I am a woman born 1949 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:

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, December 27, 2012

630. A Rare Case Of A Man With Self-Awareness

630.   A Rare Case Of A Man With Self-Awareness

I just read this story, which is another example for how much some men are biologically challenged:
"A dentist acted legally when he sacked his attractive assistant because he and his wife thought the woman was a threat to their marriage,"

First of all, of course it is wrong and not acceptable, that this man has used his power to burden the consequences of his own affliction and weakness upon someone else.   The solution chosen by him was not appropriate, but the need to act and solve the problem was real.     
This man's rare self-awareness deserves admiration.  He bluntly admits, that his instinctive urges towards abusing the body of his assistant were overwhelming his reason and disabling him from doing his job properly.  In contrast to many dangerous jerks, he owned his weakness of an insufficient cognitive control over his too strong instincts.   
He acted, before it was too late, by taking responsibility towards his own wife, towards the assistant's marriage and towards his patients.  He prevented dire consequences of his detrimental instinctivity.   

If all men would admit their weakness and act, before they have harmed others, the world would be a better place. 
Whenever other peoples' life or health depends upon a person's work, no matter if he is a dentist, a pilot or a general, it is important to avoid jeopardies.   While it is obvious that a dentist with hemiparesis or a pilot having become blind are no more fit for their work, it is time to recognize and acknowledge, how much a man's too strong sex drive is also a risky disability, which becomes virulent in the presence of attractive women.   It is time to take this into account and give up the denial, which causes so much harm.  

While the dentist in this case principally did the right thing by ending the dangerous collaboration with this assistant, it was his moral duty to do this by bringing the damage upon himself instead of harming her.   It was his moral obligation to find another appropriate work for her and to not deprive her of her source of income.   As long as he did not succeed, he owed her to continue to pay her salary without her working.

But this case is also a reminder, that women should be more supportive and considerate to men fighting against their affliction of a too strong instinctivity.   Wise women appear at work in an attire suitable to avoid triggering male instincts, they reserve seductive and lascivious attire to the privacy of their own relationship.   

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

629. George Simon's Book 'In Sheep's Clothing' - Comment 1

629.   George Simon's Book 'In Sheep's Clothing'  -  Comment 1

This continues entry 628 about the immature theory of mind.

In entries 615 and 618 I already mentioned and commented on George Simon's excellent approach to the problem of disturbed characters.    I just got and read his fascinating book 'In Sheep's Clothing'.

Reading it was an excellent reminder of the utter futility of any attempts to reduce being harmed by disturbed characters.  Someone with a character disturbance cannot be influenced any more than a moving steam roller.   He is determined to get by hook or by crook, whatever he wants.  Nothing can stop him from running over anybody standing in his way.   The only protection is avoiding disturbed characters.  

For me personally, contact with one of them is doomed to lead to an impasse and to unsolvable conflicts.   While I am not prone to be a submissive victim accommodating a disturbed character's objectives, his ruthlessness gives him nevertheless enough power to impose sufferings upon me, to which I react with protest and outrage.  But a disturbed character is out of the reach of any civilized and moderate influencing him by constructive communication.  His mind is surrounded by a wall, any attempts to make him change his behavior bounce off and fail without any effect.

According to Simon, all exploitative and hurting behavior can be explained by only one of two cognitive dynamics, either the neurotic avoidance of too much painful emotions or the disturbed characters' conscious method to gain selfish advantages.  
I see another possibility, which I am missing in the book:  It is the incompetence to behave in an appropriate and acceptable way in spite of being motivated and believing to do so.    

