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.


Thursday, March 31, 2011

266. Inexactitude, Trust, Manipulation

Inexactitude, Trust, Manipulation

A few days ago, I was contacted by someone, who indicated his age in his profile as 65, but revealed in his email, that he was two years older.    As I consider 67 as the age limit of my search, the difference by itself is trivial.   It is more an inexactitude than a serious lie, but still, he had deliberately told something not exactly correct.  

Trust needs the expectation of being always told the exact truth.   After that admission, how could I have learned to trust someone like him?    For the doubtful gain to get a reply from women, who may not reply to his true age, he forfeited the possibility of trust.

But it is worse than that.   Attempting to get a reply by an incorrect information is outright disrespect and manipulation.    When a woman has made her own decision about the accepted age range and other criteria of a match, this is her legitimate own choice.   A man with respect for her takes her choice for serious.    If he does not, this shows, that he does not take the woman for serious.    I admit, that I have no sympathy for the kind of men, who believe, that when a woman says yes or no or whatever else, she does not mean it.    I dislike this kind of game players.

There is something absurd in the thinking of such a man, who believes that if he only manipulates the woman to accept contact with him in spite of her own criteria, then she will be so swept off her feet by his grandiosity.  Some men really believe, that a woman forgets and gives up, what she really wants, just because he happens to be interested in her.     
 
He replied, that lying about the age is common behavior, and it seemed as if for him, there was nothing wrong about it.   Obviously, he was willing to accept a woman, who lies about her age and was not much bothered about issues of trust and trustworthiness.    I doubt, that such a man wants a woman as a close companion for intrinsic commitment.    If he only wants her body, than for this purpose, the body of a liar is as good as the body of an honest woman.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

265. Distorted Communication

Distorted Communication

A metaphor:

Successful constructive communication is like a ball game, where both partners catch and throw back the ball.   

Each partner listens and reacts in a logical manner to what the other has said.   No matter, if the reply is a general statement, a supply of information, a question, a reply, it is connected to the previous uttering of the other, it indicates listening.    Even if there was no direct reaction expected, the next uttering is related to the topic of the conversation.    The communication is continued, until there is consent.  

When a woman wants to communicate about a relationship problem, but the man impedes it by disruption, there are several pattern:

1.  The man lets the ball bounce off him while he stands there without moving.
The man does not react at all, when the woman says something to him.

2.  The man catches the ball and throws it aside.
The man reacts with clear signs of annoyance, when she starts to talk to him, but does not reply.  

3.  The man catches the ball, throws it aside and throws another ball at her.  
The man shows, that he has heard her, but what he says himself has no connection to what she had said.   

4.  The man throws one ball after the other at her at a rate, that she cannot catch them.
The man monologues and gives her no chance to participate in a dialogue.

5.  The man ostensibly takes something into his hands, so that he cannot catch a ball.
The man avoids talking by strategies of being elusive, like pretending to be busy.

6.  The man misses catching the correctly thrown ball, it rolls out of his reach.   He throws a ball of his own back.
The man does not comprehend, what she says, because he is too immature to understand her way of thinking.   When he replies, his reply is not appropriate to what she had said.

7.  Like 6, but he throws his own ball at her with so much vigor, that it throws her off balance.
He gets aggressive, because he blames her for his own lack of comprehension.

All of the above patterns impede solving conflicts and when unresolved conflicts pile up, then the relationship is doomed.    My mindmate to find is someone, who sincerely and unrestrictedly communicates about everything.   
 

Monday, March 28, 2011

264. Procrustes

Procrustes

The effect of an immature emotional moron upon a sensitive woman is emotionally, what Procrustes did physically to his victims.   
"he had an iron bed in which he invited every passer-by to spend the night, and where he set to work on them with his smith's hammer, to stretch them to fit. In later tellings, if the guest proved too tall, Procrustes would amputate the excess length"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

The emotional moron believes, that everybody is like him.   He thinks this even about women, as long  as the differences are not obviously noticeable.    His interaction with a woman is determined by projection and by taking the validity of his projections for granted.  
  • He projects his needs upon her. 
    If he wants to be caring or give her something as his part of the relationship deal, he fulfills his own needs upon her, even if she protests and resists, because what he wants as good for himself is painful for her.    He is ignorant of her needs, if they are different from his.    It does not even occur to him, that she could have needs, that he is not aware of.   
  • He projects his denials, delusions and sore spots upon her.  
  • What he does not want to exist, in his mind also does not exist for her.    When he thinks, that something does not exist, he also cannot accept it as a problem for her and if it is, he considers it her flaw.    If he has an entitlement delusion, he expect to get his alleged due from her.    If he has sore spots, she takes it for granted that she knows without being told.   If she ignorantly touches them, he blames her.
  • He projects his own weaknesses and troubles upon her, depreciates her and even attempts to fix her.
  • He projects his own reaction patterns upon her.  
    Whatever she does, he believes that she did it for the same reason, for which he would have done it.    If he is not sincere, he also does not trust her.
    Whatever he does to her, he believes to know, how she will react.   If she reacts differently and he dislikes or does not understand it, he considers her as being flawed.    He does not doubt his prediction.   He does not consider to change his behavior to get the reaction, he wanted and expected.
    He does not take responsibility for his own actions, if she suffers from what he considers as correct behavior by projection.    He blames and considers her as flawed, when he confounds her reactions with independent actions.   
  • He projects that what is good for him is automatically good for her. 
    If she suffers, he firmly believes, that there is something wrong with her, he does not doubt, that what he has done was appropriate.    He never evaluates his own actions by taking her reaction into account. 
    If he is bonding disabled and perceives a woman automatically as a friend with benefits, he projects this on her and believes, that she is content when treated as such.
    If for him a relationship serves the purpose of gaining homeostasis for the urges of his instincts, he projects that he has to be a stud for her and nothing else.  
  • He projects also his attitudes on her, where they define complimentary behavior of the two genders.
    If he believes in the gender roles of male dominance as natural and correct, he projects on her her compliance to submit and feel content.  
    If he is a narcissist, he projects on her to be content as a co-narcissist. 
    If he sees a relationship as a complimentary deal, then he considers money and material benefits as a sufficient price for her maintaining his homeostasis.

