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! "

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.                 

555. Cognitive Poison Ivy

555.  Cognitive Poison Ivy

Too many repetitions of stimulation can lead to desensitization, but there is also the possible opposite reaction of sensitization and allergization.   
Physiologically, impaired hearing due to too much noise too often is an example of desensitization.   Touching poison ivy is known as initiating an allergic reaction, which gets worse with every repeated contact.   

Exposure to immaterial stimuli can also cause both kinds of a reaction.   Just as people get desensitized be their repeated inflicting harm, people can also get allergic due to being exposed too often to annoying, disgusting, discouraging, disturbing, hurting or in any other way unpleasant cognitive input.    I will call such allergenic input cognitive poison ivy.    

There is an expression about pushing someone's button.   Cognitive poison ivy is something different.   A button in the expression is an individual's peculiarity.  What is a button to one person has not effect upon another.   Poison ivy is toxic, becoming allergic is not a peculiar weakness.    Commodification harms every woman, if it is forced upon her too often and too drastically.   

The availability of cheap mass media has lead to the possibility of exposing oneself to extensive and intensive cognitive stimulation, which can have the side effects of either desensitization or allergization.
   

I have internet access at home since 1998.  This was a turning point in my access to authentic informations about very varied people.  Without the internet, information was either second hand through the filter of those writing, producing and publishing books, newspapers, magazines, radio, movies, tv.  Else it was limited to the experiences of the preselected kind of people, whom I chose to mix and socialize with.     

On the internet I started to avidly read forums of all kinds, where I found people's authentic and unfiltered expression of their opinions, attitudes and accounts of their subjective perception of their own life experiences.   
My wish to end my loneliness and to find a mindmate requires to be active by reading men's profile and taking the initiative to contact those appearing suitable.   
Doing this is for me like searching for one nice flower on a meadow overgrown with poison ivy, which I cannot avoid to expose myself to.    To find happiness, I have to invest a lot of annoyance of walking through the gutter, of developing a growing allergic reaction to too much filth.  

As a result of my exposure to the internet I got aware of the real seriousness and magnitude of two nuisances and annoyances, which I had previously thought to be able to keep away from.    The commodification of women and gullibility to irrational beliefs are so ubiquitous on the web, that they became cognitive poison ivy for me.

Before the internet, I mistook both nuisances as merely vague and drastic dysfunctions of a limited and clearly recognizable number of people.  

• I thought that those predators, who insulted me with their wish to abuse my body were a bad minority from the gutter, while there were also enough decent, monogamous and committing men.  
• I thought that all people, who called themselves atheists, really were rational.
• I overestimated the prevalence of decency and the prevalence of rationality.  

Since then, by reading information, by a lot of thinking and drawing my own independent conclusions, I have learned a lot more about commodification and irrationality:

• They are quite ubiquitous and exceptions are rare.  
  
• Both have as a general basis the disposition towards distorted thinking, which can lead to become manifest in many different variations.   Not only the manifestations are the nuisance, but also the disposition.
  
  • The disposition for commodification is the asymmetrical attitude towards women, which causes many different harming behaviors.
  • Gullibility is the predisposition, which is manifest in very different irrational beliefs leading to different harming behaviors.   

•  While the harming behaviors are drastic, the dispositions can be recognized by subtle, indirect indicators, which are superficially not easily noticeably and tend to be overlooked and underestimated.  
  I got more aware and attentive to recognize the real significance of such indicators as red flags.   
  
• Some of the damage done directly and indirectly to victims is beyond what I had imagined as possible.

• People's self-labeling and self-attributions are often not correct.  When these persons appear sincere, this can be misleading.    It sometimes takes a while to find out, that they are not aware of the real meaning of what they appear to say.
  
  • Self-labeled atheists believing in reincarnation, astrology or chi are not less irrational than christians.  
  • A man's declared intention to commit does not imply symmetry, even marriage can be mistaken by some men for a variety of commodification.
    
• Those causing the nuisance are unable to comprehend, what they are doing, even when they are told or notice any disruption, they blame it on the victims of commodification and of irrational behaviors. 
   
• The worst nuisance are those men, who combine commodification and irrationality. While a rational men has theoretically the potential to reconsider and change his asymmetrical attitude towards women, irrationality protects the commodification.   
  