Therefore I like to add one more type of a disturbed character to Simon's list: 

The self-righteous aggressive disturbed character.    This type also behaves as a wolf, just as Simon's other types, but he does not put on a sheep skin.   Instead he believes to be a sheep.   Due to his immature theory of mind and to the subsequent lack of getting or comprehending blatant feedback, he is unaware, that he is perceived as a wolf.   (More in entry 628)  

He behaves as a wolf due to immaturity and interpersonal incompetence: 
1.  He is incompetent to know and evaluate the limits of what is rightfully his due.  Thus he is unable to accept as a fair deal to give enough back in return for what he receives.   Others do not consider as justified, what he feels entitled to get.   This can be as bad as an entitlement delusion.  
2.  He lacks the communicative skills to obtain, whatever he wants, by any form of rational convincing, even when it is justified.   When what is not justified is not available, he is too incompetent to apply manipulative tactics.   His competence is so limited, that he resorts to use drastic and primitive methods of power, dominance, aggression.  

This type is very different from both the unbridled aggressive and the channelled aggressive as described in the book.   The self-righteous aggressive usually accepts simple and clearly defined rules and laws, when he understands them in spite of his immature theory of mind. 
The self-righteous aggressive is not malicious, he is just not aware of his incompetence nor of how much his behavior is selfish.   As far as the self-righteous aggressive comprehends another's needs, he is able to care.   For example, he can be a caring master to a dog, if he acquires the knowledge about how to care for a dog.   The success with the dog then reinforces his false belief to be a sheep.   He is unaware of behaving as a wolf, when he forcefully applies the very same form of care and treatment, which is appropriate only for a dog, also upon a human being.       

Both the covert-aggressive and the self-righteous aggressive consider themselves as justified to pursue what they want with any means, believing to be entitled to get it.   

But the covert-aggressive has a mature theory of mind enabling him to be realistic about and aware of what obstacles and resistance to expect during his pursuits.   He takes the disagreeing and resisting persons for serious enough to rationally choose the method of aggression, which promises the best success.   In the case of the covert aggressive, this includes hiding his true intentions as a part of using manipulative strategies.   He is realistic about the powers of his opponents, would they discover his aggression and true goals and react by fighting back.  

The self-righteous-aggressive lacks a sufficiently mature theory of mind.   He does not take resisting people into account as individual opponents with real or at least subjectively valid reasons for their disagreement.    He perceives them as merely amorphous obstacles to be best confronted with outright, indiscriminate and open aggression.    The self-righteous aggressive perceives any disagreement with and resistance to his allegedly entitled goals automatically as an indication of others being flawed, wrong, dysfunctional, while nothing makes him doubt his own entitlement.   Who resists is believed to be bringing aggression upon themselves as a legitimate consequence.   

By applying the same generalized standard methods of aggression to all allegedly flawed obstacles, the self-righteous aggressive character is also not able to improve his immature theory of mind.   He notices and reacts to obstacles without understanding, perceiving, evaluating or distinguishing any specific reaction or feedback.   This impedes him from learning successful manipulation strategies.   
Even the self-righteous aggressive may sometimes apply a few of the manipulative tactics described in Simon's book, when he is aware of the probable unpleasant reactions to be avoided.  
The essential difference to the covert aggressive is the self-righteous' lack of any hidden agenda.  Instead he bluntly expresses his claims and demands and what he intends to do to ascertain to get it.   Lacking any comprehension, why others disagree with his entitlement, he does not know nor learn, what to hide and what utterances and behaviors are counterproductive to his goals.   By blurring out his true intentions he provokes resistance, to which he then reacts with enhanced aggression and bullying.   This is a spiral of fast deterioration.  

The covert aggressive misleads others, while the self-righteous aggressive is himself mislead.   A wolf, who believes to be a sheep, causes not less devastation than a wolf, who knows to be a wolf, but hides beneath a sheep's skin.     

In the case of the covert-aggressive, it is the victim's task to find out, that there is a wolf under the sheep's skin.   The wolf knowing to be a wolf has therefore theoretically the choice to change, if the victim refuses to remain in that role.   

The self-righteous aggressive openly behaves like a wolf and nevertheless believes his bullying and coercing as the legitimate behavior of the sheep, which he wrongly believes himself to be.   Any change is not probable, because someone believing to be already a sheep does not comprehend, why he should change to become one.   A wolf cannot decide or attempt to change into a sheep, unless he first becomes aware, that he is a wolf.  
In this situation, the victim is powerless.   A self-righteous aggressive wolf does not experience his victim as significant enough to influence him.   This impedes him from ever discovering the reality of his being a wolf, instead he continues to consider the victim as being so flawed as to warrant being bullied. 

