698. A Weird Man

698.  A Weird Man

Recently on a matchmaking site I got contacted by a man, who liked my profile.  As far as there was information in his profile, it also seemed to fit my own criteria.   He had indicated to be divorced.  

At first I was pleased.

But then he admitted, that after being separated for two years, he and his wife were still living in separate buildings but on the same jointly owned property.   In spite of the incorrect indication in his profile, he pretended or believed to be sufficiently honest by telling me this.   
  
I am not that much of an idiot to ever get involved with a married man.   

But I was curious to find out, if there was a chance, that he could be free soon.   In spite of his initial lie to be divorced, I gave him the benefit of the doubt and started to ask questions.

First he admitted, that they were attempting to sell the property and that he was postponing the divorce until after the property would be sold.  He claimed to follow the advice of a lawyer.   Yet he was not bothered to understand the legal problems.   (Sometimes lawyers advice, what brings them the highest fees, not what is best for their clients.)

He claimed that due to some outdated law in France he were forced to remain in his situation, which he presented as unchangeable, as if there were no alternative.  
This made no sense to me.  Why would owning property oblige the owner to live in it?  

When questioned further, he admitted to be at the mercy of his wife, in whose name the property was registered, while he had put his money into it.
At this point, his refusal of an immediate divorce may have made sense, but only in the case of hostility and of a legal fight between them.   

But after more questions I found out, that there was no battle, but that the wife had already agreed to pay a fair share after the selling, and that he trusted her to do so.  

Thus, even if he could not afford to live somewhere else until he had his money, there was certainly not the least logical reason for him to remain married.  As long as he was willing to remain alone, it made not much difference, because there are no implications upon anybody else except the still married couple. 
But in accordance with his wish to find someone else, he needs a speedy divorce.  A man, who has the option to get divorced, but refuses to do so under whatever pretenses and excuses has no moral right to approach single women.  

He believes himself to be an honest and decent person, but he behaves as inconsiderate and irresponsible as a jerk.   He not only contacts women under the false pretense to be single, but he intends to remain a married man for an undefined and unpredictable time. 
Selling property needs two parties.  Waiting until not only there is a buyer, but even one, whose offer is accepted by his wife, can cause him to remain a married man for a long time.   

But it gets even weirder.   When I pointed out to him his rational option to get a divorce as soon as possible, if he would choose so, he was not able to give any rational reason against doing it.  Nevertheless he did not accept, that a profile and contacting women on a dating site imply a moral obligation to get divorced.  Instead he claimed to not feel married anymore, expecting this to make him as available as a free man, as if this would entitle him to be considered as such.
 
He defined his persistent legal marriage as merely a piece of paper.   

I can fully agree with this definition of a legal marriage only as a very logical reason to omit legal marriage as obsolete and unnecessary.  Given sufficient emotional and cognitive commitment, a legal certificate cannot make it more binding than it already is.  

By getting legally married, people succumb to the acceptance of legally binding mutual obligations, by which they are henceforward bound, no matter if they like this or not.   Those who do get legally married do this, because at least at that moment they have subjectively sufficient reasons to accept being thus bound.    

Once accepted by signature, the ties and obligations of a legal marriage continue to exist, no matter how much or how little someone like this guy feels married and attached.  Only divorce or death can end the ties, which are henceforward no more at the disposition of an individual's choice.  

  
For any rational person, this guy is a married man, who refuses the get divorced.  Mistaking not feeling married anymore as being as free and single is a very weird and hazardous form of denial.
No matter this denial, as long as he remains married, his wife is like a time bomb, who could get into circumstances forcing him back to her at any time.  
Marriage laws may differ slightly between European countries, but in essence, wife and husband are obliged to take care of each other in any situation of need.   Assuming the age of that guy's wife to be probably at least near sixty, she could become helpless and dependent at any moment, no matter if by accident, sickness or mental states like dementia. 
As long as there is a husband, he is the one who is legally obliged to take care of her, not any welfare or social services.   Nobody would let him of that hook, just because his claim to not feel married anymore.  

This man's denial of such legal entanglements makes him a fool.  Some people are hazards not by being malicious but by being too foolish to understand the implication of their behavior and their denial.  

697. Desensitization: Abuse As A Christmas Gift

697.  Desensitization:  Abuse As A Christmas Gift

I just came across another scary example of how far the desensitization to the objectification of women has gone, not only by those men, who profit themselves from the abuse.  

One dating-site has sent me the link to a short video.   

First scene:  A man, obviously lonely on Christmas.

Second scene:   The door bell rings and from a delivered box emerges a woman, provocatively dressed in not much more than a reduced Santa costume.   The woman immediately makes physical advances to the man.

Third scene:  The door bell rings again, and a second women is delivered, the man is now handled by one woman on each side.

Forth scene:  The door bell rings again....

At that moment I was too disgusted to watch the rest.   

 

Sending a bunch of prostitutes to be abused is suggested as a Christmas gift.  

As an atheist, Christmas means nothing to me, I have no reason to celebrate the birthday of someone, who either never existed or if he existed was an insignificant person.   To me personally, abuse of women as mere toilets for men's body waste is not any more objectionable on Christmas than it is at any other time.  

But for the Christians, for whom Christmas does have a meaning, people are supposed to form emotionally attached monogamous couple and abuse in any form is considered a sin.  
According to the Christian myth, a child was born by an alleged virgin.   The video suggests to celebrate this event by abusing a bunch of prostitutes.


The message of the video is the culmination of how far abuse has become socially accepted by some part of the population.   The sender of the link has an unequivocally female name.  
This is really disheartening.   Not only men are desensitized to what abuse does to women.  Even many women are desensitized to the long-term detrimental effects of the self-abuse of women. 

The video is meant to be humorous.  Humor trivializes its topics.  Therefore most decent people limit jokes to topics, which do not trivialize outrageous and shocking events like the holocaust or shooting at schools.   Yet people are so desensitized, that the abuse of women is not perceived as a serious outrage, but as something suitable to be trivialized by jokes.  This trivialization reinforces the desensitization.

696. Detrimental Longterm Effects Of Childhood TV Exposure

696.  Detrimental Longterm Effects Of Childhood TV Exposure

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131122084541.htm

"preschoolers who have a TV in their bedroom and are exposed to more background TV have a weaker understanding of other people's beliefs and desires."

"This study shows that TV exposure may impair children's theory of mind development, and this impairment may be partly responsible for disruptive social behaviors."

""When children achieve a theory of mind, they have reached a very important milestone in their social and cognitive development," said lead researcher Nathanson. "Children with more developed theories of mind are better able to participate in social relationships. These children can engage in more sensitive, cooperative interactions with other children and are less likely to resort to aggression as a means of achieving goals.""

People with empathy and a good theory of mind consider the consequences of their behavior upon others.   When men ruthlessly abuse female bodies as toilets for their body waste without any own need for emotional attachment and without any awareness for the degraded women's such needs, this indicates a deficient theory of mind and a state of serious desensitization.  

There have always been such abusers, but they harmed women in defiance to a generally accepted social norm of monogamous attachment.  Sartre and Camus are examples (entry 686).   This then happened inside some subcultures, but before the impact of media upon all young people's minds, abuse did not become a part of the social norm.  

The so called sexual revolution changed the social norm towards the nearly ubiquitous acceptance of abuse as men's alleged natural right and towards the tragic myth of the alleged benefits of self-abuse for the victimized women.

Reading the study quoted above, I can see, why this change of the social norm first happened in the sixties in the USA and only with a delay in other countries.   The first generation of people, who had grown up with TV from an early age on, were also the first generation of people, who were seriously desensitized and distorted in their theory of mind.   In other countries, as in Germany, the same effect came with a delay, which was the delay until the local ubiquity of TV.
An entire generation had lost the ability to fully comprehend the tragedy of the abuse for the victims.   When an entire generation of men had been desensitized to copulate like alley dogs, this sufficed to change the social norm.  Since then the impact of TV has even grown stronger, because as a compensation for the desensitization, the material has become even more drastic and more explicit and more available to choose from.   Therefore it has only been getting worse.    

