberation comes from the own brain, from thinking for oneself and discover by independent thinking,  what is really beneficial for the individual.  

111. Rephrasing My Quest

Rephrasing My Quest

I have been struggling for a while to find an accurate expression.   I called the love of Dorine and André Gorz deep bonding, but I know now, what to call them:  A Devoted Couple. 
For me as an atheist, the word devotion has no religious meaning at all, but since my role model of deeply bonded couples are often called 'devoted couples', I will use this expression for the same purpose.  

Therefore, I rephrase my own quest: 

I am looking for my mindmate to become a 

devoted couple.   

110. Women's Stupidity Enhances their Plight

Women's Stupidity Enhances their Plight

It is a known fact with enough scientific evidence:   Seeing a naked, nearly naked or provocatively dressed woman or even a picture of one triggers a man's animal instincts.   The higher his instinctivity, the stronger this effect.   This means, that women should be aware of men's limitations.  
Men's triggered instincts are never valid or acceptable to be used neither by themselves nor by anybody else as an excuse for misbehavior and lack of self-control.   But those instincts, when triggered, do incapacitate men's reasoning and functioning as rational beings.  That is a reality to take into account when evaluating men's behavior.  When their instincts are triggered, they are temporarily rationally challenged.   They cannot help it to be mentally disenabled by their instincts.  Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is subtle and not easily to be noticed.   But women better are clever and reckon with it all the time to protect themselves against the detrimental effects.  

I claim that monogamous bonding in couples like Dorine and André Gorz leads to more happiness and less suffering as the sum for both and seen over a lifetime than any form of promiscuity and polygamy does.   Even if this could be debated concerning men, it is certainly true for women, who are more inclined to be monogamous, as long as they are not brainwashed by men to overcome and destroy their innate promiscuity inhibition.
It is obvious, that any person, who is bonded in a monogamous relationship and whose promiscuity inhibition is intact, fares better by kindling the monogamous relationship than by jeopardizing it, even if this means the need to use self-control once in a while.  

The behavior of all people is determined by two forces, the animal instincts and the capacity to make rational decisions, that has evolved to make them humans and distinct from animals.    Those persons, who have evolved to the highest level of humanity, have evolved the capacity for self-control based upon wise foresight and learning from experience.   They are capable to make a reasonable estimate of the outcome of their actions, based upon previous own experience, observed others' experience and knowledge, and they are capable to control their behavior based upon that estimate.

A man with low disgust sensitivity, whose instincts get triggered by a woman dressed not very decently, can still have so much foresight and self-control, that he never risks to cheat.   Even though he feels his instinct, he does not let it determine his behavior.  
His temporary need to use self-control is no contradiction to my claim, that he in total and long term will be more happy, suffer less and cause less suffering than someone, who is too weak or too stupid to resist his instincts and cheats.   When his partner has the dignity to leave him immediately, he has forfeited happiness.    

Some religions incorporate some good knowledge about human nature, of course without this knowledge validating them in any way. The islam has a wise understanding about the reaction of male instincts to women, but its cruel reaction of punishing the prey for the dysfunction and weakness of the predator is preposterous.   It is an outrage to make the women prisoners in the house or under a walking tent, while the men are allowed all the freedom.   If they really would see the necessity of such a drastic segregation, then they should lock the men away.    

Wise people cooperate to avoid unhappiness and damage by triggering instincts in inappropriate circumstances and situations.   Such cooperation means that men use self-control upon their instincts, and that women avoid triggering those instincts by dressing decently.   Together both genders could reduce the detrimental effects of male dysfunction due to their instincts in every day life.

A wise woman knows, that it is in her own best interest to only trigger the instincts of her own monogamous partner in the privacy of the couple.    Whenever she wants to be perceived by a man with his brain clear and undisturbed by the animal inside him, then she needs to dress in a way, that her body is covered well enough.  In all everyday life situation, when the woman wants to be respected and perceived as a person at work or when doing business, she needs the colleague's or business partner's brain functioning properly.    She would make her own life unnecessarily difficult, if she would be triggering men's instincts without any benefits for the purpose of her dealing with him. 
Only if a woman consciously wants to be approached for a fling, then she better runs around provocatively dressed and they will all be chasing her.  
In short, intelligent women adapt their attire to their purpose.   

