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

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

Men are afflicted by feeling recurrent urges, for which they consider women's bodies as the best remedy.   But this is biologically asymmetrical, there are by far not as many women with complementary needs.    
Depending on many factors, men are coping quite differently with this asymmetry.   Unfortunately, these methods of coping show implicitly a lot of disrespect, disregard, denial and depreciation for women's brains and cognitive qualities.  

1. In some cultures more than in others, men feel entitled to abuse women, whenever their social or physical power enables them to do so.   They do not even consider to owe anything to their victims.
   
2. Men feel entitled to abuse women's body, whenever the women seem to sell their self-abuse as prostitutes as an alleged choice.
   
3. Gender roles in many societies generally attribute to men the role of being a source of material benefits, even when there is commitment and no abuse.    In marriage and often also in cohabitation, the man provides all or parts of the standard of living for his wife or partner.  During phases of courting and dating, or in any other forms of non-cohabitation, men feel obliged to pamper women by spending money on her for invitations to restaurants and events, and expensive gifts.   This is a social norm, women are encouraged to expect this.   Nevertheless men implicitly compensate for their asymmetrical physiological needs by material benefits.  
   
4. If men do not want to pay and nevertheless also do not want to feel as abusers or recipients of a favor, they (as pointed out in entry 707) belief the myth, that they could sufficiently please women physically and that in this case women would not experience and perceive the asymmetry.   This is a fallacy based upon male ignorance of biological facts. 

In all these constellations, men asymmetrically want access to female bodies, but they either give nothing or only material, non-personal advantages.  

They do not give anything of real value.   They do not give themselves.  
 

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

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

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

707. Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

707.   Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

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

But there are also those men, who want access to women's bodies without giving any of the above, and nevertheless they avoid to experience themselves as selfish or abusive.  The complete denial of the biological asymmetry is their method.  

These men have created a myth, which is perpetuated by the male dominated media:   This myth is a collective male delusion and fallacy, that allegedly women would have the same need for sex as men and would therefore also equally benefit.   This claim serves as these men's justification to refuse giving anything to the women or to ever accept any obligation to fulfill women's different needs.  

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

706. Puzzled About The Five Second Rule

706.  Puzzled About The Five Second Rule

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

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

Today I found another example of this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140310102212.htm

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

"The Aston team also carried out a survey of the number of people who employ the five-second rule. The survey showed that:

87% of people surveyed said they would eat food dropped on the floor, or already have done so
55% of those that would, or have, eaten food dropped in the floor are women
81% of the women who would eat food from the floor would follow the 5 second rule"

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

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

http://www.drozfans.com/dr-ozs-advice/dr-oz-5-second-rule-debunked-eat-food-off-the-floor-or-not/

"Personally, I am disgusted by the idea of eating something that has fallen on the floor… the same place you walk with the bottom of your shoe… which is the same place that steps on things like dog poop.  Yuck! "