I grew up as a child without TV, I grew up in the tranquility of not being prematurely disturbed by any detrimental exposure to what has its appropriate place only in the privacy of adults' bedrooms.  I was lucky not to be desensitized concerning my dignity as a female human being, having never lost the full awareness for the monstrosity of the socially accepted abuse.  

Instead I got allergic, The more men are desensitized, the more often women are exposed to the obnoxious impertinence of intended and proposed abuse.   Too frequent exposure to what is noxious can cause allergies, not only by physically noxious substances, but also by emotionally noxious proposals.   

695. Changing Women's Plight Depends Upon The Insights And Good Will Of Men Like Jackson Katz

695.  Changing Women's Plight Depends Upon The Insights And Good Will Of Men Like Jackson Katz

I have been accused of hating men, because I have been writing so much about my loathing and abhorring abuse, degradation, depreciation and objectification of women.   

But I would not invest so much effort in my quest to find a mindmate, were I not fully aware, that there are exceptional men, who do at least abstain from if not actively oppose abuse and who respect women.   They are rare, but they are qualified to be significant male role models for desirable attitudes and behaviors.   

These men need to be heard and they deserve praise and admiration.  One of them is Jackson Katz, all my kudos to him and to this talk of his:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue.html

He also made a documentary criticizing what I as a woman perceive as scary and repulsive in the worst kind of men.   Being a man himself, he cannot so easily be disqualified as an alleged man hater as women are so often. 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/tough-guise/

694. Germany - A Country Especially Prone To Subtle Desensitization?

694.  Germany - A Country Especially Prone To Subtle Desensitization? 

Growing up in the aftermath of the Nazi Terror over Germany, I was bewildered and appalled about the ubiquity of how the majority of the generation before me had at least approved, condoned or tolerated if not actively taken part in atrocious crimes and misdemeanors.   I felt not comfortable living in such a country.  The majority were very desensitized people, who easily reintegrated and welcomed back even those with a lot of blood on their hands.  
 

Since then, other generations have grown into adulthood, who no more were themselves directly implicated in the destruction and exploitation of those considered as outgroup inside the country.   But the desensitization towards the suffering and plight of those abused and exploited, because they are in a weak, defenseless and vulnerable position, has not ceased.   

Today Germany pretends to be a modern, democratic and humane country.  Therefore nobody could ever outrightly justify atrocities, abuse and degradation of humans, and recognize such treatment as what it really is.   But the desensitized Germans found a different method:  They deny the atrocious character of their treatment and declare it to be normal behavior.    The legal approach to prostitution is an excellent example:

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21589922-has-liberalisation-oldest-profession-gone-too-far-giant-teutonic-brothel

This article explains how the paid abuse of self-abusing women is misrepresented as a normal job, and this not only in the eyes of the self-interest of the abusive customers.  Even worse, since more than ten years it is a law which was favored and implemented also by many female politicians.   

Lately a wise and responsible suggestion was made to change this outrageous law.   As in Sweden, prostitution should be made illegal, but only the abusers should be punished.   This would imply the needed legal recognition of the dignity of women.    

I am shocked and outraged by the general tendency of the ongoing debate concerning this suggestion.   A lot of the German population, including too many women, oppose it.   They have been so completely desensitized, that they consider paid abuse as normal and acceptable behavior.   This attitude makes Germany an uncomfortable place for women.    

693. Research: Abuse Is Not Only Unhealthy For The Victim But Also For The Abuser

693.  Research: Abuse Is Not Only Unhealthy For The Victim But Also For The Abuser

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131119093306.htm

"...  casual sexual relationship. These were defined as any relationship in which the participant reported he or she was “only having sex with partner” as opposed to dating."

I consider casual sex as a form of abuse, but the motives and reasons differ very much between the genders.  Both copulate with another entity, which they do not value as a person to be committed and attached to.  They use each other for completely selfish and exploitive reasons and ulterior goals.  

Men practice this form of abuse to restore homeostasis for their instinctive physiological urges.   They use the women as objects.   Using women's bodies is in itself their goal.     
Women participate in this form of self-abuse for the purpose of obtaining material or other non-sexual benefits.   The agreement to be abused is a method. The men are insignificant instruments for goals, in which the men themselves are not needed.  

According to the study, this abuse is unhealthy for both genders:     

"Researchers found that teens who showed depressive symptoms were more likely than others to engage in casual sex as young adults. In addition, those who engaged in casual sex were more likely to later seriously consider suicide."

“There’s always been a question about which one is the cause and which is the effect. This study provides evidence that poor mental health can lead to casual sex, but also that casual sex leads to additional declines in mental health.”

One surprising finding was that the link between casual sex and mental health was the same for both men and women.

“That was unexpected because there is still this sexual double standard in society that says it is OK for men to have casual sexual relationships, but it is not OK for women,” Kamp Dush said.

“But these results suggest that poor mental health and casual sex are linked, whether you’re a man or a woman.”

Adolescents from 80 high schools and 52 middle schools were interviewed when they were in grades 7 through 12 and then again when they were aged 18 to 26.

In all, this study involved about 10,000 people who were surveyed about their romantic relationship experiences across time, as well as depressive symptoms and thoughts of suicide.

Overall, 29 percent of the respondents reported engaging in any casual sexual relationship. These were defined as any relationship in which the participant reported he or she was “only having sex with partner” as opposed to dating. This included 33 percent of men and 24 percent of women.

The results do point to a possible “cyclical pattern” in which poor mental health leads to casual sex, which leads to further declines in mental health, Sandberg-Thoma said.

“The goal should be to identify adolescents struggling with poor mental health so that we can intervene early before they engage in casual sexual relationships,” she said.

Kamp Dush said casual sexual relationships may hurt the ability of young adults to develop committed relationships at an important time in their development.

“Young adulthood is a time when people begin to learn how to develop long-term, satisfying and intimate relationships,” she said.

692. The Difference Between Abusers And Nice Guys Explained By The Dual-Process-Theory

692.  The Difference Between Abusers And Nice Guys Explained By The Dual-Process-Theory

In entry 691 I presented the dual process theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

Speculating that the predominance of one of the two systems is distributed along a bell curve can help to explain the difference between abusers and nice guys. 


By the criteria of their behavior, men can be roughly classified into three groups:   The abusers, the nice guys and those oscillating between abuse and attachment depending on circumstances.  

These three groups represent the two extremes and the middle area of the bell curve between the predominance of either system 1 or system 2.   The two extremes are clearly defined by an innate strong tendency, while the cut off between the groups and the behavior in the middle is fuzzy and depends upon external influences. 


System 1 can explain how instinctive physical urges towards a female body lead to the attitude of objectification.  

A predominant system 1 determines men to be abusers.  They do not comprehend the meaning of commitment and/or they are unable to get emotionally attached to a woman and/or they are disabled from recognizing the value of women's brains.   They commodify women as toilets for their body waste without even considering any alternative.  
Men with a strong predominance of system 1 are most probably men with a high libido, which causes them to perceive dishomeostasis as an overwhelming discomfort and to be strongly triggered by the perception of female bodies.   They also probably have a hedonistic pleasure center getting mainly stimulated by physical stimuli.

System 1 thinking causes men to confound every coincidence of their experienced dishomeostasis and the availability of female bodies as an automatic justification and entitlement to abuse women, perceiving them as existing for the purpose of being abused.  
Men, whose thinking is determined by system 1, are not any better than animals, they are unable to anticipate or to have empathy for the consequences of ruthless copulation. 

System 2 can explain the emotional and intellectual need for companionship leading to the attitude, that women are cognitively attractive and suitable for monogamous long-term attachment.  

A predominant system 2 determines men to be nice guys.   They automatically get emotionally attached to a woman, whenever they get physically involved.   They have an own genuine emotional need for commitment and bonding.  They have rational and intellectual needs for companionship with a woman.   Whatever the strength of their libido may be, their rationality enables them to have sufficient self-control to keep away from women's body unless they choose a companion.    They are Epicureans, who are mainly attracted to, motivated and stimulated by emotional and intellectual pleasures and joys.