But the majority of women in modern western societies are too stupid to be aware of all this.   They believe consciously in being protected by the law and by the publicly declared equal rights against the bad effects of male instincts.    They have the illusion to be free to trigger men's instincts and not suffer from it.   
They complain with a lot of reason about the macho men, who disrespect, depreciate, repress, exploit, abuse them.   Their complaints are more than justified, but they are blind to their own responsibility of triggering in them the instincts, that enhance their macho attitudes.    They want to be treated by humans as humans, but they contribute to them being animals.  

In reality, they are as much driven by instinct as are men.   Their own instincts drive them to trigger men's instincts in the most inappropriate situation with the most unfavorable results and they do not know it.   When they are successful, they feel flattered.  They identify themselves with their looks and their body.  They run around half naked, provocatively dressed like prostitutes.  The more they can trigger men's instinct, the more they feel good about themselves.   They are proud to be able to trigger men's instinct.   They are pathetic.

But instead, those foolish women are driven by their own instinct to trigger the promiscuous instincts of the worst emotional psychopaths, they fall for the pick-up-artists like flies into traps.   Being driven by their procreation instinct, they get pregnant from the least suitable psychopath and then either they get dumped immediately or after having been married and cheated and divorced, and in the end they are raising their brats by themselves or have to cope with all the hazard of patchwork-families.   They trigger instincts and get hurt as a consequence.  

Wise women do not waste one minute of their time with a man, who is in a relationship or interested seriously in wanting a relationship with someone else.   Competing causes a lot of pain, that can be avoided by focusing on the free and available men.   No man could cheat on his partner, without a woman accepting to be the one he is cheating with.   With her human emotions, this co-cheater would suffer hell, when cheated upon herself, but she does not hesitate to let her own instincts make her the cause of suffering of the women, who has been there first.   

They consciously want a monogamous relationship, but instead of being happy with one partner each, they compete with each other for other women's men. 
The most idiotic women are those, who are successful in luring a man away from his previous partner, and when he then cheats on them too, they are astonished and outraged.  

Both men and women get dysfunctional under the influence of their animal instincts, but in the end, the women suffer from both, the men's emotional psychopathy and their own stupidity.   
Unfortunately neither the women nor the men are fully aware of what they do and of what goes on between them.  These women do not only cause damage to themselves, but to all women, even those, who are wiser than to trigger instincts.    If men are getting used to experience women provoking their instincts without hesitation often enough, then they generalize their own mental dysfunction of considering women as objects to all women, even to those, who are decently dressed and who attempt to avoid suffering under this dysfunction.   


This is like the marshmallow test.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification
The promiscuous man and the woman with blind eagerness to breed are both like the kid, who greedily devours the marshmallow immediately upon getting it in reach.   The monogamous person is like the kid, who is capable to wait, until the much bigger reward comes later, be it two marshmallows for a kid or the long-term bonding in true love for an adult.   


Women are supposed to be from Venus and men from Mars.   But when I observe those breeding animals and particles driven by instinct to hurt each other and consider this as normal, then I feel that I am an alien from another galaxy.    From the distance of that galaxy, Venus and Mars are very close together.   
I observe them from my distance of an alien, and I can see the logic in their behavior, when that logic is based upon the instincts main objective of the survival of the species.   But in spite of all my observations, I have never understood and I will never understand, how triggering a man's instincts can make a woman feel good.   It will always be beyond me, how what is an insult to me is flattering to them.

But I am convinced that I am not the only alien from the galaxy of monogamous, anti-promiscuous people capable to bond.  I am an expat from monogamy land.  Where are my fellow country people?  Dorine and André Gorz came from there.   My mind-mate from there is somewhere.    We only need to find each other.     

109. Atheistic Moral Concerning Promiscuity

Atheistic Moral Concerning Promiscuity

In entry 108 I explained my assumption, that those people become promiscuous, whose saks (misspelled to avoid appearing in filthy men's searches) drive is stronger than their disgust sensitivity. 
This is much more the case with men than with women.   The real percentage is of no importance, but there are many more promiscuous men than women. 