Monday, December 24, 2012

628. Theory Of Mind, Empathy, Society And The Media

628.   Theory Of Mind, Empathy, Society And The Media
As told before, I consider not to harm others as the core principle of any acceptable moral and not to be harmed as the core principle of basic human rights.  

To be successful in avoiding to harm others requires more than the acceptance of a moral principle.   It requires also sufficient knowledge of what others experience as harm.   While recognizing visible immediate harm is easy, this is not the case with invisible and delayed harm.

The reliance upon empathy and the working of the mirror neurons is limited to situations, when someone can spontaneously feel with the unlucky person, for example someone, on whose foot a brick has just fallen.   

But when the harm is invisible and caused by complex and abstract cognitive experiences, then empathy is not enough to prevent hurting another person emotionally.   Avoiding emotional and future harm by broken trust, by injustice, by depreciation, by commodification and such requires a mature theory of mind.    
"Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own."

While children usually develop a basic theory of mind by innate maturation, the more complex and abstract theory of mind is a learning process enabled and enhanced by experiences of interactions.   

Nobody can know for certain, what behavior causes invisible harm to another person, unless this is based upon acquired information.    This can be achieved by either learning from the reaction and feedback by the harmed person and/or by any observing third party, or by asking the target person's advice before acting and by listening to such advice when proffered.  

It is the fallacy of immature people to deny the existence of anything, that they are ignorant of and to think that it is enough not to do to others, what they would themselves feel hurt by.   
It is also a fallacy to overlook the biological differences between women and men in evaluating the impact of behavior.   

An example.    Some men in the state of sexual dishomeostasis feel an urge to copulate like dogs in the gutter with any haphazard female body without getting attached.   

Those being immature believe women to be like them.  Whenever they mislead women to consent by unjustified expectations of attachment, immature men abuse women's bodies with a clean conscience.  They do not understand attachment and believe women to be stray dogs the same like themselves.  

Men with a mature theory of mind are aware, that women do get attached much more easily and rapidly and how important attachment is for women.   Jerks have no conscience and manipulate women to be used and dumped, they are not deterred by not reciprocating attachment.   Jerks consider women's getting attached as an annoying flaw.
Mature men with morals are able to acknowledge, that not getting attached is their own deficiency.    They are responsible to not make others the victims of their own deficiencies and to accept the obligation of using self-control to abstain from hurting women.  

The development of a mature theory of mind depends upon the society and culture.  

Unfortunately the modern western societies impede and thwart the moral maturation of people.   The influence of the ubiquitous media is the main factor in this.  

Desensitization:   The media are full with realistic representations of the most horrible agonies and atrocities.   But as the human brain had evolved without realistic pictures, it cannot really distinguish between TV and real life.  Watching TV is not very different from people partaking in the spectacle of public hanging and beheading.  
The consumption of the media leads to a desensitization towards suffering.   As a result, a 'mere' emotional betrayal appears as if it were only a trifle compared with the magnitude of the frequently watched atrocities both reported from real life and in the imaginary world of movies.  

Misunderstood tolerance.   Tolerance is important to protect minorities and people with special needs from any avoidable disadvantages.    But if alleged tolerance embraces also the protection of behaviors, which cause harm, it is not tolerance, but irresponsibility and a failure to protect the victims.    

Misrepresentation.   There are many perversities and deviant behaviors, which seem obviously harmful to most people, who would immediately refuse to expose themselves to be thus harmed.    Yet in the uncensored web, nearly every perversity and deviance has its adherent proponents, who propagate it publicly from their subjective distorted view as a minority right and behavior while omitting, denying and trifling the harm to the victims.   

Desensitization, misunderstood tolerance and misrepresentation have an impact not only upon the person behaving unknowingly as a transgressor, but also on the victim and on any other possible source of corrective feedback.  