System 2 enables men to act with responsibility and consideration and to appreciate attachment also for themselves.  They comprehend the impact of their behavior upon women.   
Men, whose thinking is determined by system 2 are able to recognize women as their human equals with a brain.  Only these men deserve to be called human.


According to the dual-process-theory, system 1 and system 2 coexist in each human's mind. 

I am not implying all abusers to be completely void of the system 2 nor all attachment formers to be completely free from the system 1.   Many men have both tendencies in any combination of strength in themselves.   Which one defines their attitude and their behavior depends upon circumstances and external influences.    Some abusers do feel doubt, guilt or remorse or they recognize abuse as a transgression, at least when the own sister is the victim.  Attachment formers can also be tempted by triggered instincts due to the exposure to drastic stimuli.  

Men in the middle of the bell curve are thus under contradictory internal tendencies towards a choice, which is dichotomous between either abuse or attachment.  Abuse and attachment are mutually exclusive by definition.   While at any moment, only one can be chosen, some men choose abusive behavior only under some specific circumstances and refrain from it at other occasions.    They are the men, whose choice is prone to be determined or impacted by external influences.
 
While many more traditional societies force violent abuse and injustice upon women, the modern western societies are very much biased towards subtle and non-violent forms of abuse.   Such abuse is the social norm of the majority, who considers pornography as an everyday media intake and prostitution as a job like any other, and who is seriously desensitized by the drastic oversexation of every day life and the media.    Only a very strong innate tendency towards system 2 enables a minority of the most precious men to be the nice guys void of the inclination towards abuse.

The effect of this detrimental social norm can sometimes be observed as a discrepancy of the predominances in the same man.   There are men, who appear to be predominantly system 2 persons in their professional life, in the pursuit of their hobbies and even with their families and friends.   Whenever it gets known, that such a man has cheated on his wife or has been to a brothel, it seems very incongruent with his other demeanor.   Due to external influences, the control of system 1 over such men is restricted to only when women are the victims.   So far I have never heard of any reversed case, of a man behaving generally by system 1 but applying system 2 to women. 

Thus, at the extreme end of the bell curve, the abusers are persistent and permanent abusers, while the social norm reinforces the men in the middle of the bell curve to also be abusers, but they are intermittent abusers.  They cause less harm but they are nevertheless a hazard to those women who happen to become victims.     

Therefore, unfortunately, there are many more abusers than nice guys.   

691. Applying The Dual-Process-Theory To My World View

691.  Applying The Dual-Process-Theory To My World View

This blog is subjective and biased, because my goal is not to change the world but to find a mindmate.  The purpose of my writing is to attract him by enabling him to recognize me also as his mindmate. 

Of course I prefer my world view to be congruent with scientific evidence, but when I am ignorant of such, I sometimes do speculate while continuing my search for more information.  

I recently got aware of the dual-process-theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

In this article, Kahnemann's description of these systems is quoted:

System 1	System 2
Unconscious reasoning	Conscious reasoning
Judgments based on intuition	Judgments based on critical examination
Processes information quickly	Processes information slowly
Hypothetical reasoning	Logical reasoning
Large capacity	Small capacity
Prominent in animals and humans	Prominent only in humans
Unrelated to working memory	Related to working memory
Operates effortlessly and automatically	Operates with effort and control
Unintentional thinking	Intentional thinking
Influenced by experiences, emotions, and memories	Influenced by facts, logic, and evidence
Can be overridden by System 2	Used when System 1 fails to form a logical/acceptable conclusion
Prominent since human origins	Developed over time
Includes recognition, perception, orientation, etc.	Includes rule following, comparisons, weighing of options, etc.

In entry 422, I speculated about the bell curve of what drives and determines human behavior:

"At one end, there is the hedonist brain, which has a high urge to restore homeostasis as a consequence of instinctive needs, and which also gets the strongest stimulation to its pleasure center from physical stimuli.    At the other end is the Epicurean brain, which is guided predominantly by rationality and less by instinctive need for homeostasis, and which is most sensitive and responsive to emotional and intellectual stimulation of the pleasure center.    The brains of the majority of people are more balanced in the middle between the two extremes."

By including the aspect of differing thought processes, I am refining my bell curve speculation to this new version:

I speculate, that there is a bell curve of how people's behavior is determined by either a predominance of system 1 or system 2.   On one extreme people nearly or always think and behave by system 1, on the other extreme by system 2.  

This topic will be continued by looking at how men's attitude to and treatment of women differ depending on the predominance of one of the two systems. 

690. Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

690.  Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

Abuse happens, whenever a victim is available and a (usually not-partnered) man

• is in the state of dishomeostasis, which causes his perceiving an urge to use a female body as a toilet for his body waste.
• has the attitude, that women exist for the purpose to be abused, independent of the women's own wishes and experience.

Abuse can be either violent or by payment, deceit and manipulation, the choice depending upon the abuser's ability for self-control and his subjective estimation of the probability of unpleasant consequences as are legal or social punishment.  

Women have brains to at least attempt to avoid deceit and manipulation, and not all blatant female stupidity can be blamed on men.   But women have no chance against violence of someone stronger than themselves and they need to be protected.  

Violent abuse can be caused or facilitated by not expecting any risk of being punished.   In this case a man with sufficient self-control refrains from further acts of violence after having learned a lesson by the first punishment.  

But there are those, who repeat violent abuse in spite of being sentenced and imprisoned several times.  This indicates their behavior as being completely determined by strong urges and by the lack of sufficient self-control.   These beasts are too dangerous to be ever let out again.  In too rare cases, here in Germany they are indeed kept in Sicherheitsverwahrung (preventive detention).   Unfortunately by some flaw in legal proceedings, some of these beasts where recently set free:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131025091830.htm
 

"Criminologists at the University of Tübingen will lead research into the effectiveness of electronic monitoring of criminal offenders in Germany."

"Some 60 offenders in Germany are monitored using the electronic tag around one ankle."

"Electronic tagging is used on those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who have served their prison sentence but have had to be released from preventative detention. The monitoring devices are used as part of the supervision of their conduct and are meant to prevent former offenders from relapsing into criminal behavior. The tags must be worn at all times and may not be manipulated. Some of the tagged offenders are not permitted to enter or to leave certain areas. Electronic monitoring was introduced in Germany in 2011 in response to a European Court of Human Rights decision, which held that certain forms of preventative detention contravened human rights law. Electronic tagging is now used to maintain a watch on offenders who prior to 2011 would have been kept in preventative custody."

This is absurd and an outrage to women, whose safety is at stake.   Women and their own human rights to be protected from harm are sacrificed in favor of the human rights of beasts, who have proven not to meet the standards of behavior which would justify to call them human.  
Nobody would put an electronic tag around a lion's ankle and expect the lion to refrain from killing prey.  These criminals are as much beasts as are lions.   As a woman, I prefer not to meet neither lions nor violent abusers without a strong fence or wall between them and me.  

I do hope that the study comes to the conclusion, that such dangerous beasts are just not fit to be allowed to be free.  

689. The United Nations Condemn Abuse - If Only They Had More Influence To Improve Women's Plight

689.   The United Nations Condemn Abuse - If Only They Had More Influence To Improve Women's Plight

1949 could have been a year of historical significance for women, because of the United Nations' Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Suppression_of_the_Traffic_in_Persons_and_of_the_Exploitation_of_the_Prostitution_of_Others

The Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others is a resolution of the UN General Assembly. The preamble states:

"Whereas prostitution and the accompanying evil of the traffic in persons for the purpose of prostitution are incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person and endanger the welfare of the individual, the family and the community"

It was approved by the General Assembly on 2 December 1949[2] and came into effect on 25 July 1951.

"The Convention requires state signatories to punish any person who "procures, entices or leads away, for purposes of prostitution, another person, even with the consent of that person", "exploits the prostitution of another person, even with the consent of that person", run brothels or rent accommodations for prostitution purposes. It also prescribes procedures for combating international traffic for the purpose of prostitution, including extradition of offenders."