Whenever he projects something on her, he takes it for granted, that she knows, what he wants and what not without explicitly talking about it.    If she does not fulfill his expectations, then he considers her as at fault, he does not consider any need to communicate explicitly.    If she does not comply with his expectations without being told, he begrudges her and gets angry.  

According to his projections, a woman can only be right, when she does, what he expects, or wrong otherwise.   He feels no need to get any information input from or about her.   That makes him a robot, who is determined by his innate projection program and cannot to be influenced from outside to adapt his program to any specific woman.   His program treats all women as one prototype.    He believes so much in his projections, that he is immune to any attempt to influence him by proffering information and feedback.   

For him a relationship is not a deal based upon each explicitly telling the other the own needs and checking, if the needs of the other can be fulfilled.    The emotional moron condescends to mold any haphazard woman, if he happens to get infatuated with her body.   Due to his projection, he has no doubt, that she will fulfill his needs and he hers.    If there are conflicts, he experiences her as a faulty copy of the prototype, not as a mismatch.  

He believes so much in his projections and in treating her how she should be treated, that he cannot acknowledge or admit, that she could ever be unhappy because of him.   Even when she outwardly shows serious indications of unhappiness or distress, he is unable to perceive it as such.    Instead he interprets it as behavior for the purpose of manipulating him.

He does not consciously search for a woman, who is as much like him as possible, so that she could be treated as the prototype of his program and be happy about it as is would be congruent with her person.   Instead he gets involved with any haphazard woman, whom he takes for granted to be only raw material to be reformed in a mold to fit his projections.    He believes her in need of molding, until she not only resembles his projections, but also expresses her approval.


Saturday, March 26, 2011

263. Zoo

I like taking pictures.   Here are a few from my last visit to the zoo.   

Animals are animals.   But it is fun to use my imagination and ascribe them artificial personalities. 



The typical female breeder, happily burdened. 

 
The grumpy old geezer, who believes that women have no brains and their place is in the kitchen.


The hedonist.   Warm water and the sun on his belly is all he needs to enjoy life.



The attention seeking narcissist with his big mouth wide open, whenever he has an audience.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

262. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment and the Relationship Deal

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment and the Relationship Deal

I already described the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment in entry 98.    I described the problem of a mismatch between a woman in search of intrinsic commitment with a man, who offers her anything except this, in entry 256.    Also there is an extra page about what kind of relationship deal I am offering to my mindmate.

A relationship is a deal, and when people are entering a monogamous relationship, this decision is based upon the evaluation , that what they offer and what they expect to get is a fair balance.    A man often enters a monogamous relationship for the purpose of acquiring a steady method of maintaining sexual homeostasis, when he subjectively wants to be decent in not abusing women or when he prefers this over the efforts needed to regularly chase new prey, of both.   In return he offers, what he has to offer, what he is willing to offer, and what he believes that the woman wants.  

Both intrinsic and extrinsic commitment start like this.    But from then on, what women experience from bonding-disabled men limited to extrinsic commitment, and what they experience from mature high quality men able to give them intrinsic commitment, is very different.   

1.  Identity:   

An intrinsically committed man changes his identity.   By getting committed, he starts to experience and to perceive himself as half a couple, as part of a unit, as an ingroup consisting of two partners.   He merges into being incomplete without the other half.

An extrinsically committed man experiences and perceives himself as continuing to be a single man with a woman attached, who requires some price to be paid regularly to keep her there.     She is peripheral to his life.   He does not need her, she is a body, that can be replaced.    He experiences himself as someone protecting and defending his boundary and his space against someone, whom he wants to keep at a safe distance.   He wants her body to be available, but she is supposed not to interfere too much with his life.

2.  Deal:
For an intrinsically committed man, the calculating, how much he gives and how much he gets in return, ends with the subjective merging into a unit.   From then on he experiences himself as acting in the best interest of the couple, who has joined forces in the shared competition with their environment.    In his talking and in his thinking, he replaces 'I', 'me', 'mine' by 'we', 'us', 'our'.  

An extrinsically committed man continues to evaluate the benefits of the relationship by book keeping, by which he keeps record, if he gets enough and does not give too much.     He is ready to end the deal at any moment, when he experiences it as no more beneficial for himself.

3.  Obligations:
An intrinsically committed man considers the obligations of the relationship governance not as restrictions or as a burden, because his partner and her behavior is important enough to value her being bound by the same obligations.     He adheres to rules like not cheating, being bound by agreements, being honest, because it is for him the method to ascertain, that his partner's behavior is reliably determined by the same rules.   He perceives not lying as a very fair price for his own need of a partner's honesty as a basis of mutual trust.     He experiences mutual obligations as a part of making the relationship a safe haven for both of them.

An extrinsically committed man may consider it as a burden, when he has to pretend to be honest and try not to be caught lying., even though he is completely unconcerned and uninterested in what the woman says, be it honest or a lie.   Her honesty has no value, because all he wants is her body.    Not lying or not being caught lying is therefore for him an unpleasant price to pay to keep the woman available in bed.   It is not a price that he perceives as worth paying for her honesty, if he does not care about it.    He perceives all obligations as a restriction to his liberty, that he grudgingly pays to have her in bed.

4.  Caring and Consideration:
An intrinsically committed man perceives his partner's wellbeing as equally important as his own.   Whenever he is at the point of doing something, he automatically considers first, what impact his action would have on his partner.   If he cannot know it, he asks her.  He trusts her word, that she means, what she says and is honest about it.    He feels responsible for every impact, that he has upon her.    He cares to spare her pain and to fulfill her needs.  