Victims getting hurt are irritated and confused as to how much their felt outrage is justified.  They are often misguided to attribute their own healthy reaction instead to an own weakness.    They submit and endure instead of protesting, because they are manipulated into.self-doubt as if they were failures lacking to adapt the socially prescribed pseudo-progress.
Acquaintances are not involved enough to suffer as victims, but they often notice behavior as potentially harming to closer relations.   Would they react sincerely and show their true disapproval, this would serve as helpful feedback towards a better theory of mind.    But instead they shrug their shoulders and avoid any conflict.   

Constructive feedback can only be given by people with a mature theory of mind, who are aware of the importance of not hurting others.   People who are immature themselves are less prone to give any feedback and they are even less able to give feedback of supportive value.    What makes role models in the media attractive to the masses is often an expression of immaturity, which is then imitated. .  

Therefore some of those people, who hurt others, never had a chance to reach sufficient maturity to get aware of what they are really doing.   

Thursday, December 20, 2012

627. Ludicrous And Irresponsible Propagation Of Woo-woo

627.   Ludicrous And Irresponsible Propagation Of Woo-woo

I just got an email from one of the dating sites, where I have a profile.    Some quotes:  
"do you want to die alone?‏" 

"We’re screwed. You should be too!"

"As we all know, the world is ending 12/21. Why not find someone to spend your last moments with? As things heat up and the earth’s crust begins to melt, here’s a high match that would welcome your embrace — before your hearts burst into ash. Hey, better safe than sorry."

People, who merely believe such nonsense, are pathetic fools.   But when they create, enhance or reinforce other people's irrational anxieties, this is irresponsible.
Based upon the false belief of having no future, people could do lots of things, which they hitherto wisely avoided to prevent dire consequences.  

  • Gambling and loosing all the savings.
  • Risking unwanted pregnancies and STDs
  • Telling the boss the true opinion about him and getting fired.
  • Killing someone hated and finally indulging in a long repressed revenge.
  • Indulging in the consumption of any food or substance, which damages their health or causes a relapse to an addiction

The easier it gets technically to spread the publicity of any claim and opinion, the more those people are dangerous, who carelessly multiply dangerous, weird and delusional beliefs.    Unfortunately skepticism lacks behind the technical progress favoring the propagation and spreading of woo-woo.  

Sunday, December 16, 2012

626. The Counterproductive Absurdity Of Recent Feminist Attempts At Provocation

626.   The Counterproductive Absurdity Of Recent Feminist Attempts At Provocation

Lately there have been several feminist groups protesting against real issues by attempted provocation.   The method of their provocation included the display of their fully or partially naked and painted bodies.  
They are naive and they are fools.   As far as they provoked anything at all, it was only the hypocrisy of pretended social norms.  Getting attention is not the same as provoking onlookers to reconsider their opinions.  
In reality, these young women gave to male animals, what they subconsciously enjoy to perceive:  Triggers to their instincts.   On the level of animal instincts, men do not discriminate between cognitive connotations of the triggers.   A naked female body is a trigger to drool, no matter if in a movie, a commercial or by a misguided feminist.    
These women did not provoke anything at all, instead they presented the sight of young, fertile female bodies for men to drool over.  

I am a feminist as far as this means that I refuse to accept any disadvantage to a woman based upon her gender.   I am not a feminist, if this means to upvalue dull and unintellectual occupations like housework and breeding.  

Therefore I consider the core objective of feminism as to defend, restore and fight for the dignity of women as equals and as persons with a brain, who deserve better than to be degraded by objectification and commodification.

The male biological affliction of recurrent sexual dishomeostasis is a real handicap of those men, whose reason gets temporarily blurred under the impact of this state.  As long as feminists (of both genders) are in denial of the devastating effects of this handicap, the success of feminism is doomed to be limited.   Since the beginning of feminism about a hundred years ago, some of the worst legal inequalities have been overcome.   For example, today women are allowed to vote, can have a job without the requirement of the husband's permission and are allowed to become soldiers.  