Unfortunately, very little if any improvement of women's plight followed, instead the so called sexual revolution and pseudo-liberation brought out the worst in even more men.  If anything has changed, it was a shift away from direct violence towards an increase of paid abuse and of insults by predators mistaking all women suitable to be pursued as prey.   

Genghis Khan would not get away today with his habitual raping, but a recent US president non-violently abused a dependent person without any damaging consequences for himself.   His wife lacked the dignity and backbone to divorce him.  Thus she contributed to the unfortunate trivialization of such abuse.  

Only the methods of abuse have softened, but not the male attitude of feeling entitled to abuse.


The following pages contain a map and a list of all countries, which have ratified or signed the convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persontrafficconvention.png
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=VII-11-a&chapter=7&lang=en

Interestingly and sadly enough, many rich western countries including Germany, USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia have not.

I am ignorant of the reasons, and could not find them by googling. 

 

So I can only speculate.  I suspect the majority of those politicians with the power to prevent or accept such a convention to be themselves avid and ruthless abusers of female bodies.  
Whenever they experience an urge, they feel entitled to have easy access to an objectified female body without any necessity of being further bothered after the completion of the abuse.  They experience paying for the abuse of prostitutes as the least problematic way to reach their goal.   Being rich and powerful, they can afford it.    

Paying is the least risky method in any society, where this form of abuse is tolerated by nearly all men.  These politicians have reputations and the thereupon depending positions of power and income to loose by any too drastic use of manipulation, deceit or violence.  

But by facilitating and not obstructing abuse these politicians are also guided by what they at least believe to be the best interest of their male voters.   Such voters are those men, who have been damaged and desensitized by the oversexation of society to objectify women, because attachment and long-term bonding are beyond their mental abilities.  

These politicians get double benefits from perpetuating and facilitating the abuse of women.  The can allow abuse to themselves without consequences and they can buy male votes.  Thus male voters and male politicians reinforce each other.  Unfortunately many foolish women also vote for abuse-enhancing politicians without being aware, how they empower their own worst enemies.  

688. The Self-Abuse Of Foolish Women

688.  The Self-Abuse Of Foolish Women

Reading men's profiles I am noting, how often men are a indicating their wish for 'no strings attached fun', 'intimate encounters', 'casual sex' or similar expressions, which all translate as the wish to find a willing target for the male urge for the one time access to a female body.  

If no woman ever would provide herself for this form of self-abuse, men would cease to try.   If many women would have the same wish, there would not be such a huge market of men paying for abuse, which they cannot get for free.   

Thus there are some but only few women, who do provide their bodies, before they learn the hard way to avoid a repetition. 
 
This frequent expression of men's wish to be allowed the abuse without paying can be explained best by the psychological observation, that behavior persists the longest, when it is infrequently rewarded.  This is called intermittent reinforcement. 

Thus men do not find enough victims for unpaid self-abuse and most abuse is only available for money, yet the few victim suffice to mislead men to continue the attempt.

 

I have been wondering, who are the willing victims of self-abuse, and I can see one possible pattern:

They are probably women, who

• identify as being their bodies
• derive their self-worth and self-esteem from their looks and their effects upon men.
• either are or consider themselves as very attractive.
• believe to be irresistible to all men. 
• are fully aware of the magnitude of men's instinctive urges for female bodies.
• are completely ignorant of the physiological differences between the genders and the disparate needs.  
• project their own need and proneness for attachment upon men.

Therefore these women disbelieve and fail to take for serious, when a man makes it very clear, that he has not the least intention to ever meet again after one night.   Due to the delusion of being irresistible, these women nevertheless believe to be able to get him hooked and to draw him into a committed relationship.   

These women are dangerous fools.  

They are fools, because they suffer a lot, when in spite of their delusion they are dumped and discarded without hesitation or regret by men, who do not feel responsible due to having been clear about their true intentions.  

But these foolish women are also dangerous for other women, because they reinforce men's attitude towards being predators.  Some predators project their own not-attaching urge for the use of female bodies upon women.  They are misled to believe, that women would have the same strong urge for depersonalized and objectified male bodies.  
Every time, when a man erroneously and unaware of her hidden agenda perceives a woman participating in the copulation superficially appearing as if she were as much an alley dog as the man himself, this reinforces his false belief in the projection.   

This reinforced projection also reinforces the generalization of his abusive behaviors, which makes him a nuisance to wiser women.   

687. Cultural Influences Or Overwhelming Animality?

687.  Cultural Influences Or Overwhelming Animality? 

In entry 686 I presented Camus and Sartre as two sad cases of men with the habit of irresponsibly and inconsiderately copulating like alley dogs, for whom women in spite of a few exceptions were principally as insignificant as toilets for their body waste. 

Interestingly enough, the attitude guiding these two abusers' behavior was the same, even though they grew up under very disparate cultural influences.  

Sartre grew up in France, in a culture, in which monogamy and fidelity were and still are the official social and legal norm for men as much as for women.   
Camus grew up in Algeria, where in spite of French occupation and colonization the culture was derived from the islamic depreciation of women.   Whatever a male muslim does, it is not defined as cheating or as a transgression, because according to the koran, a man is allowed and even encouraged to have up to four wives and an unlimited number of concubines.  But a cheating wife risks to be stoned to death.  

There were two men from two cultures, one of which forbidding the abuse of women, the other encouraging it, but nevertheless both men practiced the same abuse.   

There of course is the possibility of many other contributing factors and it is the example of only two men.  But it may notwithstanding be an indication for the disheartening assumption, that some men's instinctive urges to abuse are much stronger than any restricting cultural influences towards impeding harm to women.  

686. Jerks With Halos - 4, 5 & 6

686.   Jerks With Halos - 4, 5 & 6

Reading a newspaper article about Albert Camus, who would be 100 soon, had he lived that long, I got aware, that he is one more example of a jerk with a halo, who was praised and admired for his literary work, while the suffering of the women, whom he had abused, is forgotten and denied:

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/albert-camus-writer-algerian-view

"Camus married again, but this didn't stop his sensuous nature from seeking out other women. He maintained long-standing affairs with a number of famous French women. Throughout his life, Camus didn't give up his mistresses, he merely added women who were content to share different parts of his life."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/charting-the-amazing-love-life-of-the-amorous-existentialist-1235404.html

"But whatever Mr Todd may claim, his diligent study, published in a truncated English translation on Thursday, of the celebrated Gallic author and playwright reveals for the first time details of many unknown and illicit affairs. So many, in fact, that it is now clear the man who wrote the existential modern masterpieces L'Etranger and La Peste - The Outsider and The Plague - was at least as committed a swinger as he was a left winger."

Already in entry 104 I refused any admiration for Beauvoir as a role model for feminism. 
Beauvoir and Sartre "have gone through life leaving behind a trail of deeply wounded others, who got involved with each of them for a monogamous bond, but where just used and dumped without conscience, consideration and responsibility.    Beauvoir and Sartre not only committed emotional atrocities to those, who loved them more than they deserved, but they were also misunderstood role models, who have indirectly caused lots of emotional atrocities committed by those, who imitated them."

Beauvoir is propagating female self-abuse in a way, which aggravates men's denial of the dire consequences of abuse.   Beauvoir is not a feminist, she is women's worst enemy.  She has done very serious obstruction to the improvement of women's plight.   Her unfortunate influence still contributes to men's harmful attitudes towards women.    
 

Having found a source giving more details about the magnitude of her and Sartre's emotional atrocities I am now adding them to the memory hall of jerks with undeserved halos.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-559137/Dangerous-liaisons-sex-teens-The-story-Sartre-Beauvoir-told-before.html

"Yet a fascinating new book paints this supposedly high-minded duo as serial seducers bent on their own gratification and as a couple who used their apparently lofty philosophy as a springboard to excuse their multiple liaisons, often with under-age teenagers who were broken by the experience.

And while Simone de Beauvoir preached her ideal of feminist independence and equality, eschewing such 'bourgeois' concepts as marriage and children, and claiming women should behave just like men, the truth is such a lifestyle made her bitterly unhappy and she became obsessively jealous over Sartre's countless conquests.