An extrinsically committed man thinks economically.   He wants to get as much advantages as possible from his partner for the least cost, that makes her stay.    He cares about a woman's wellbeing only, when she explicitly asks for it as a part of the deal.  He ignores and denies her needs unless he is risking to loose her services in bed.    When  he cannot avoid caring for her needs, such a man bargains to get as much and pay as little as he can get away with.  

5.  Time Together:
An intrinsically committed man wants to be together with his partner and share those activities, where he can rejoice all the qualities, that she has in his evaluation.    He clings to being with her, because being with her is rewarding.

An extrinsically committed man wants to have the woman in his bed in the night.   If he shares other activities with her, this is not of any emotional benefit to him.    As long as he gets his homeostasis, he can be content to spend a lot of time without her.   

6.  Being Together:
An intrinsically committed man would not even think of dumping a partner, because he perceives her as an essential part of his life, of himself in his identity as a merged unit.   He feels only complete when being with her.  It would not even occur to him to incomplete himself, to amputate an essential part of his life.

An extrinsically committed man does not hesitate to dump a woman, as soon as he does not get anymore, what he wants from her.    

7.  Sharing Resources:

An intrinsically committed man accepts, that he joins assets and resources with his partner and that these are then joined property to be used only by joined and shared decisions.    Whenever the resources are limited, they both give priority to spending money on what is of benefit for them both together.    Spending money benefiting only one is based upon a shared decision.  

An extrinsically committed man considers a woman as a commodity and a tool to add as much benefit to his life for the least cost, he does not enter a relationship for her benefit.   Such a man spends as much money on himself as he has to fulfill this own selfish needs first.    Only if it pleases him to feel good about doing it or if he has the misguided wish to give something back for the woman's service in bed, he decides to spend money on her.    But no matter, if the spends money on himself or on the woman, he reserves the decision for himself and excludes the woman from it.

8.  Sharing Decisions:  
An intrinsically committed man has chosen his partner for her intellectual and emotional qualities.    Whenever he wants to do something, he expects to get some additional valuable input from her.   Therefore he talks about his plan and discusses his suggestions with her until they can agree and share the decision.    With this attitude towards her, consulting her before deciding anything is an automatic reaction.    Whenever some idea occurs to him, his next impulse is the question, what she thinks about it.   
Therefore such a man shares decisions with his partner as a method of enhancing the qualities of his decisions and the quality of the life of both.    He does not feel limited by this behavior.

An extrinsically man is convinced, that he knows best what is good for him.   He is focusing only on gaining his own benefits in competition with her and in using her.   He expects the same selfish goals from her too, he considers her as competing with him for resources.    Logically he does not trust her advice or her being a fair partner when sharing decisions.  
He wants the availability of her body and nothing else from her.    Therefore he decides, what he wants for himself, then he just does it without any consideration for her.   If she is involved in the execution of his decision, he uses, whatever means he has, to make her comply with his decision.
When she asks to be included in making decisions, that impact her, he perceives this as her attempts to control him.   

9.  Communication:

For a man with intrinsic commitment, who has chosen a woman for her intellectual and emotional qualities, deep unrestricted communication about his and her innermost feelings and thoughts are a rewarding activity of joy.   Trustful self-revelation and shared introspection enhance bonding, togetherness. belonging and feeling close.    Accepting each other's support is a welcome and asked for part of the commitment.    Such a man values his partner's support as he appreciates her personality.    Therefore, he feels good to tell her everything that he feels and thinks, spontaneously and without hesitation or restriction.

An extrinsically committed man has chosen the woman for the benefits of her body.   He is not really interested in her personality, he expects nothing from her.    He does not want to communicate with her, her attempts to communicate annoy him.    He considers his own inner life and his feelings as his private matters and none of her business.   He perceives her attempts to talk about it are as a violation of his boundaries.    He feels an urge to protect his private life from her, because he perceives her as a competitor for resources, for power, for control, and the more she knows, the more she becomes dangerous.   
He either avoids communicating or he derails all communication to topics, that he does not consider as dangerous, while he keeps all real important information about himself hidden from her.  



Of the above list of the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment, only the first item of the man's identity is hidden  from direct experience and only accessible by the man's own declaration.   Everything else can be experienced by how the man behaves and treats the woman.  
If a woman wants intrinsic commitment and there is the question of getting married, she is wise, if she first makes sure to experience his ability to offer her the intrinsic commitment, that makes a relationship for her to be a safe haven of mutual trust, reliability, predictability and security.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

261. Commitment and Pseudo-Honesty

Commitment and Pseudo-Honesty

Commitment requires unrestricted and uninhibited honest communication about the true innermost feelings, based upon mutual trust and enabling mutual support.   

Bonding disabled men often believe themselves to be honest, because they tell no direct lies.    But by hiding things, that would be important for their partner to know, they are not sincere.   When the partner of such a man experiences few or even no lies ever, she trusts his honesty much more than is justified.    This form of pseudo-honesty is a trap and can be very misleading to a committed woman.     Either she wrongly assumes that he is really sincere and what he tells her is all there is and there is nothing hidden.   Or she projects her own commitment upon him, filling the untold gaps with what she takes so much for granted, that she omits to be explicit about it.    Both mistakes often have very painful consequences.