But where the dignity of women is concerned, the development has gone the other way.   Women's dignity is and has been dwindling, as far as it had ever existed rudimentary in any country's social norm.   
Never before in the German history has the objectification of women been more ubiquitous and more considered as all men's normal right.   Prostitution has been made legally a job as any other, pornography is easily available, the media and commercials are full with pictures of seductive and lascivious women.   While child pornography is illegal for good reasons, nobody seems to see, that the same reasons do also apply for the requirement to protect women.    No person in Germany can pass a day without somewhere being exposed to pictures representing  women in seductive and lascivious attire and posture.       
It has become an implicitly accepted reality, that triggers to men's instincts are not only available but that men are entitled to expose themselves to be triggered at their convenience.   People have been desensitized so much, that even many women consider being triggered as men's innate rights.   

Men in some cultures use their power to force women against their will under tent like garments.  This is not only an outrage, but it is also an interesting self-disclosure by these men.  While the men in western cultures are in denial of their affliction, these men clearly admit their own dysfunction.    They recognize to be so much the helpless slaves to their own instincts, that they are unable to cope with any subconscious perception of the triggers radiated by uncovered women.   Their awareness for their own biological reality would by itself be preferable over the western men's denial.   Unfortunately this awareness is not used to benefit the women.  It could be a challenge for men to learn self-control.  Instead these men use their power to force the women to suffer under the burden of men's failure to cope with their own dysfunction.

Many feminists rightfully fight against all male behaviors, which are assaults and infringements upon non-consenting women.   But at the same time they also claim to have the right to send out the most drastic signals to the male subconscious without any self-restriction.    It is not only irrational, it is even unfair to men, when women make men drool over their bodies, yet demand male self-control as if they had not contributed themselves to the drooling. 
Feminists who complain and fight against being objectified but paint their faces, wear jewelery and sexy attire are contradictory.   They send out double-bind messages.   Their seductive attire signals 'I want to be seduced', while as a feminist they implicitly add 'but I refuse to be abused.'  Seduction is the first step to abuse, while forming a serious relationship is based upon reciprocal rational convincing of being a good long-term match. Whenever a man reacts to the apparent invitation to seduce, his subsequent attempts to seduce and abuse are rejected as an outrage.   

A constructive form of feminism needs to cooperate with men towards finding a fair compromise between men forcing women under a tent and between women making men drool while refusing to be used.  Feminists' attire would be rationally based upon the conscious avoidance to trigger men's unwanted behavior as a support for men attempting to cope with their affliction without harming women.

There would be only one way to provoke men out of their desensitized entitlement to the ubiquitous availability of visible female nakedness.   It would be a triggering strike.   The provocation would be by women systematically making themselves appear in public as anti-sexy.   Imitating the wearing of a tent would be too extreme, but women would cover themselves as much as they can still feel comfortable.    Being deprived of triggers to drool would be much more effective to provoke men's attention, that something needs to be changed.

But this will never happen.   While some feminists may consider anti-drooling behavior an option, there are unfortunately too many women, who are void of any need for dignity.   Instead they are so stupid, uneducated, simpleminded, vain and brainwashed, that they identify entirely with their looks and with their bodies.    They feel flattered and ego-boosted by men's attempts to seduce.  They feel power by both, by either being able to reject the attempts and by else extracting material benefits from men as a result of making them drool.  

Therefore while I personally have become allergic to the frequent disregard of my dignity as a person, I am fully aware that this cannot be attributed only to the male biological affliction, but I have to recognize this being enhanced and reinforced by many women.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

625. The Effect Of Color On Male Instincts

625.   The Effect Of Color On Male Instincts
Entry 624 was about the importunate reaction of men to the color red upon women, as was shown in a study.   
" the guys tended to grade the woman's disposition to sex about 1 to 1.5 points higher when she was wearing a red rather than a white tee," "
Scientific evidence appearing to explain my own frustration does not impede me from skeptical reactions to such studies.      Reading this article made me wonder about something.   