Despite her high-flown rhetoric, it was only for revenge and out of frustration that she embarked on affairs, always secretly hoping they would provoke Sartre to return to her.

And, astonishingly, it was her craven desire to please him that led de Beauvoir to groom young female lovers for Sartre, commonly girls she had bedded herself.

In this sordid relationship of supposed equals, he was always one step ahead of her - though it didn't start that way."

"If this couple expected their arrangement would spare them the trials and heartache of a conventional marriage, they were wrong.

Their multiple affairs went on until World War II when Sartre was called up and their sex games had to be conducted through letters.

Left behind in Paris, Simone continued to seduce both men and women, writing titillating descriptions of her activities to Sartre behind the Maginot Line, which reveal her heartlessness and the vulnerability of her conquests.

Today, she would be behind bars for her sexual activities with her young pupils, but in those days she got away with it.

Tragically, the lives of these girls, who were pathologically jealous of each other over their teacher's attentions, were permanently blighted.

One took to self-harming, another committed suicide. Most remained pathetically unfulfilled and dependent on the childless Simone, who perversely referred to them as her 'family'.

Yet Simone had no maternal feelings for them at all. She showed no empathy even when one of them, a Jewish girl whom she seduced when she was 16, nearly lost her life at the hands of the Nazis who were advancing on Paris."

These are just a few quotes.  The entire article is worth reading.

685. An Important Recognition Of A Real Problem But An Unjustified Restriction Of The Focus

685.  An Important Recognition Of A Real Problem But An Unjustified Restriction Of The Focus

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925132333.htm

"Commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors are serious problems in the United States with long-term adverse consequences for children and society as a whole, and federal agencies should work with state and local partners to raise awareness of these issues and train professionals who work with youths to recognize and assist those who are victimized or at risk, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.Minors who are prostituted or sexually exploited in other ways should be treated as victims rather than arrested and prosecuted as criminals, as they currently are in most states, the report says."

"Despite the hard work of prosecutors and law enforcement in many jurisdictions, individuals who sexually exploit children and adolescents largely escape accountability, the report says. All jurisdictions should review and strengthen laws that hold exploiters, traffickers, and solicitors accountable for their role. These laws should include a particular emphasis on deterring demand, both through prevention efforts and penalties for those who solicit sex with minors."

This is a tiny but important step in the right direction towards the full recognition of the damage done by all sexual abuse.   But it is an outrage to restrict the focus only upon children.   This implicitly conveys and enhances the dangerous attitude, that for women abuse were less harmful.  
Only the physiological difference between children and women is real.  Women are biologically suited for sexuality, while children are not yet.   Notwithstanding it is a disastrous fallacy to conclude, that a mere biological option were sufficient as a justification for the objectification of women.   This is the same as the fallacy of using the option, that a human body is eatable as the justification for practicing cannibalism.   A possibility due to a trait or an attribute does not constitute a fate, a destiny or a purpose.  

Abuse hurts, causes suffering, harm and longterm psychological damage, no matter the age of the victim. Due to the physiological differences, it is easy to acknowledge all sexual activities between adults and children as abuse.   But it is much more difficult, especially for men, to really distinguish between a woman's true and free choice and self-abuse.   Unfortunately, many men have a very blurred notion of the difference between a true personally beneficial choice and a mere apparent and alleged choice for what is hidden self-abuse.   There is a fundamental difference between a woman's choice for physical intimacy as a part of committed companionship and the self-abuse of those women, who are under the pressure of circumstances and/or already pre-damaged.     

A woman's participation in self-abuse does not make a man's taking advantage thereof less cruel and less abusive.   It is obvious, at least to decent men, that rape is an immediate trauma for the victim.   But the self-abuse of prostitutes is more like those behaviors, of which the detrimental effects are only accumulative and long-term and not immediately visible.  
Someone, who provides an addictive drug to someone else may only notice the immediate improved wellbeing and may even be reinforced by gratitude.  The long-term damage of many such events is not obvious, even though it can be known.  
The client of a prostitute also only notices the appreciation of the woman having earned needed money.  The long-term damage of her repeated self-abuse is not obvious to the client, who is in denial of being an abuser.   

Abuse is abuse, and self-abuse for hidden reasons does not justify abuse.         

Women need as much protection as do minors.   Men's superior physical strength and frequent social and financial power makes them as much a threat to women as to children, whenever men choose to abuse.

All abuse should be punished and prevented independent of the victim's age.  

684. What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

684.  What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

In men's profiles, again and again I am reading statements, which express the preference for someone more different then alike.   Implicitly or explicitly expressed is the belief, that the attraction of opposites were the best strategy for finding a match and the apprehension of getting bored with a clone of the own person. 

But there is living evidence for the benefits of being like two birds of a feather:  

Monozygotic twins raised by the same people are as much alike as can be.   Do they get bored with each other?   I very much doubt it, based upon what I have been hearing and reading about the especially close and strong lifelong bond of such twins.  

This apprehension of getting bored is also not logical.
 

If one person enjoys something of personal interest like an art exhibition or a theater play alone, sharing such activities does not make them less interesting, to the contrary, the sharing enhances the joy.   And when both contribute initiatives for more such activities, it could even reduce the risk of boredom. 
Comparing notes, pointing out observations, sharing thoughts and agreeing can be at least as interesting, rewarding and fascinating as controversial debates.  But agreement enhances harmony, while controversy may lead to antagonism and disruption.

If anything leads to boredom, it is the consequence of those compromises, by which one partner reluctantly participates in the other's favorite activities.   If a man in this situation is content to pursue his interests instead with his buddies, not even missing the sharing with his mate, then this indicates the degrading attitude, that a woman is only a body to be used and not a significant companion.    
Thus, whenever a man puts emphasis on the attraction of opposites, this is a red flag,  It could indicate a man prone to objectify women.  

The ideal prerequisite for long term happiness is the combination of being mentally as similar as possible, but (in the case of straight couples) having complementary bodies.   If any attraction of opposites is acceptable, it has to be restricted to only concerning physical and visible aspects.   

683. Research Confirms Biological Reasons Of Women's Plight

683.  Research Confirms Biological Reasons Of Women's Plight

Sometimes things appear to me so obvious, that I am surprised, when they are confirmed by research, which is presented as if it were a novelty.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130921092236.htm

"A recently published study strongly suggests men succumb to sexual temptations more than women -- for example, cheating on a partner -- because they experience strong sexual impulses, not because they have weak self-control."

"Overall, these studies suggest that men are more likely to give in to sexual temptations because they tend to have stronger sexual impulse strength than women do," 

"But when people exercise self-control in a given situation, this sex difference in behavior is greatly reduced. It makes sense that self-control, which has relatively recent evolutionary origins compared to sexual impulses, would work similarly -- and as effectively -- for both men and women,"

The misery and plight enforced upon women as a consequence of the physiological asymmetry between the genders is one major topic of this blog. The devastating consequences of men's recurrent dishomeostasis experienced as the urge to use female bodies for the removal of body waste cannot be explained by the mere lack of self-control. 

The reality of this drastic asymmetry is evident by the fact, that men often obtain the abuse of female bodies not only by payment and manipulation, but also by violence.  The latter is enabled by the unfortunate co-evolution of the urge towards abuse with the superior physical strength to force it upon unwilling victims.   

The evolution of these devastating strong male urges seems to make a lot of sad sense, when looking only at how it serves procreation.   Evolution serves the survival of the species, not the emotional and cognitive wellbeing of individuals.        

Female animals willingly copulate at the moment of estrus due to their lacking the cognitive ability to anticipate the consequences of giving birth and raising the offspring.   

When the human cognition evolved, this enabled women also to anticipate the experience of pregnancy and child rearing.  Some women perceive this is a horror, an abuse of their bodies and a form of slavery.  Logically they attempt to avoid this.  