1.  Such men omit telling the woman things, because they perceive themselves as singles with a woman peripherally attached, and therefore they consider a lot as their own private matters and as none of her business.     But a woman, who perceives herself in a committed relationship, feels the need and considers herself as entitled to know.   
As an example, a bonded couples decides together, what to spend their shared resources of money on, while a single man considers his money as his personal property, even when they share expenses, and he perceives it as his unlimited right to buy, whatever he wants to buy, without consulting her.   
There are two varieties of such a disruptive situation:
1.1.   The man does not talk with the woman about important issues, because it does not even occur to him, that it could be important to inform her.    He believes to be telling her everything she has a right to know.   
1.2.   The incompatible situation of a non-bonded man with a committed woman expecting commitment from him leads to conflicts, and he feels it as his right to slyly and sneakily keep information from her to avoid unpleasant arguments.   He is unaware of the fact, that by this method of avoiding conflicts, he also impedes any improvement of the relationship.   

2.   Sometimes bonding disabled men believe to be sincere, because they have some kind of psychological trouble, that either makes them unaware themselves of what they hide from her, or they lie to themselves and then expect the others to share their believe in their own lies.    When they are in denial of unpleasant realities or when they project their own problems upon others, they are dishonest with themselves.   
Narcissists are a good example.   They are emotional weenies behind a mask of bullies on the outside.   They firmly believe in their own grandiosity and expect reverence and adulation even from people, who are more skilled and better educated.    They hide the vulnerable, anxious weeny from themselves and therefore they cannot reveal the truth to a partner.   

In all these cases, there is a vicious circle.    Lack of sincere and unrestricted communication impedes bonding, and lack of bonding impedes sincere and unrestricted communication.  

My mindmate is someone, who reveals his true self to me, who shares his innermost feelings with me, who wants me to know him as he really is, with all his strengths and also all his weaknesses.   He is someone, who can accept support from a partner and who asks for support.   He is someone, who does not feel any need to play a role and hide himself behind a mask.     He is someone, who needs a relationship and a partner, and who is able to admit it.    
My mindmate is someone, who is not only honest by not telling lies, but who is sincere also in not hiding anything from me.  

Monday, March 21, 2011

260. Instincts and the Cognitive Dissonance of Intellectual Men

Instincts and the Cognitive Dissonance of Intellectual Men

This continues entry 256.

Animals and stupid, uneducated men enjoy their indulgence in what their instincts determine them to do, because they are not able to do anything better with themselves.    They are hedonists, because they lack the ability to be Epicureans.    They do not experience instincts as a force in themselves, their identity is determined by their instincts.   They copulate like dogs in the gutter with any consenting female body as a good way of life without even having any awareness of the alternative of considering women as persons available also as companions.   

But not only the alley dogs, but also most other men experience the lack of sexual homeostasis more or less strongly as a cognitive disabling affliction, making them temporarily dysfunctional due to the obsession and compulsion of the need for homeostasis.   

Rationally seen, the mere physiological experience of copulation for the purpose of restoring homeostasis is a very banal, dull and boring activity, if compared with intellectual pursuits.    The true value of physical intimacy is enhancing the bonding and the feeling of belonging together as a committed couple.   But enhancing means, it cannot create bonding, if the bonding is not the result of intellectual and emotional intimacy.  

Those men, who are intelligent, educated, cultivated, are prone and at risk to experience cognitive dissonance between the urges of their instincts and their cognitive interests and abilities.  

Wise mature intellectual men acknowledge that their banal need for restoring sexual homeostasis is an unwelcome affliction, that is detrimental to their intellectual life.    They would not want to waste time an energy to get only homeostasis, this would make their cognitive dissonance worse.   Therefore these men get committed to a companion, so that they have homeostasis as a side effect, while the companionship gives them something much better.   Such men want to enhance the feeling of being bonded for both themselves and their companions, and they appreciate, that this also keeps them in the homeostasis, which they need.   

Bonding disabled men avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance by one or both of the following methods:

1.  They accept the banality of sex by degrading women to instruments and commodities.    They experience the need for sex similar to constipation, and women are not more to them than a laxative.    They buy women's services as they buy the laxative.    This impedes them to experience, perceive and consider women as equals, as companions, they are not able to respect and appreciate the mind and personality of women.  

2.  They are in complete denial of the fact, that sex is dull and banal.   They idealize it as if it were the most beneficial and rewarding purpose of their life.    They identify with their instincts and are proud to be studs.    As absurd as this is, they are proud of their animal instincts.    Whenever they are at risk of experiencing sex as banal, they consider this as a challenge to invest resources into getting more thrill out of it.   
These misguided fools choose a woman not for her emotional and intellectual qualities, but for the amount of infatuation, they can get from her body for a limited time.   After that time, they discard her and replace her by another body, where they get more thrill.   

In their pathetic hunt for sexual thrill these fools pay incredible sums of money to a vast market of selling anything between sex toys and pornography in the vain attempt to get excitement from something too banal for the intellectual needs of mature men.        

As soon as a man is wise and mature enough to acknowledge, that sex by itself is a banality not worth to allow his life to be determined by it, he is ready to become a bonded companion.  

If bonding-disabled men would spend their money not for the temporary thrill sold by the sex business, but on therapy and counseling in how to learn bonding and finding homeostasis as a part of commitment, they would do less damage to themselves and to many of their female victims.    They would even find the happiness, that they can never find, as long as they focus on finding sexual thrill as a pathetic substitute. 

_______________________

I just added a new page with the tilte 'The Relationship Deal'.   I am explaining, what I offer and what I expect in return from a partner, this includes also the topic of homeostasis in a relationship.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

259. Full Moon

I like hiking under the full moon
I like bicycling under the full moon
I like swimming under the full moon
I like ancient ruins under the full moon
I like sitting at the beach under the full moon
I like camping under the full moon
I like picnics under the full moon

But not alone. 
The full moon is only romantic with a mindmate. 

Where is he to share romance under the full moon?




Friday, March 18, 2011

258. Flower

Thursday, March 17, 2011

257. Natural Catastrophes and My Mindmate Search

Natural Catastrophes and My Mindmate Search

There are more and more people warning of the dire future of the earth due to the population growth.   They are usually concerned about food supply and about the global warming.    But hardly anybody ever expresses concern about the fact, that the world already is heavily overpopulated, when the safety from natural catastrophes is considered.    
 