They only compared the reaction to a red t-shirt with that to a white one.  This does not automatically imply, that red makes men worse predators than what is their baseline, as long as no other colors are also included in the study.  
The result of the study could just as well be caused by the opposite, inhibiting effect of the color white.   White could be associated with innocence, cleanliness, professional attire, coldness of snow, some religious ceremonies, grief in some cultures and other circumstances, where women are not usually available as prey.     

624. The Color Red Enhances Male Disagreeableness

624.   The Color Red Enhances Male Disagreeableness

Elsewhere on this blog I have already been complaining about the disheartening experiences of disgust and repugnance, when too often during my younger years I was approached by jerks planing to abuse my body.   

According to the following study, I may have innocently contributed to bring this upon myself by following my own taste and sometimes wearing red items of clothing.   Obviously this suffices to reinforce predators' insulting attentions.  
"But it's clear that women should beware, Pazda says. Even seemingly insignificant wardrobe choices can send out a lot of unintended signals. "Wearing red may be a double-edged sword," he says. Women "may be getting sexual attention they don't want." "

I have never in my life used lipstick or any other painting substance to modify my looks.   I consciously avoid any own contribution to trigger male instincts by never adding the slightest seductive signals to my exterior.   I want to base the decision for or against a relationship upon a rational evaluation of matching criteria.   Attempts to seduce me are a nuisance.  

But I need clothing to cover my body.  People except the blind and color blind automatically see everything including items of clothing as having one specific color distinct from any other.   Whenever buying a garment, I am forced to choose its color.  
I like bright colors, no matter if it is red, blue, green, orange, yellow or any other.   Whenever all garments have about the same price, I would spontaneously buy the bright colored one and consider anything brown, white, gray, beige or such as not worth wasting my money.   
Therefore red is and has regularly been one of those bright colors of the contents of my wardrobe.    

I had the illusion, that wearing t-shirts and sweat-shirts of large sizes, nontransparent and closed to the neck would be enough to avoid sending out wrong signals.   I did not think, that the color mattered too.   

The above cited study shows, how much I was wrong. 
"They showed 25 men a photo of a single woman doctored to look, in different cases, like she was wearing either a red or white T-shirt. The researchers then asked the volunteers to gauge, on a scale from 1 to 9, .......the men answered the question: "Is she interested in sex?"

"Men interpreted the red outfit as a signal that the woman was indeed more open to sexual advances. In fact, the guys tended to grade the woman's disposition to sex about 1 to 1.5 points higher when she was wearing a red rather than a white tee,"
I used to have a red handbag, until staying at some location I was warned, that red handbags were there the identification mark of prostitutes.    I disliked to be deprived from using an article, which I liked, but then I did not suspect red as being generally such a hazard.  

When being non-seductive and non-sexy is a baseline, it is easy to refrain from any proactive behavior, which would anyhow bring no benefits.   Abstaining from body modification towards appearing more seductive only has the additional advantage of saving time and money for someone abhorring attempts to be seduced.  
But to be mistaken for prey by doing nothing more than allowing oneself to follow one's own color preferences is another case of how male instincts make the life of women miserable.   Male physiology damages women's freedom to choose her preferred colors. 

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

623. Defining A Disorder Without Consideration For The Victims

623.  Defining A Disorder Without Consideration For The Victims
"Now a UCLA-led team of experts has tested a proposed set of criteria to define "hypersexual disorder," also known as sexual addiction, as a new mental health condition."
This article is just another example of the implicit general desensitization to the plight of victims.   The paramount importance of treating sexual addiction for the purpose of protecting others from becoming victims is not even mentioned in this article.
Oversexation is not considered a problem, as long as the promiscuous jerks are satisfied, while all the harm is burdened upon their objectified, dumped and cheated upon victims.  But when the jerks suffer themselves, it is all of a sudden recognized as a problem:
"Of the 207 patients they examined, 17 percent had lost a job at least once, 39 percent had a relationship end, 28 percent contracted a sexually transmitted infection and 78 percent had interference with healthy sex."

"Our study showed increased hypersexual behavior was related to greater emotional disturbance, impulsivity and an inability to manage stress."