In an oversimplified example, 100 men and 100 women get newly involved intimately.   Of those 30 couples were both monogamous and would get bonded, 40 men and women would both have a promiscuous fling and forget about it unaffected, that leaves a mismatch of 30 promiscuous men and 30 non-promiscuous women, who are not suitable for each other.   The women get emotionally bonded automatically and will be very hurt, when they are dumped, abused or cheated upon by the men, who lack the ability to bond. 

Promiscuity hurts the non-promiscuous victim.  It causes serious emotional damage.  Therefore, this is a very serious moral issue.   Hurting others is morally wrong.    Moral requires consideration and responsibility. 
But this is not just a moral issue limited to not following specific rules of some societies or religions.   It is worse, it is a breach of basic humanity. 

Basic humanity means to me as an atheist to follow some kind of the golden rule.   This includes as a very important part, maybe as the core of it, to avoid hurting, damaging, exploiting others.   Avoiding to hurt others is more than empathy or projection.  It is requires active efforts to find out, what would hurt them and then refrain from doing it. 
Therefore any promiscuous person has the moral obligation to make sure, that a partner is also promiscuous, before starting a fling.   Making a non-suspecting monogamous woman the victim of promiscuity is an atrocity and deeply immoral. 
 
There are three main varieties of promiscuous men:

1.  Those, who are aware of the consequences of their behavior, they restrict their demeanor to promiscuous women.   They have their emotional disability of being unable to bond, but as long as they stay with their own kind in the gutter, they do no harm to decent women. 

2.   They are the emotional variety of psychopaths as explained in entry 104. These psychopaths do know, that they hurt and damage others, in this case the monogamous women, whom they lure and manipulate into allowing the psychopath to abuse them.

3.   But there seem also to be some promiscuous men, who are either so incredibly stupid or driven by a delusion, that they just have no clue, what they do to their victims.   From looking at some men's site, I start to suspect, what goes on in those abominable creatures' mind:
- They project, that women are as much driven by instinct to want flings as they are themselves.  They belief that by 'offering' a fling, they are doing the woman a favor and the woman should be pleased and flattered. 
- They are too stupid to even imagine, that a woman could get emotional bonded, while they forget them the next day. 
- They are completely ignorant and oblivious of the fact, that women are not mere bodies, but persons with dignity and self-esteem.
- They believe, that all women are promiscuous and all run after the alpha-males to be allowed into their bed.   If their own approach is rejected by a woman, they are too stupid to even imagine, that the woman is just decent and monogamous, they attribute it to the alpha males getting them all.   These idiots then pay a lot of money to be trained as pick-up-artists.   Psychopaths teach other men to become more successful as abusers.  It would be pathetic, were there no victims at risk.  Nobody seems to bother.   I wonder, what would happen, if a full psychopath would start training others in how to forge and steal.    There is no real difference, those pick-up-artists can do as much damage to a woman's emotions as does a thief to a person's possession. 
 
For the case, that one of those abominable creatures reads this, here is a chance to reconsider his delusion: 
= When I was approached by a man, and it was clear, that he wished to use my body, I considered this as an insult and I spat in front of his feet.   This was the strongest expression of disdain and scorn, that I could think of.
= If I were forced to choose between two man, one is a non-promiscuous, hyponanimalistic man able to bond, but he is impotent, the other is a stud, but promiscuous and not able to bond, I would choose the impotent one without a moment's hesitation. 


To sum this up.   Promiscuity 1 is pathetic, they may deserve compassion for their lost bonding ability.   Promiscuity 2 and 3 are immoral, because the used victims suffer. 

Unfortunately, the emotional suffering of women is usually not recognized by their society, not only when it is directly caused by emotional psychopaths, but in general.    Men dominate society, not only by political power, but mainly by the power over the media, so they manipulate men in their delusion of what they are entitled to do to women, and women in their willingness to suffer, what should cause their outrage.   Religion adds to this by promising the reward in the afterlife, if they willingly suffer on earth, whatever is done to them. 

108. Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

I am suspecting, that promiscuity or the inhibition of promiscuity are related to differences in disgust sensitivity.  