The human species would probably have been extinct by now, had not the further biological evolution counterbalanced this by hiding the female estrus and by adding more male urges plus physical strength.   Thus pregnancies continued to be caused, no more only by compliance due to ignorance, but also by force upon unwilling women.  


In spite of more legal equality in modern western society, even in recent times the plight of women has been perpetuated by two main fallacies.  Both fallacies deny the physiological differences and attribute all asymmetry between the genders to education and culture.   Both fallacies are based upon the projection of the level of the own urges upon the other gender.

1.  The fallacy of the so called 'sexual revolution' is the fallacy of men, who project their higher urges upon women and claim, that women only feel abused due to sexual repression.   This dangerous male fallacy has proclaimed that if women were liberated, they would as much as men want to copulate like alley dogs and would as little as men need emotional commitment.

2.  The feminist fallacy overestimates men's willpower and unrealistically demands men to have the same easy self-control as women.   This is based upon the mistake to project their own lower female physiological urges upon men.   More about my suggestion for a more rational feminism in entry 566.  

 

According to the study, men's problem is not self-control, but the stronger sexual impulse.   But it is a banality to state, that stronger urges require stronger self-control.    Thus the same ability to exercise self-control does not automatically mean the same success of willpower over stronger urges.  

Thus any abolition of the abuse of women requires a change in the attitude and behavior of both genders.   This requires a shift of the focus away from both fallacies.  Neither the female demand of more self-control by men and nor the male myth of female repression leads to any improvement of women's plight.  

The focus needs to be on the full acknowledgment of the disruption and harm caused by the excessive male urges and a subsequent change of both men's and women's attitude and behavior.  

1.  Men need to acknowledge their instinctive urges for recurrent restoration of physiological homeostasis as asymmetrical and not reciprocal.  They need to learn and take for serious, that women have different needs.  Men need to accept the biological reality, that the magnitude of male urges cannot and will not be requited by women.   Men need to give up the devastating myth of the existence of less consciously felt but equally strong urges as being the women's defect, and the belief in this myth as the justification to overcome this alleged defect by hook or crook as if this would ultimately be beneficial for the women.  This is a male delusion with cruel consequences for the victims. 

Instead men need to recognize, that the only realistic expression of consideration and responsibility towards women means to refrain from commodifying and objectifying them.    

2.  Women need to acknowledge, how little men have control over the automatic triggering of their instinctive urges towards abuse, whenever they are exposed to the perception of stimuli from female bodies.  This is aggravated, when men are in the state of high dishomeostasis.  

Even those decent and nice guys, who have not the least conscious intention to let abuse follow the perception of any unwelcome triggers, need more self-control for stronger stimulation.   Whenever they need all their available self-control to cope with these urges, this may leave them depleted of any further willpower, which they need to cope with other urges.  This may make it more difficult to resist other behaviors like overeating or smoking.   This can be concluded from studies about the depletion of willpower as presented in entry 524.   

(The following may sound like a far fetched speculation: I am wondering, if obesity, alcoholism and other self-harming widespread behaviors of lacking willpower are not partially enhanced by the oversexation of the media and of everyday life.  Not abusing women may deplete many decent men of so much of their willpower, that they more easily succumb to other urges instead.)

 
Therefore women too have a responsibility and a moral obligation to be considerate of men's physiological affliction.   Women need to avoid triggering male instincts towards their bodies, unless they are in private with a man, with whom they either have or want a relationship. 

Most people would agree, that it is cruel to show a bill of money to a beggar and then tell him to keep his fingers off, because it is not for him to have.  This invites the beggar's attempt, if he grabs it, while of course this is not a justification.   The beggar needs willpower not to grab it.   He would not need willpower, as long as people just pass him by.   A woman presenting herself nearly naked or in any provocative attire does the same to any man in dishomeostasis, whenever she wants him to keep off her body.    

As unfortunate as it is, the misunderstandings between the genders lead to antagonistic struggles, in which in the end both genders suffer.   Men are able to enforce abuse, but women react by materialistic exploitation.  
The abuse of women and the exploitation of men can only be abolished by cooperation based upon the realistic acknowledgment of the biological asymmetry.   Studies like the one cited are a good beginning, but a much more widespread recognition of the true problem is needed.      

682. The Hazard Of Being A Woman

682.   The Hazard Of Being A Woman 

When only looking at attitudes, morals and intentions, there may be as many women not hesitating to exploit men as there are men not hesitating to abuse women.    But the harm actually done depends not only on the intentions, but also on the power to enact them.  

Men's advantage of greater physical strength gives them power to succeed in causing harm to women, who in spite of whatever their intentions are nevertheless restricted to be victims rather than perpetrators.

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/130910_rape

"Nearly a fourth of men in the Asia-Pa­cif­ic re­gion ad­mit to hav­ing raped some­one-at least, if they’re asked about it in a way that avoids the word “rape,” a study has found.

Re­search­ers sur­veyed more than 10,000 men aged 50 and un­der from six dif­fer­ent coun­tries in the re­gion, from both ur­ban and ru­ral ar­eas."

"The sur­veys were con­ducted in Bang­la­desh, Cam­bo­dia, Chi­na, In­do­ne­sia, Pap­ua New Guin­ea, and Sri Lanka."

"Elev­en per­cent re­ported hav­ing raped a wom­an who was not their part­ner. When men who re­ported hav­ing raped a part­ner were in­clud­ed, this pro­por­tion rose to 24 per­cent. Of those men who re­ported hav­ing com­mit­ted rape, 45 per­cent said they had raped more than one wom­an.

When asked why they had com­mit­ted rape, 73 per­cent said that they did so for rea­sons of sex­u­al en­ti­tle­ment, 59 per­cent for some sort of en­ter­tain­ment, and 38 per­cent for what they per­ceived as pun­ish­ment."

Of course this does not warrant any misinterpretations of Asian men as being more instinct driven animals than men elsewhere.   They only live in societies, where they risk less punishment than their equally abusive peers in western societies, who are restricted to pay for abuse or to apply trickery and manipulation instead of violence.   

The sad biological reality, that by instinct men are attracted to and perceive female bodies as mere toilets for their body waste, blurs all men's comprehension of the magnitude of the atrocity experienced by the victims of rape.   Even many well meaning and decent men are deprived of empathy for many women's very different reaction to unwelcome close contact with strangers' bodies.   This reaction is disgust and nausea.  

There are many suggestions as to how rapists should be punished.   But in my personal opinion neither imprisonment nor even the death penalty are appropriate as sufficient punishment.   
Instead, every rapist should be forced to suffer the same amount of disgust and nausea as his victim.   He should be forced to eat something like dog shit, vomit or rotten meat with maggots.   And every man, who trivializes the full atrocity of rape should imagine, what he would feel, were he to suffer the disgust of eating such substances.                 

681. Strong Instincts Are Women's And Men's Common Enemy

681.  Strong Instincts Are Women's And Men's Common Enemy
 

This blog may appear biased, because I am a woman writing about what kind of a mindmate I am looking for.  Thus I am focusing upon the harm done by men's strong instincts to women, which I want to prevent myself from suffering, while the damage done by foolish and also instinct driven women to men does not concern me.   

This omission is no denial of the reality, that both masculinity and femininity as expressions of instinctive roles, which are equally dysfunctional for individual happiness.  

Male and female instincts have evolved in the animal ancestors to complement each other for an optimized success of procreation.  These instincts force people to make both themselves sacrifices for their offspring and they force them also upon others.  By these instincts, personal sufferings does not impede procreation.  
High instinctivity leads to a high identification with and display of masculinity in men and of femininity in women.  The instinctive urges cause different varieties of harm to the other gender.   Masculinity leads to the abuse women's bodies without attachment and commitment.   Femininity leads to the exploitation of men as providers by choosing attachment only to the children.
 

The instinctive attractions are often symmetrical, men with high instinctivity expressed as strong masculinity are attracted to women with high instinctivity expressed as strong femininity and vice versa.    In this case, the most abusive men fall for the most exploitative women and the most exploitative women are also the most prone to become victims of abuse by a bad choice.