Some of the most densely populated areas are not fit for habitation in safety, not only in Japan, but in many other countries too.    All those areas, that are regularly hit by earthquakes, floods, tornadoes and hurricanes are unfit as human settlements, as are arid areas and those with extreme temperatures.   
It is a tragedy, how many people spend decades with hard labor paying off mortgages and building houses, and from one moment to the next they loose everything and are homeless, if they even survive.    They live more or less in denial of their danger, because they usually have not much choice.   The safe and fertile parts of the globe have been densely populated already centuries ago, but humans did not stop to breed, and the powerful and dominating drove the unluckier surplus population to settle in high risk areas.    Many times they were not aware of the real danger of where they had moved to.  They built houses and started to cultivate the land, and the catastrophe came for them unexpectedly.   

I consider myself very lucky to live in a situation, where any damage by a natural catastrophe is extremely improbable.   The area here is not an earthquake area, I am much too high above any river to ever be flooded, there are no dangerous storms here and I live in a house with 45cm (1.5 feet) thick sturdy brick walls.    

Therefore today it occurred to me to add one more information to my search for a partner: 
Wherever on this globe my mindmate will come from, I can offer him a safe place to live.   

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

256. The Relationship Deal and the Reciprocally Wrong Currency

The Relationship Deal and the Reciprocally Wrong Currency

A viable and happy relationship is based upon a fair balance of giving and receiving.   That implies that both partners give and receive, what they mutually really need.   If one or both give, what they wrongly believe that the other wants or needs, this leads to disruption.    While one does not get, what s/he really needs, the giver perceives the receiver as ungrateful for not appreciating, what is of no value to her or him.  

As a consequence of biological differences, men and women have different needs in a relationship.  If they are not aware of this, they reciprocally project their own needs on the partner and then they are puzzled, when this does not have the expected result. 

It is biological fact, that the average man has a considerable higher physiological need for sexual homeostasis than the average woman.    
Lacking homeostasis disturbs men's functioning in their every day life occupations, it diminishes and even deactivates their full use of their reasoning capacity and their ability to focus on what they wish or need to do.    
Lacking homeostasis reduces even highly intelligent and cultivated men to mere animals. 
Lacking homeostasis derails their focus from intellectual pursuits of higher value to activities aiming at regaining homeostasis.  This need for homeostasis is so strong, that men are willing to pay for it.  

Of course, this is not the same for all men.   Like many other human traits, it is distributed along a bell curve on a scale from high needs (HN) to low needs (LN).    At one end, there are the men, for whom the need of homeostasis is extremely high, driving them to behavior very detrimental to themselves and their female victims.  At the other end are the asexual men, who are either not interested in women, or who want a woman as a true buddy, companion and committed mindmate.  
 
Men are physically stronger and dangerous as predators, who can force their will upon women.   Also men have used their greater physical strength to gain control over the access to means of survival.    As a result, many times women have no choice but to pay with their bodies for having one man's material providing and protection.  

What women expect in this deal is also distributed along a bell curve on a scale from material interests (MI) to non-material interests (NI).    At one end, there are the promiscuous women, who sell their bodies for money.   At the other end are the decent women, who are not at all interested in money, but who trade physical intimacy only in exchange for non-material benefits like commitment, bonding, intellectual and emotional closeness and a relationship as a safe haven. 

As long as a man and a woman have similar positions on the respective scale, they both get from the deal, what they want.   Else they are a mismatch.  

A predominantly LN man and predominantly MI woman are usually capable to mutually avoid each other, as they can easily get aware, that their needs cannot be fulfilled.    A man, who refuses to pay, and a woman, who wants to be paid, make no deal.

Real problems start, when a predominantly non-materially interested (PNI) woman gets involved with a predominantly high need for homeostasis (PHN) man.   In entry 255 I already explained, what she subjectively experiences.    When the man consciously takes advantage of the woman, then it is outright abuse and not a deal and therefore not in the scope of the topic of this entry.    If the PHN man is aware of the true needs of a PNI woman and knows, that he cannot give it to her, he can refrain from getting involved. 

Therefore the real problem are PHN men, who are bonding disabled either by immaturity or otherwise, and who therefore are not aware, that any woman would ever expect anything immaterial.  They enter a deal with a PNI woman by ignorance, willing to pay a fair price but in their own currency.  

Such a deal is tragically imbalanced.   The woman gives the man the sexual homeostasis, that he needs.    But he does not get committed and bonded.    She experiences this as only giving and not receiving anything in return, that has value for her. 
She projects her own needs for sharing and commitment, for caring for each other's emotional needs upon him.   When she offers him bonding and sharing, she makes the mistake of believing to offer him, what he would also want, need and appreciate.   She feels hurt and betrayed, when he does not bond.    She perceives giving him his needed homeostasis only as a secondary extra benefit, while she considers the bonding as her major offer.    She is not aware, how much he values his homeostasis, that it is the only benefit, that he wants from her, and that he is oblivious of anything else that she has to give.

As a PNI woman, she is capable to survive without being financially provided for, and when the man makes her gifts, invites her to expensive activities and offers her material benefits, this is meaningless to her.   Some men are even as dumb as projecting their physical needs on all women.   Such a man sincerely believes, that if he attempts to be a good stud by making enough effort in his physical performance, this were of such a value, that he would owe nothing else to the woman.   The PNI woman makes him the gift of his homeostasis, and he believes to be pleasing her.  
Whatever it is, that he believes to be giving to her, he expects her appreciation of the price, that he pays and that he subjectively considers as a fair.    Bus she cannot be grateful for what has no value for her.   Therefore he gets, what he wants, but he does not experience, that what he subjectively is giving, is received as a payment. 