There is certainly a wide variety in disgust sensitivity between people.  As an obvious example, some people allow their dogs to lick their faces without any hesitation, others feel already disgust when merely watching it.
I assume that while all people have some amount of disgust of other's body fluids, there is probably also a wide variety of how much disgust people feel about the contact with a stranger's body.  

What in previous entries I had described as promiscuity inhibition, could be mainly or partly a strong repulsion to get near any stranger's body, which then as a consequence impedes promiscuity.    This does not contradict my previous assumption, that promiscuity is a loss of the inhibition, but it is an elaboration.   

In this elaboration, promiscuity inhibition means, that disgust sensitivity prevents hypoanimalistic individuals from physical involvement with a stranger.   Such involvement is delayed, until the emotional and intellectual intimacy have prepared both partners for physical bonding, when they are no more strangers to each other.
I strongly suspect, that only people, whose instinctivity is higher than their disgust sensitivity, are prone to become promiscuous.  

The destruction of the promiscuity inhibitions and the development of promiscuous psychopathy is a two step process.  
The first step is beginning promiscuous activities with strangers or persons, with whom emotional and intellectual intimacy does not exist.   Assuming that promiscuity is caused, triggered or enhanced by strong instinctivity, then it could be that when two strangers agree on a fling, they do this in a moment of strong instincts overriding their disgust sensitivity and their repulsion of a stranger's body.  
This would be similar to someone, whose extreme hunger overrides his disgust and he eats food from the garbage container, that would cause him nausea, if he were less hungry.  
Of course, in such a situation, the physical intimacy is not creating any bond, as the major requirement of emotional and intellectual intimacy is lacking.   They experience the physical encounter as something completely different from a bonding experience.   The more often they repeat non-bonding flings, the more they get desensitized to not feeling any restraining disgust and habituated to not getting bonded.  
When they have lost all ability to bond, they become dangerous emotional psychopaths.  In this state, even when they know someone for a long time before getting involved, for them as desensitized emotional psychopaths this is still nothing more than uncommitted promiscuity, even though they are no more strangers.   But for their unfortunate and unsuspicious hypoanimalistic partners it is bonding.  


So far, I have used the word disgust in a vague and unspecified way.   My assumption, that disgust sensitivity to a stranger's body is something developed by evolution needs some evidence.  

In my attempt to find some scientific backup,  I found this text based on research as recent as 2009:  http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/137596.pdf

As a result of several studies, the authors distinguish three varieties of disgust:  Pathogen, saksual (misspelling on purpose), and moral disgust.  They reject previous concepts, where disgust was meddled with feeling creepy.   
They consider all three disgusts as the result of evolution.   The pathogen disgust aims as a protection from pathogen substances, the saksual disgust as a selective protection against have unfit progeny, and the moral disgust as a protection for the cohesion of groups.   That sound plausible.  
The authors consider all three disgusts as the same emotion.   But this is somehow not fully convincing to me, when I compare it with my own subjective experience and introspection.  
Yet again, such studies were made on a representative sample of average people, of whom most were most probably breeders and particles, and I am the one, who is different.  

Therefore I cannot really know, what kind of disgust another non-promiscuous woman feels, whenever she is approached by a stranger and perceives his intentions as aiming to use her body for a fling.   But she would most probably feel disgust, as is shown in the results of these studies.  

But I know my own reactions from such experiences in the past.   It is a very strong sick feeling of the disgust to pathogen substances to get in touch with a stranger's body fluids.   An analogy for the understanding of promiscuous readers: It is the same disgust as if someone would suggest to smear dog poop on me.    Morally, I feel outrage, that somebody has the disrespect and depreciation to even consider for one moment, that I were someone to be degraded as low as a body, an animal, an object.  But this is a different feeling from the pathogen disgust.  
Since I feel no instinct to procreate, so of course I have no specific instinctive disgust rejecting some males as more unsuitable than others.  I choose a partner with my brain to bond with, not with instincts to procreate.   Therefore I feel saksual disgust against all strangers, but always combined with the pathogen disgust towards the stranger's body, so I cannot distinguish both as different emotions.