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.  

657. An Example Of An Emotionally Hazardous Man

657.   An Example Of An Emotionally Hazardous Man

In entry 650 I compared the asymmetry in how male and female singles are coping with their needs and instincts.    Singles of both genders can successfully established a network of sources for their intellectual and emotional needs.   By this network of family, colleagues, friends, buddies, all cognitive needs are fulfilled.  What remains unfulfilled, are only the instinctive urges.  

Under such circumstances, men continue to be driven by dishomeostasis towards the use of female bodies.    But women are in the fortunate situation of not being afflicted with the same recurrent urge to get rid of procreative body waste.    Therefore women in the same situation either feel no additional needs of a kind, which requires a man's body.   When women are driven by instincts, it is towards breeding and towards a man as a provider.   Only very few women are ever driven towards a man for the mere purpose of copulating with a body.   Women who want nothing better are very rare, while there are many men preferring them.  

The consequence is a very unfortunate imbalance.   There are many men with no other relationship needs except for a female body, but whose basic decency causes them to refrain from paid abuse.   They search in vain for women, who also have no needs or demands for anything better than a male body.    When they get instead in contact with those women, who need a bonding companion, a safe haven based upon emotional and intellectual intimacy, these women are at a very high risk of being hurt.

This risk is aggravated by some men's insufficient theory of mind.   Being unaware of the implications, that women are not afflicted by the same body waste dishomeostasis as men are, they have instead the delusion, that women share the same instinctive needs.    Only those men, who know, when they hurt and abuse women, have a choice to refrain from doing so.   

A woman needs to be very perceptive for red flags indicating the hazard of being hurt, the earlier and the better she notices them, the more she can protect herself.    


The following is a good example.

I have been contacted by a man, who has listed some search criteria in his profile.
Unfortunately he did not reply to my asking permission to quote him literally, so I try to paraphrase him with the least distortion.   And of course, the following are conjectures from limited information.

    
Two of his criteria are red flags, and his replies to my reservations about these issues made the red flags grew even bigger. 
   
1.   By his criteria, a woman should not require to be his only female friend.   In his reply he claims that jealousy is poisonous and a consequence of a weak relationship.

2.   By his criteria, a woman should not hold him responsible for her emotional wellness.   In his reply he claims that a whole person cannot be hurt by anybody, that being vulnerable means a need to work on oneself and that people are only accountable to themselves for what they feel.  


This man is a nightmare for any woman, who wants a bonded companion, an exclusive confidante, a safe haven, a mindmate.   With him, there is nothing better available than a body in bed.   When his denial of a woman's non-physical needs and his emotional cheating with other women hurt her, he does not take responsibility but blames it upon her flaw and weakness.   Oversimplified, the gist is that if a woman disagrees with how he treats her, it is the woman's defect, while nothing he does, can be wrong.  

1.   For simple minded and immature people, the simple definition of cheating is not getting physically involved with any other person.   Anything else is not understood as cheating and is considered as permissible.   Any objection is rejected as unjustified jealousy.
People without a mature theory of mind are unaware of the harm done as a consequence of this oversimplified definition.   
When such a man's entire non-physical needs are met by his network, he can be misled to firmly believe to be a trophy husband, as long as he spends every night in the bed shared with his partner and does not touch other women.    

When he shares his innermost feelings and troubles with female confidantes other than his bed partner, whom he emotionally and intellectually excludes from being a companion, he feels justified and entitled to do so.  
When he knows in advance his strong permanent and persistent need for multiple important female friends, this clearly indicates, that no woman has ever any chance to become exclusively significant as his one and only bonded companion and confidante.    The exclusivity of only one significant partner is beyond his imagination.        

A different man, mature and with a good theory of mind, is able to draw a clear line between female acquaintances, who are kept at a sufficient and safe emotional distance.   He is able to understand the importance of having close friends as common friends.

2.  Healthy people do not get hurt by insignificant persons, and they are capable to choose, who is significant.    People with a healthy emotionality are vulnerable to what significant people do to them.  Entering a meaningful personal relationship with a significant other implies to make oneself vulnerable.   It implies to give the significant other the power to have an impact upon the emotional wellbeing and it is based upon the trust, that this power is not abused.
People, whom nobody can hurt, are either robots, monsters or psychopaths, or they are unable to perceive someone as significant and to allow anybody to become significant.   One method to interpret this man's normative statement is to imply, that he avoids being vulnerable by not allowing any person to get close, not even a woman in a relationship.  
If this man does, what he claims, he would not hesitate to return every night to the bed of a woman, who lies, cheats and betrays him, and the lacking emotional impact of her behavior upon him clearly indicates, that to him, she is not a person of significance, but only a body and an object.    As long as the availability of her body serves his physiological needs, nothing else of what she does matters.   And if he considers this as normal, then he obviously has never in his life experienced a woman as significant.  

Enhancing the shared happiness is a common goal of a bonded couple, while it is an illusion to passively expect to be made happy by the other's proactive actions.  A partner has no obligation to add to the other's emotional wellbeing.   But the trust of making oneself vulnerable causes and justifies the other's moral obligation and responsibility to avoid hurting, harming and damaging the emotional wellbeing.   It cannot be justified, that one partner profits from a relationship and in return damages the other's emotional wellbeing.    The baseline has to always be Epicurus' principle of not harming and not being harmed.   

521. The Difference Between Companionship And Commodification

521.  The Difference Between Companionship And Commodification

In the entries 519 and 520 I mentioned the objectification of women.  But after further pondering I got aware, that objectification in the literal sense is only a part of the bigger problem of the commodification of women.  Women are not only used as bodies, they are often also degraded to the function of rendering other services.  

Literally, objectification is degrading women to be used as passive objects, mainly by rape, prostitution and pornography.   