This is therefore a really tragic constellation.    She fulfills her part of the deal, but does not get back, what she needs.   He gets his needs fulfilled, but is unable to give her, what she needs, while what he thinks to give is wasted, as it is not welcome.   

Sunday, March 13, 2011

255. Why Decent Women Stay Too Long With Jerks - 1

Why Decent Women Stay Too Long With Jerks - 1

It can be explained by their attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance.
"For the same reason you keep spending money to fix up an old car when it just doesn't work - or keep investing in the same company when it's failing. Humans throw good money after bad all the time. When we have invested a lot in a choice that turns out to be bad, we're really inept at admitting that it didn't make rational sense. Other research has shown that we romanticize our relationships with spouses and partners significantly more when we believe we have sacrificed for them."
http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/print/#ixzz1G3NlULbe


The following does not apply to promiscuous women from the gutter, for whom physical intimacy does not create or enhance emotional attachment.   They cannot forfeit a dignitiy, that they do not have.  

But a decent monogamous woman makes a huge emotional investment, when she allows a man the intimacy of her body.    She makes this investment for the purposes of getting commitment, bonding, devotion, a reliable safe haven.    She risks a lot of pain in the case of having the bad luck of accidentially getting emotionally attached to someone, who himself does not get committed.   
Decency adds to a woman's self-esteem and self-respect, but it has its price, it makes women very vulnerable.   


During the engagement phase (entries 178 and 252), both prospective partners are driven by incongruent motivations.   
  • Even a decent, considerate and monogamous man is unfortunately often too much afflicted by his instincts.  When his need to restore his sexual homeostasis is strong, this blurs his clear thinking, sound reasoning and his long term rational judgement.  This can be as bad as detering him from a wise choice of a partner.   
  • The woman wants to ascertain, that her emotional investment of allowing physical intimacy leads to the payoff of acquiring commitment.  As long as she cannot be sure, she recoils from precocious intimacy.   

In this situation, a woman's only choice is between two risks.  
  • If she postpones physical involvment too long, she risks that even a decent man is driven by his need for homeostasis to choose another woman, who is less reluctant to accomodate his instincts.  
  • If she allows a man the access to her body and discovers only when it is too late, that he has used her body without feeling committed, this is a very painful and severe shock.   She suffers remorse and shame for having sunk as low as allowing a man to soil her dignity in his gutter of promiscuity.   
When she gets aware of her mistake and ends the relationship, this does not undo the humiliation of having been used instead of respected.   He moves on without feeling guilty.   Instead he subjectively experiences it as the success of having found satisfaction for his instincts.  
This is very different from experiencing the failure of a relationship, after two partners with mutual respect had tried their best to make it work.  
    

As a result of this difficult choice between two evils, women who have fallen in love sometimes get physically involved with a man before they really feel comfortable to do so based on their own long-term need of commitment.  

At the beginning of every relationship there is a lot of reciprocal adapting required and of learning how to treat each other.    Conflicts, by which one partner gets hurt by the other accidentially and without any bad or selfish intentions, are unavoidable.   Solving such conflicts by constructive communication is an investment into long-term happiness and harmony for both.   
When the man is decent, mature and caring and they are mutually committed, they solve their conflicts with agreements and general consent to avoid similar conflicts in the future.   They learn, how to make each other happy and how to avoid hurting each other.

When a woman gets herself involved prematurely with a man, based upon her expectation of giving him sexual homeostasis in exchange for his full rational attention and cooperation in improving their bonding, then she is at risk to invest a huge amount of pain, stress and endurance before she finds out, that she got involved with a man, who is not committed.   
  • An emotional moron learns nothing and there is no progress.   Conflicts are not solved, he does not understand, what he is doing, and he is not capable to communicate.   
  • A narcissist learns how to dominate and gain power to get narcissistic supply.    There is no communication, as he feel entilted to get his needs out of her.   
  • A psychopath and malicious jerk learns, how to hurt the woman on purpose, whenever he wants to do this.  


As soon as his behavior gets bad enough that she cannot but start to doubt, that the man is not feeling committed and bonded, a decent woman gets into a state of severe cognitive dissonance.  

She does not want to feel humiliated, she does not want to reproach herself for having got involved with a man not worthy of her, she does not want to loose her self respect.   

Therefore she clings to the illusion of the man's commitment, as long as she can.   Instead of seeing his hurting behavior as an indication of his bonding disability and his lack of commitment, she continues to interpret it as conflicts to solve and she continues to invest the endurance of suffering into futile attempts to improve, what she misinterprets as a committed relationship.    She lingers in her denial to acknowledge, that he uses her body again and again without this ever making him feel bonded and belonging together.  

Having choosen the man as similar to herself in what she perceives as his values, his tastes, his interests, it is an easy mistake to wrongly assume, that emotionally he experiences getting physically involved similar to how she herself experiences it.   She falls into the trap of projecting her own automatic committing upon the man, even though she knows theoretically, that there are many men from the gutter, who copulate like dogs, but succeed in pretending to be decent.   It is difficult for her to connect this theoretical knowledge with a man, whom she has choosen as appearing compatible and similar to herself.    It is somehow beyond her imagination, that men from the gutter can share the same physical intimacy, but just not feel the least commitment, bonding or belonging.    

As a consequence, she invests all that is in the scope of her endurance and resilience into the one goal of a payoff, which is to spare herself to feel humiliated by acknowledging, that her body has been used by an non-committed man.    She invests and invests in the goal of finally experiencing the unequivocal proof of his being committed.     She invests in preserving her self-respect of being a partner and not an object.     She invests in gaining his expression of respect for her.   

When she finally gets aware, that the man either is not able to improve his behavior or that he even has learned how to abuse and take advantage of her, she has invested already very much.    She has invested so much, that it is very hard to accept, that there will never be commitment, that there will never be a payoff for all her pain.  
 