  

With growing awareness for the indicators of both nuisances, I started to consciously encounter them more often and I became more alert as to their significance.   While ignorance had spared me previously thereof, I experienced annoyance more frequently.  I was waking up to the real extent of two major dysfunctions of the cognition.
   
I am using the words annoyance and nuisance.  It is difficult to describe emotions.  Every instance of reading about women being degraded or about some irrational belief triggered in me this feeling of sighing a 'not again' and of cringing from this unpleasant aspect of life.    The more often this happened, the stronger I experienced the unpleasantness.   By now it has become an allergic reaction of disgust, tedium and nausea.    Commodification and irrationality have become cognitive poison ivy for me. 


I want to find a mindmate for a relationship, which is a safe haven, from where commodification and irrationality are both banned.  Filth and stupidity are kept outside the surrounding walls.   I wish to be never again exposed to cognitive poison ivy.  

But where is my mindmate?

239. Hostility or Exasperation

Hostility or Exasperation

I got this feedback in a private mail.

"Your blog seems a bit hostile in a way. It as if you are magnifying something in the sunlight and those who get too close will be burned up to ashes by your scathing comments."

When there is mutual respect and appreciation with a partner, I am a kind, caring, friendly, gentle, peaceful, considerate person, very motivated to invest any time and energy to make the relationship work.    I am void of any hostility or aggression towards any person, whom I respect and appreciate.    I avoid hostility by avoiding all people, who would not deserve anything better than hostility and scathing.

When writing the blog about what I do not want, I am obviously influenced by my growing exasperation of having to deal with too many unsuitable men.    Men with the qualities of my mindmate are very scarce, and I need a lot of searching to find him.   My search exposes me to being pestered by absurd contacts, that I am fending off by the dozens every day. 

So yes, I am sick and tired, I am exasperated to the max of dealing directly or indirectly with unsuitable men, who either make me puke by their promiscuity and lack of decency, or who blatantly disrespect my clearly expressed own criteria and my age.   But I have no choice.    If I would stop exposing myself to the nuisance of the unsuitable men, I would also cut myself off the chance to find my mindmate. 

Therefore my exasperation may well border on hostility towards all the unsuitable men, whom I wish to just stop pestering me.    I do not want to be hostile, all I want is finding my mindmate and never again have to deal with those unsuitable guys.  


1.   I am using several chats, where there is the possibility of a one to one dialogue.    There is an indication of my age along with my nickname.    When I first started to use those chats, I felt disappointed every time, when I was contacted, and again it was somebody too young.   In the beginning I thought, that those misguided kids needed to be told, that while they may see a  benefit for themselves in talking to a mature old woman, this is not reciprocal and that they are disturbing me.   Young people have their place in their own age group just as I have a place in mine.    

But after a few times politely telling some of them to refrain from disturbing me, I could not keep this up.   Out of every 100 male persons, who contact me in the chat, at least 95 are too young to be considered as men by a woman of 61, most of them are just kids in their 20s, 30s and 40s.

The three clicks to just block each of them became a dull routine.   And the more often I blocked one of them, the less I perceived  this as getting rid of a disturbing unsuitable humans.   Instead I perceive  them as abstract annoyances and nuisances, just like flies.   

When, after ridding myself of 95 flies, there finally is someone of the correct age group, then often he is either married or not searching for a serious relationship.       
2.   It is similar with the replies to my ads and profiles on dating sites.   At least 95 of those, who contact me, do so in contradiction to my very explicit criteria.    Being again and again contacted by religious breeders is also a nuisance. 
3.   I am the frequent target of scammers, because they consider old and lonely women as especially easy prey.    I have learned to recognize scammers very fast, but they do not know this, they try it again and again with me.   On some French sites, there are more scammers than real men. 
4.   When I look through profiles on those dating sites, where there is an option to choose as looking for no strings attached fun, flings, casual sex, friends with benefits, intimate encounters and similar expressions for being alley dogs, usually 80%, sometimes even 90% percent of men indicate this as at least an additional option, even when they are also looking for a long-term relationship.    There are very few decent men, who limit their search exclusively to a long-term relationship or a marriage.   But if I do not read the disgusting profiles, I cannot find the decent ones.     

I feel very exasperated.   When I will be happy with my mindmate, I will have earned that happiness with hard, dreary, unpleasant and dragging labor of fending off all those unsuitable guys and wading through a lot of disgusting mental human filth.    

108. Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

Promiscuity and Disgust Sensitivity

I am suspecting, that promiscuity or the inhibition of promiscuity are related to differences in disgust sensitivity.  

There is certainly a wide variety in disgust sensitivity between people.  As an obvious example, some people allow their dogs to lick their faces without any hesitation, others feel already disgust when merely watching it.
I assume that while all people have some amount of disgust of other's body fluids, there is probably also a wide variety of how much disgust people feel about the contact with a stranger's body.  

What in previous entries I had described as promiscuity inhibition, could be mainly or partly a strong repulsion to get near any stranger's body, which then as a consequence impedes promiscuity.    This does not contradict my previous assumption, that promiscuity is a loss of the inhibition, but it is an elaboration.   

In this elaboration, promiscuity inhibition means, that disgust sensitivity prevents hypoanimalistic individuals from physical involvement with a stranger.   Such involvement is delayed, until the emotional and intellectual intimacy have prepared both partners for physical bonding, when they are no more strangers to each other.
I strongly suspect, that only people, whose instinctivity is higher than their disgust sensitivity, are prone to become promiscuous.  

The destruction of the promiscuity inhibitions and the development of promiscuous psychopathy is a two step process.  
The first step is beginning promiscuous activities with strangers or persons, with whom emotional and intellectual intimacy does not exist.   Assuming that promiscuity is caused, triggered or enhanced by strong instinctivity, then it could be that when two strangers agree on a fling, they do this in a moment of strong instincts overriding their disgust sensitivity and their repulsion of a stranger's body.  
This would be similar to someone, whose extreme hunger overrides his disgust and he eats food from the garbage container, that would cause him nausea, if he were less hungry.  
Of course, in such a situation, the physical intimacy is not creating any bond, as the major requirement of emotional and intellectual intimacy is lacking.   They experience the physical encounter as something completely different from a bonding experience.   The more often they repeat non-bonding flings, the more they get desensitized to not feeling any restraining disgust and habituated to not getting bonded.  
When they have lost all ability to bond, they become dangerous emotional psychopaths.  In this state, even when they know someone for a long time before getting involved, for them as desensitized emotional psychopaths this is still nothing more than uncommitted promiscuity, even though they are no more strangers.   But for their unfortunate and unsuspicious hypoanimalistic partners it is bonding.  


So far, I have used the word disgust in a vague and unspecified way.   My assumption, that disgust sensitivity to a stranger's body is something developed by evolution needs some evidence.  

In my attempt to find some scientific backup,  I found this text based on research as recent as 2009:  http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/137596.pdf

As a result of several studies, the authors distinguish three varieties of disgust:  Pathogen, saksual (misspelling on purpose), and moral disgust.  They reject previous concepts, where disgust was meddled with feeling creepy.   
They consider all three disgusts as the result of evolution.   The pathogen disgust aims as a protection from pathogen substances, the saksual disgust as a selective protection against have unfit progeny, and the moral disgust as a protection for the cohesion of groups.   That sound plausible.  
The authors consider all three disgusts as the same emotion.   But this is somehow not fully convincing to me, when I compare it with my own subjective experience and introspection.  
Yet again, such studies were made on a representative sample of average people, of whom most were most probably breeders and particles, and I am the one, who is different.  

Therefore I cannot really know, what kind of disgust another non-promiscuous woman feels, whenever she is approached by a stranger and perceives his intentions as aiming to use her body for a fling.   But she would most probably feel disgust, as is shown in the results of these studies.  

But I know my own reactions from such experiences in the past.   It is a very strong sick feeling of the disgust to pathogen substances to get in touch with a stranger's body fluids.   An analogy for the understanding of promiscuous readers: It is the same disgust as if someone would suggest to smear dog poop on me.    Morally, I feel outrage, that somebody has the disrespect and depreciation to even consider for one moment, that I were someone to be degraded as low as a body, an animal, an object.  But this is a different feeling from the pathogen disgust.  
Since I feel no instinct to procreate, so of course I have no specific instinctive disgust rejecting some males as more unsuitable than others.  I choose a partner with my brain to bond with, not with instincts to procreate.   Therefore I feel saksual disgust against all strangers, but always combined with the pathogen disgust towards the stranger's body, so I cannot distinguish both as different emotions.