Commodification degrades women also to the role of objects.  But they are considered as more advanced objects, which are not just passive but have functions like appliances.   

An appliance like for example a toaster or a vacuum cleaner is perceived as an object to fulfill a specific function, whenever a button is pressed.   

1. Without functioning, the object has no value.   
2. The object is maintained according to a manual or common knowledge.  
3. The object is not an individual, but one specimen from mass production and thus interchangeable with any other object supplying the same function. 
4. Only the user decides, when and how to use the appliance.   
5. He expects to retrieve it from where and how he has left it, no matter for how long he stores it in a locker.   
6. The purpose of the existence of the appliance is serving the user by functioning at his convenience.    
7. Once he has gained control over an appliance, he considers it his property to be used at his convenience ever after.    
8. He feels entitled to benefit from the function as long as it pleases him and to discard of the appliance also at his convenience.

When a man commodifies women, he perceives and treats them as if women were appliances.   This is derived from an attitude of the asymmetrical entitlement to selfishly living his live entirely at his own convenience, no matter what this does to the women.

1. A woman is not appreciated or valued independently of the benefits, which the man subjectively derives from her according to his needs.    The man is maximizing the quality of life for himself by adding whatever benefits he can usurp by using a woman.   This is not limited to using her body, it includes also using her skills and knowledge, which are perceived as isolated benefits, not as indications of her having any other competence.   
2. The man decides to treat the woman according to what he considers as her due and expects her to respond by functioning and not failing.    His assumption as to what is her due comes from many sources, be it hearsay, prejudice, projection, previous experience, even trial and error.    This can be any source except asking her.    He does not consider to ask her as he does not consider to ask the vacuum cleaner how to be handled.
   When he believes to keep her under good maintenance, any dysfunction is believed to be her flaw.   
3. The woman is not perceived as an individual with a personality, but as one specimen from the multitude of standard women, easily interchangeable with any other woman to get the same benefits. 
4. The man makes solitary decisions the same way as a single man does, including the one when to demand and receive the benefits from the woman and the modalities of how.  
5. The man comes and goes at his convenience, he decides when to be together and when to be separated without her consent. But he expects the woman to always be there waiting and ready for him.  
6. The man believes the woman to exist for the purpose of serving his benefits at his convenience. He is oblivious of the commodified woman's own needs and personality.  
7. Once he has gained control over a woman, he considers her as his property to be used at his convenience ever after, no matter how he treats her.    
   His control causes her insecurity.  Being commodified by a man, whose decisions come for her out of the blue, while she is helpless to influence or prevent, what he does to her, means to have no security, no reliability, no predictability.   Anything can be done to her at any moment, she cannot even prepare herself for what she cannot foresee.    
8. The man feels entitled to dump a woman, when she does not function any more due to his expectations. 

Commoditification and domination are two sides of the same coin.   The attitude of commodifcation serves to justify domination, and only domination enables someone with an outrageous attitude like commodification to have an impact upon victims.   

The situation of asymmetrical distribution of power in a relationship facilitates the domination over an commodified woman. 

A man's superior power can be caused

• by his physical strength
• by his economic strength
• by the discrepancy between the biological differences.      A man, who is attracted to a body, which he perceives as easy to replace, is less attached than a woman attracted and attached to a man's unique and individual personality.   Attachment creates vulnerability, while lacking attachment gives power.

There is a vicious circle:   Commodification impedes emotional attachment.   Lacking emotional attachment adds to the power needed to maintain domination and commodification.    Thus, commodification tends to perpetuate itself, once it is established.   

Commodification precludes companionship, which is defined by sharing decisions, sharing resources, cooperation, the identity as a part of a couple being a team, a fair exchange of giving and receiving, communication, consideration, responsibility.   

Examples:

1.  By the traditional gender roles, a house wife is commodifed, if the man only wants her for the purpose to find dinner ready every evening, have a clean home and share the bed, while he is not interested in spending any leisure time or sharing any activity with her.   Spending his free time instead with his hobbies and his buddies denies her to be a companion.

2.  Commodification is not limited to manual services as a housekeeper.  It can be more subtle.  Even a woman's mental skills can be used as a mere commodity without appreciation for her person.    

When a couple travels in a country, where only the woman speaks the language, and the man has health problems, there are two scenarios:

2.1.  As companions, they discuss and decide together, how to handle the situation.   Then she communicates on his behalf with whoever is consulted.   They perceive themselves as a teamed couple and they trust each other as being able and motivated to act in the best interest of both.

2.2.  When the man considers the woman as a commodity, the situation is very different.   He decides alone and without consulting her, what he wants to do, and he demands her to execute his unquestioned decisions.  She is to him nothing better than a translation machine, who is not recognized as having any more competence except the isolated skill of translating.   He demands her to translate every word as authentically as possible. She is not considered as apt to interfere at all with any of his decisions.   

3.  A couple has unresolved conflicts and their time together is limited.  

3.1.  As companions, both suffer from unresolved issues and solving conflicts has priority in their shared decision, how to use their time.

3.2.  For a man, who has commodified a woman, there are no unresolved issues.   He considers it his task to handle the commodity for his benefits.   When he gets, what he wants, nothing is wrong, no matter, how the woman experiences the situation.  Whenever he does not get, what he wants, he considers it his right and his job alone to enforce his will and impose his decisions upon her.   Getting, what he wants, is success, again no matter what she experiences..    

When he prefers to spend the time without her, he just does it.   When he wants to leave, he just leaves.   Her needs do not matter and do not exist for him.    When her ignored and denied needs make her too dysfunctional to what he feels entitled to get from her, this justifies his dumping her.

My mindmate to be found is a man, whose innate intrinsic needs are to be a companion, and for whom commodification of a woman is alien to his personality.