Instead of being consequent and leaving the jerk, she lingers and clings to the illusion, that after investing so much, she just needs to invest a little more and the final payoff of commitment will come.  She lingers, as long as she has the illusion, that the payoff depends on her competency and her efforts.  

But when the man does not feel commitment, all her investments are in vain.   If a man is disabled to feel committed, there is nothing a woman can do to gain commitment.
Only when she finally wakes up to see the jerk and emotional moron really as the hopeless and bonding disabled case, who will never commit, she is free to give up.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

254. Procreation and Cognitive Dissonance

Procreation and Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes there are thoughts, that are so obvious, that they should have occurred to me but just did not, until I read them elsewhere.  

I got this link via a childfree people's mailing list:
http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/04/why-having-kids-is-foolish/print/#ixzz1G2uk2Puc

This articles explains the attitude of parents glorifying and redefining raising children as a rewarding experience and their denial of all the unpleasantness by their attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance.  
This is obvious and logical.   I have been explaining some behaviors before by the avoidance of cognitive dissonance.     Yet it somehow did not occur to me to apply it to procreation.  

But there are some more implications to the attempts of resolving cognitive dissonance:
  • The behavior causing cognitive dissonance can be either an individual and personal decision or a general behavior.   
  • The decision can be reversible or irreversible.    
The choice of a career is an individual and reversible decision from available alternatives.   When for example someone decides to give up his job as a banker and become an artist, he does this only for himself and not because he thinks that there should be no bankers but only artists.  

The choice to procreate is an irreversible decision.    Once people have children, they are doomed to raise them or at least to pay for them to be raised and taken care of.    They cannot attempt to cope with all the disadvantages of raising children and after a few years decide, that it is enough and time to get rid of the burden.  
The choice to procreate is also not experienced as an individual choice.   Breeders consider themselves as normal, as doing the only right thing.    They do not consider it as a choice with an alternative, but as their determined purpose in life.   They glorify breeding not only for themselves, they also firmly believe this to be true for everybody else.    Also they glorify breeding as being heroes by doing a sometimes unpleasant duty. 

Therefore breeders are not free to fully resolve their cognitive dissonance by reconsidering the decision, their only option is to glorify breeding.   Resolving the cognitive dissonance does not mean, that they can really convince themselves that changing stinking napkins is a joyful and rewarding occupation in itself.   All they can do is repress and deny themselves the full awareness of the true amount of this unpleasantness and glorify instead the fulfillment of an alleged duty.    Therefore their cognitive dissonance cannot really be resolved, only reduced. 

Would they allow themselves to feel fed up with their children and regretting to have them, they would feel guilty and ashamed.  Instead they project their guilt and shame on all those people, who declare that they do not want children.   When breeders attack the childfree with anger, it is the anger at the repressed own regret of breeding not being as rewarding as it appears in their conscious glorification.

Monday, March 7, 2011

253. Jerks, Bonding-Disability and the One-Person-Ingroup

Jerks, Bonding-Disability and the One-Person-Ingroup
In entry 53  (Profiting from Modern Slavery), I described the coldblooded indifference of people in rich countries having a good life not only of consumption, but of wasteful consumption, while those, who produce the goods, are doomed to a life in excruciating misery.    In entry 21 I compared, how the consumers care more about their pets than about  people in poor countries.

I found this, which expresses my thoughts in an even better way and goes one step further:   
http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/10/25/that-psychopath-in-the-mirror/
"When someone in need is within our in-group, we often respond in admirable ways. When we characterize someone as outside of our in-group (when he or she is in the  “out-group”), we act as psychopaths toward that person. I’m not suggesting that we are capable of really caring for each of the more than six billion other people. We are not biologically capable of caring for that many people. We are tuned to most easily care for people we actually know, or friends."

History is full of cruelty of killing, torturing, raping, enslaving and exploiting outgroup members.   The ingroup-outgroup instinct as part of the animal urges of homo sapiens serves as a subjective justification, predominantly to men, to commit atrocities without any hesitation, restrictions or conscience, whenever they can define the victims as being distinct enough from whom they perceive as their ingroup.
  
Psychopathy is defined by the DSM as a mental disorder.  From the perspective of equality and rationality as the basis of morals, it is.  From the perspective of those people, who perceive themselves as distinct from being animals, it is.   
But what is the disorder when looking at the innate instinctive tendencies?   Is the abuse and atrocity of a psychopath really a defect in the brain, or is it a displaced expression of the outgroup instinct and a lack of selective self-control? 
  • Maybe psychopaths are just unable to have an ingroup except themselves and treat everybody as outgroup.    
  • Maybe by instinct, the human animals are principally psychopaths, that are considered as mentally sane, as long as they are capable to make exceptions of being caring and non-psychopathic towards a limited number of selected ingroup members.   
  • Maybe by instinct, everybody is outgroup, who does not serve directly or indirectly for the purpose of the survival of the own genes.

For cannibals, the world is divided into the outgroup members, whom they eat, and the ingroup members, with whom the eat.    In modern societies, things are more subtle and more complex.   The distinction between ingroups and outgroups still is a part of the survival strategies.  
For primitive hordes under dire environmental conditions, killing, eating or enslaving outgroup members enhanced their chances to survive.    While not denying others basic human rights and decency, members of complex societies need to protect themselves from damage by being aware of differences in emotional and social closeness or distance.  
The principle is the same.   People experience a feeling of belonging to the ingroup, while they feel something separating and distinguishing them from the outgroup.   The level of trust is different, as is the behavior, that is considered as appropriate and moral.  
People belong to many ingroups, the family can be an ingroup, the village, the game-team, the department at work, the gang of criminals.    The differences between ingroup and outgroup behavior can be subtle, when the ingroup of the family denies the access to the house to strangers, or more drastic, when gang members attack the members of other gangs.   