But whenever there is a mismatch in the amount of instinctivity, then the partner with the stronger instinctivity is very prone to hurt and harm the less instinctive and more rational person, who does not reciprocate due to not being equally driven by instinct to cause harm.   

Thus, a battle between the genders is irrational.  Both genders have one common enemy, which is the subconscious power of animal instinctive forces over them, of which they are unfortunately usually not even aware.   If both genders would learn to reject, repress and fight against all instincts, which hurt and harm others, then male abuse and female exploitation could be if not eliminated then at least drastically reduced.  

 

Masculinity and femininity are not needed for the forming of bonded and committed couples.   The biological and therefrom deducted behavioral differences between the genders are only biologically needed for procreation.   Strong instincts only serve the compulsive production of offspring overriding any rational decision for or against breeding as a mere choice.  

There is evidence, that the difference between masculinity and femininity is obsolete for couples' happiness, when couples bond as individuals and not as breeders.  This evidence are all those lesbian and gay couples, who are getting married, where this is legal, and who are able and motivated to form longterm bonded unions based upon intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy.  

These couples can be a model for a new form of heterosexual couples, who also are focusing on equality in spite of belonging to different genders.   

When procreation is not the goal, then egalitarian models of choosing and preferring similarity are a rational option for all couples, also for heterosexual ones.   This includes the option to choose psychologically androgynous partners with only a low instinctivity towards being masculine or feminine.   

The happiness in a committed union of two individuals does not require any differences.  If only differences would attract each other, then twins, even identical twins, could not be so strongly bonded and attached as they often are.   Two persons, who are very much alike each other, could become attached like twins, with the addition of physical intimacy.

680. Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

680.   Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

Pornography is a very serious problem.   Men damage themselves by a deliberate decision, yet they themselves do not suffer.   Instead they make women suffer by commodifying and objectifying them.  

Therefore men are not prone to refrain from exposing themselves, but they will gladly jump on any excuse to trivialize the self-exposure.  

The following may be mistaken as supplying such an excuse.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130906102536.htm

"asked 200 Danish adults aged 18-30 about their past pornography consumption; assessed a central part of their personality (the trait of agreeableness i.e., individual low in agreeableness typically holder higher levels of antagonism, coldness, hostility, suspiciousness, disagreeability, unfriendliness, and self-interest); and exposed them to hardcore pornography in the laboratory."

"Among men increased past pornography consumption was initially found to be associated with more negative attitudes toward women including more hostility, negative prejudices, and stereotypes."

"However, when the researchers actually exposed participants to pornography, personality (agreeableness) was found to influence the relationship between pornography and sexist attitudes so that it was only among participants low in agreeableness that pornography was found to increase sexist attitudes. Among this group it was found that laboratory exposure to pornography modestly increased hostile sexist attitudes. Further this increase was found to be brought about by increases in sexual arousal to the pornographic exposure material. For all other participants, pornography exposure was found not to influence sexist attitudes."

Pornography desensitizes men by destroying their ability to perceive women as persons, who suffer when being abused.  It replaces the appreciative perception by the sexist attitude of mistaking women as objects and commodities existing to be abused.

Desensitization is a time dependent effect.  The longer a man is exposed to pornography, the worse he gets and the more harm he does to women.  

The duration of the exposure to pornography in a laboratory study is limited, while the most damaged men are impacted by the cumulative effects of repeated and regular extensive exposures.   The short exposure in the laboratory does not simulate the magnitude of the real life desensitization.

Therefore the absence in this one study of an effect after only a short exposure does not justify any trivializing misinterpretation.    

I doubt, that high agreeableness suffices as a general protection against desensitization, it may only slow down the speed thereof.   The short exposure in laboratory may suffice to bring out the worst only in those men with low agreeableness, while those with high agreeableness would need longer exposure before they succumb.

679.   The Subtly Detrimental Influence Of Movies - An Example

Recently I watched the movie 'You've Got Mail'.   I had heard of this movie before as if it were simply a nice and friendly romantic story of an internet match.  

I was quite surprised, when I discovered its detrimental subtle message.  


When only looking at the dynamics of the story, it could be a very exemplary story of the slippery slope of how the allegedly and mistakenly innocent initial behavior of chatting first escalates into emotional cheating and ultimately leads to the breakup of two couples.  

Unfortunately, the movie is not at all a warning for considerate and responsible people to beware of this slippery slope.    To the contrary, it reinforces and encourages people to pursue their own selfish goals without any consideration for their partners, without feeling any commitment and obligation.   The movie is a story about how ruthless and irresponsible transgressions are rewarded.   

Already the secrecy in the first scenes shows, that both protagonists are fully aware of doing something, which they know as not being accepted by their respective partner.  It is clearly emotional cheating. 
Additionally, both couples are shown as being principally in harmony, the respective partners are not presented as having done anything to deserve being dumped.   When the two protagonists decided to cheat, they had not the least excuse in their partners' behavior.

 
Movies are fictional stories, but movies like 'You've Got Mail' are realistic enough to influence people's behavior and their moral compass.    This movie contributes to the desensitization of people towards denial or unawareness for the hurting consequences of how they treat others.  

The fiction of this movie is very unrealistic by presenting the dumped partners as not suffering but both ready to get involved with each other.  
In real life, a dumped partner rarely ever goes through such an ordeal without being wounded and scarred.  

The two protagonists could not foresee this exceptionally benign outcome of their transgression.   When they made the first step upon the slippery slope towards emotional cheating, they decided to do this in spite of the then very real risk of deeply hurting their partners.  


Such movies propagate the fallacy as if it were morally acceptable to look for someone new and dump the previous partner, even though he did nothing whatsoever to deserve this.

Of course this is just one movie, but those people seeing such movies frequently often end up desensitized.   When they hurt others and the others are damaged and show this by their demeanor, the transgressors are unable to comprehend, what they themselves have done.   Instead of taking responsibility, they define the damage done to the hurt person as a weakness, a flaw, a defect.   Even those not directly involved are under the fallacy of blaming the victims for lacking resilience and not seeing the transgressor's full responsibility. 


Sometimes people do worry about the effects of violence in movies and computer games upon people.   But hardly ever anybody worries about the subtle desensitization of superficially harmless movies, which are teaching people to be ruthlessly selfish, irresponsible and inconsiderate.

678. Misconceptions Of Commitment Impede Relationships From Being A Safe Haven

678.   Misconceptions Of Commitment Impede Relationships From Being A Safe Haven
 
Since reading ads and profiles on the web, I have been getting more and more aware of several misconceptions of commitment. 

The following is not about those nasty promiscuous guys, who abuse women by outrightly and consciously refusing any commitment.  It is about misconceptions, which lead to hurting behavior in spite of this not being intended.
 

For many women a relationship is a simple deal, even though they may themselves not be aware of this or they may even deny to put it as bluntly as I do.   Realistically seen, when they supply their bodies for men's instinctive urges, it is meant as the price for getting a safe haven in return.  
But when men are ignorant of women's non-physical and non-material needs, they do not comprehend this deal.  Their misconceptions are harmful to women.   

When such a woman allows a man the access to her body, she instantly wants the safe haven to be given to her.  Not as a vague expectation for the future, but immediately in return, as in a fair deal.   But due to misconceptions, the man does not or not yet pay this price.  This often leads to situations, when women feel like creditors, while men do not comprehend, that they have a debt or what they owe.  

 

When there are misconceptions, there is no malice and not even selfishness, but just ignorance and misguidance by those men, who deprive women of a safe haven..    

  

Misconception 1.    Men project their instinctive cravings upon women and are not aware, that this is not symmetrical due to physiological differences.   They are unaware, that women expect the safe haven as a price owed to them.  

When, as a metaphor, an alcoholic and a non-alcoholic sit down together to drink a bottle of wine, they can seem superficially to do the same.   Both appear to enjoy the flavor of the wine.   But it is not the same.   The alcoholic craves the wine for the alcohol, he has no choice to refrain from drinking.  He would drink any other alcohol, even horribly tasting stuff.  The non-alcoholic drinks the wine as a conscious choice to do so, he is free to not drink what he does not like to drink.   

When a man and a woman get physically involved, the situation is equally asymmetrical.   The man's instincts crave to copulate with a female body because of his recurrent physiological dishomeostasis.  If he is also attracted to the woman's brain, it is only an additional bonus, not a significant reason.    The woman is free from such compulsions, she has a real choice.   She is able to choose physical intimacy, when enjoying it is part of the whole package of also intellectual and emotional intimacy, which are the preconditions for a safe haven.   She has no need for a mere male body, if she gets nothing better than a body.  
 

This misconception impedes men from comprehending the women's deal.  They are in full denial, that they owe a safe haven in return for homeostasis.  

Instead these men have the delusion of a different deal, by which they were merely obliged to satisfy allegedly equal female instinctive urges.  In the case of apparent success, they sincerely believe to have no further obligations.    They are dangerous fools.     


Misconception 2.   This misconception equates commitment with monogamous exclusivity.  

Under this misconception, people choose or attempt to find relationship constructions, which are sometimes called LAT (Living Apart Together) or by others friends with benefits.    When and as far as they feel committed, they confound this with the mere restriction of physical intimacy to only one partner, while they do not feel any further obligations or responsibility for what they do to the other. 

Thus a man can acquire sufficient access to a woman's body to maintain his homeostasis and nevertheless keep her completely out of his own life, but continue to live at his own convenience as a bachelor.   

He fulfills his physiological needs without paying a price. In combination with misconception 1 he is oblivious that this favors only his onesided advantages but harms the woman, who is denied a safe haven.


Misconception 3.   Only the legally binding act of an official marriage with a signature is considered and perceived as commitment.  

Under this misconceptions, all obligations of marriage under the respective laws of any country are accepted as binding, but nothing else.   This is not a safe haven.    Legal obligation care for the spouse's material minimal requirements, but not for emotional needs.  

This misconception has several possible consequences.   

Consequence 1.   When a man does not understand the real meaning of a safe haven, but wishes to fulfill a woman's non-physical needs, he may be prone to hasten to marry before both have discovered, if they really are a good match.  

Consequence 2.   When a man mistakes the fulfillment of legal requirements with fulfilling a woman's needs, the laws of a country, especially gender asymmetrical ones, can make a man to wrongly believe to be a good husband.  But when he dominates, forces his will upon her for his convenience, then there cannot be a safe haven for a woman.
 

Consequence 3.   For those persons, who understand the real meaning of a safe haven and of intrinsic commitment, the obligations to each other are morally indistinguishable between a legal marriage and cohabitation without the signature.   But a man, who does not feel committed unless he is married yet who intends to be decent, is motivated to get engaged to be married.   The phase of being engaged is especially beneficial for his combined needs.

With such a man, aggravated by misconception 1, the premarital phase of physically intimate engagement can be very destructive and hurting for the woman.   She expects the safe haven to have already been created, while the marriage to come is only a tiny insignificant addition.   

But for such a man this engagement phase is subjectively as if he could temporarily eat as much cake as he wishes and continue to keep it all.  
He has the illusion to be decent and correct, because he has principally accepted to start having obligations, but only at some moment in the future.   He already fully enjoys the use of the woman's body, while temporarily not feeling obliged to already pay any non-material price.   

While being merely engaged he still feels the uncommitted freedom of the bachelor.   He still feels no obligation to share any decision with the woman.   He still feels entitled to have everything at his convenience and to enforce this.   He still considers his time and his money as his own.  
For the women, this is very painfully the contrary of a safe haven.  
For some such men, this is a very agreeable situation to be prolonged by delaying the marriage.    


As a result of the prevalence of any or all these misconceptions, a woman cannot get the pursued safe haven in return for allowing a man the access to her body.   All these misconceptions are especially found in persons, who experience themselves as singles in the interaction with someone perceived as very distinct. 

A safe haven is based upon a general intrinsic attitude towards the partner, which leads to behaviors enabling her to feel and experience emotional safety.  

Life is an never-ending sequence of problems, troubles, inclemencies, pressures, which are prone to exhaust and burn out those persons, who are forced to cope alone.    Household items and installations break, neighbors, bosses or family members cause struggles and disputes, legal and financial problems arise. 
 
The person, who is alone when afflicted with any such problem, is often ultimately very helpless.    Platonic friends and non-cohabiting LAT partners can be or at least can attempt to be supportive by listening, by giving advice or by supportive actions.   But in the end, it is not their own problem.   They have a backdoor, they can sooner or later withdraw and go on with their own life.   Being supportive is merely their choice, a onesided altruistic act, for them it is not an own necessity.   In the end, the person remains still alone with the problem.      

A safe haven is very different.   A safe haven means, that both partners intertwine their lives and their circumstances so much, that they both are concerned and struck together by such problems. They have an identity as being two halves of a unit.  Whatever happens to one automatically also happens to the other, because it happens to the unit.  The shared life causes being struck together by the impact of the same circumstances and events.   Both partners have no choice and no backdoor, they need to cooperate to solve common problems by common activities.    Whatever they do or fail to do causes either benefits or damage to both.   

677. Suitable Means Nothing Less Than Not-Unsuitable

677.   Suitable Means Nothing Less Than Not-Unsuitable

Again and again I see on dating sites calculations and concepts, which indicate the implicit assumption, that someone could be more or less a match by nothing more than only the additive presence or absence of shared and welcome traits.        

This is a very hazardous fallacy.    Relationships fail predominantly, when one partner's attributes, traits, attitudes, values or habits cause the other to feel and experience harm or at least discomfort and displeasure.    In such cases, both partners are mutually unsuitable.   

Therefore differences in how much someone is suitable are only of any significance, when there is no unsuitability at all.     

 

As a metaphor, the most delicious ingredients can be mixed elaborately into a perfect treat.  But one single addition of a foul tasting or toxic ingredient suffices to make it entirely unpalatable or dangerous.  

It is the same with a partner.   A man could have dozens of traits and attributes making him appear as nearly perfect and as a dream come true.  But one unbearable and intolerable attribute can suffice to nevertheless make the relationship toxic and devastating beyond endurance.   

 

If accidentally there is salt instead of sugar in a cup of coffee, it can be thrown out with a shrug of a shoulder and new coffee brewed.   But if there is accidentally salt in the tiramisu or chocolate cake, which had required a lot of work to make, the disappointment is much bigger.  

The same goes with a man.   The more a man seems to be perfect in many other aspects, the more it is painful, when his hurting behavior cannot be stopped.   Avoiding to be hurt by a man by avoiding him entirely is easy, as long as in all other aspects he is merely just acceptable.   Yet he is acceptable for a harmonious relationship, as long as there is no unsuitability.  

 

Suitability can be additive depending upon how much is shared.   Unsuitability is not additive.   One aspect of unsuitability is enough to define the entire unsuitability.  

If there is only a lot of salt in the coffee, it cannot be drunk.   If there is only arsenic in it, it is not to be drunk.   Salt and arsenic together would not make it any less drinkable.    The behavioral consequences of not being able to drink the coffee are the same, even when the reasons are different.

One unsuitability suffices to make a man unacceptable, no matter what he is otherwise.    For me, a man with children is unsuitable, a man with religious beliefs is unsuitable, and a man with both religion and children cannot be less suitable than any one with only one of these unsuitabilities. 

Therefore what defines someone as a match and as a suitable partner is the absence of unsuitable attributes of any kind.   What these are, varies individually.  

Such unsuitable attributes can be

• cognitive, when mental traits like attitudes and beliefs elicit disrespect, repugnance or repulsion.
• behavioral, when habits and instinctive urges cause harm and hurting
• incongruency of significance, when the need for a partner does not fit with what is offered and expected reciprocally
• situational, when circumstances impede fulfilling the other's needs.

I am not looking for a dream partner or for someone perfect.   Instead I am looking for someone, who is in no aspect unsuitable for me.   

This means the absence of anything, which impedes me from respecting and appreciating him as a mindmate and he is someone, who by his own inclinations and decision does nothing, which I experience as harm and by which I feel hurt.