The simple ingroup-outgroup instinct has evolved to a more complex system of belonging to several ingroups, where the behavior towards the outgroups is limited and restricted by rules and laws.  But for some and under specific circumstances like wars, there are still outgroups, where the behavior is no more restricted by law.   A soldier and a diagnosed psychopath may well do the same thing, just the circumstances are different.  



The smallest, closest and most important ingroup is the devoted, committed couple sharing trust and resources, supporting each other against the outgroup, that is the rest of the world. 

That brings me back to my thoughts about the bonding disability of men, who exploit and abuse women.  I called them jerks in several of my previous entries.    It makes no difference, if they have no conscience, because they have become narcissists by experience, if they are jerks by some innate problem of their brain, or if they are emotional morons having the delusion to be behaving morally.    (More in the entries 113 about the bonding disability and 156.)

There seems to be one general pathology with all of them:   They experience themselves as the only member of their only ingroup.   Everybody else is outgroup, also the woman, with whom they get involved, even when they marry her.   
I called it bonding disability, but I may as well call it the disability to experience the feeling of belonging to any ingroup together with another human being.  

Such a man gets involved with a woman, but she continues to be perceived and treated a part of his outgroup.    Many variations are conceivable, when he alone is his ingroup. 
1.  The emotional moron.   The man's distinction between social roles could be reduced, so that everybody but himself is just outgroup.  He has only one set of behavior with all people, with little trust and attempting to avoid detrimental consequences.   
2.  The jerk, narcissist, psychopath.   The man does distinguish between different social roles as belonging to different outgroups and he could have several sets of limited trust and differing behaviors for them.  Such a man may even be clever enough to be able to manipulate different groups to get advantages.   The woman is placed in any of these outgroups, between being a friend with benefits, an acquaintance or even a pet.
    
For a woman, who considers, perceives and treats him as her closest ingroup, this is painful, and the amount of distrust, domination, abuse and denial of commitment depends upon what outgroup she is put into.    No matter, if he only behaves as if he were still a single, or if he lies, cheats and beats her, she is not a part of his ingroup, she is treated as his instincts allows him to treat any person in the outgroup.

There is a real tragedy with these jerks.   They are too disabled to develop the feeling of belonging to the ingroup of a devoted couple.   When they mate, they make others suffer for their own troubles, while they succeed to suffer less themselves.    They have no real understanding of what they are lacking.   By applying domination and hedonism, the jerks' basic needs are met, while their victims suffer.   

Thursday, March 3, 2011

252. Merging the Concepts of Instinctive and of Cognitive Mating

Merging the Concepts of Instinctive and of Cognitive Mating

Instinctive mating:
In entry 236 I explained, how mating between the instinct driven animals of the species homo sapiens is a three step process.   The first step is checking the visual and auditory signals for healthy offspring by sharing the social space, the second step is checking the chemistry by the olfactory perception of pheromones in the personal space and the third step is the copulation in the intimate space for the purpose of procreation.

Cognitive mating:
In the entries 174, 176, 178 and 185 I described the cognitive process of developing Commitment Governance as a process of three phases.  
The first phase is the decision phase to find out, if there is basic compatibility and if there are no incompatibilities, that are dealbreakers.  
The second phase is the engagement phase, which starts with an engagement pact.   This phase serves to verify the basic compatibility and the consistency between verbal agreements and actual behavior during direct personal contact.   This phase creates emotional and intellectual intimacy.   
The third phase is commitment, that begins with the commitment pact, which is the beginning of physical intimacy.

I am looking for my mindmate being hypoanimalistic.  That means, for him as for me, the forces of cognition are stronger than the forces of instincts.    But by hypoanimalistic I do not imply the complete absence of instincts, only the predominance of cognition, intelligence and rationality over the instincts.  

Hypoanimalistic mating is a process of the combined three steps of both concepts.    

1.   The decision phase includes the approaching and entering a shared social space.   In addition to the rational checking for intellectual and emotional compatibility, there is also the visual and auditory checking.  But the latter is not for the purpose of fitness for procreation, but to avoid physical repulsion as an obstacle to intimacy.
2.   The engagement phase includes the approaching and entering a shared personal space.   In addition to verifying in a more close contact, if there indeed is enough compatibility, there is also the olfactory checking to avoid repulsive reactions to each other's pheromones.       
3.   The third phase is commitment and sharing the intimate space.   Physical intimacy does not aim at procreation but as as symbolic beginning and then reinforcing of bonding and devotion of being a unit.    

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

251. The Resilience and Willpower Battery

The Resilience and Willpower Battery

This is a metaphor and not a claim of any kind of mystic woo-woo power.

People are born with a fully charged resilience and willpower battery.  

Resilience means the passive ability to endure phases or events of stress, being hurt, being depreciated, being lonely, loss, failure, fear and danger, emotional abuse, helplessness and other inclemencies of life without detrimental effects.

Willpower (as already mentioned in entries 134 and 136) is the ability to have self-control and actively force oneself to do unpleasant things and to resist unwanted impulses.     

Resilience and willpower use the energy from the battery.   When the battery is empty, the person reaches a state, that is known as burn-out.     Usually burn-out is considered as job related problem, but it can be as much be the result of an unhappy private life.

There are many ways to recharge the battery, depending on the personality.   But for most people, a happy relationship is an especially potent method to recharge it, it is a power charger.   

A committed couple, being a safe haven for each other, based upon trust, caring, reliability and responsibility, can strengthen each other in their shared coping with the world around them.   

But commitment and perceiving themselves as a unit is the precondition for a relationship to be a recharger for the battery.    When people fight to get their needs met, they deplete the battery at least as much as they recharge it.    Even worse, when a jerk dominates a woman, then he recharges his battery by emptying hers until she reaches the burn-out.  

Therefore it is my quest to find a mindmate, with whom there will be commitment, which enables us to mutually charge our batteries.