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He claimed that due to some outdated law in France he were forced to remain in his situation, which he presented as unchangeable, as if there were no alternative.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.  

676. The Effects Of Attire - A Rational Woman's Subjective Perspective

676.  The Effects Of Attire - A Rational Woman's Subjective Perspective

Whatever people do to their exterior in the realm of attire and body modification, it has effects upon others' perception.  

In the following, the person choosing an attire is the source, the perceiving observer is the target of these effects.   

First some general thoughts:

These effects can

• convey information or clues suggesting and enabling surmises about the sources' invisible attributes.
• trigger or influence the targets' behaviors.  

The effects upon the targets depend upon

• the power of instinctivity leading to spontaneous and automatic reactions
• rationality and awareness controlling and impeding instinctive reactions.

Effects by the source are

• rationally intentional and successful in agreement with the target
• rationally intentional and successfully manipulating the target
• rationally intentional and not successful, when recognized and avoided by the target
• rationally intentional and counterproductive, when recognized and counteracted by the target
• unintentionally collateral and irrelevant.
• unavoidably collateral and counterproductive
• instinct driven, unaware and counterproductive.

The significance of these effects depends upon the subjective identity of the source:

• Strong instincitivity leads to an identity of predominantly being a body and this implies the expectation of benefits from effects upon another body. 
• A predominant rationality leads to identify with invisible traits of the brain.  By such an identity, benefits are expected by verbal communication and behavior. 

How to rationally deal with the effects of attire:

• As a target, it is of paramount importance to always attempt to evaluate and interpret the intention behind people's attire and to always strive for the full awareness of the own spontaneous, instinctive and irrational reactions.  
  Based upon this, a rational target can react independently to perceived effects and avoid being influenced to the own disadvantage. 
  
• As a source, costs and benefits of the effects of the chosen attire have to be carefully evaluated and compared. 
  Costs can be financial, invested time, endured pain, discomfort and social disadvantages.
  Most benefits to be gained by the effects of attire are only substitutes for what can be also gained by verbal communication and by intentional active behavior.   
  Rationally, benefits from attire and body modification are not worth the cost.

Subjectively:

As a rational woman with an identity based upon invisible traits of my brain and not upon traits of my body, the following is my personal attitude towards attire and body modification.

• As a target, I use other people's attire as a source of information.   This helps to know, whom to esteem, whom to avoid altogether, when possible, and how to avoid being influenced by the intention of the attire.    It is important to make conscious rational decision and to avoid spontaneous reactions.  
  
• As a source, I consider my attire not as an instrument to intend any positive effects.  Nothing of what could maybe be gained by external effects of attire is rationally justifiable. 
  But I have always attempted to actively avoid the undignified effect of triggering the abusive instincts of male animals.  It was futile.  Even though I always was a bit more covered than most other women, hoping to divert the animals to them was in vain.   Sadly enough, my experience at a younger age was, that short of wearing a tent, nothing helped to spare me being approached for the intention to abuse my body.  

Some examples of information important for a woman when evaluating a man.

• Occupation
  Some jobs and hobbies require protective and hygienic attire for practical reasons.   It is important to distinguish necessary attire from attire chosen for effects.
  
  
• General conformity
  Following fashions or limiting the scope of selectable attire according to what is considered as social rules and normative dress code is a form of petty submissiveness.  Examples are men, who hate to shave but continue to do so every day and men, who deny themselves the comfort of wearing sandals or who are bothered about avoiding specific colors of socks along with the sandals.    They are pathetic and ridiculous.
  Such men have a scaring effect upon me.  They can be a jeopardy to a woman, when by the same submission to conformity they also do hurtful things to her.
  
  
• Physical masculinity
  Intentional masculinity, which is expressed for example by investing a lot of time and effort into extensive work-outs for the purpose of muscle-build-up, includes a favorable attitude towards aggressiveness and an inclination to fighting and to competing for a high rank and a position of power and domination.
  Such a man is a high risk, not only because his strength allows him to physically force his will upon a woman, but also by the positive attitude to collateral effects of masculinity as is the objectification of and domination over women.  This effect scares me.
  
  
• Group conformity
  Some men enhance their own subjective masculinity by adhering to groups, which have traditionally cultivated a form of masculinity, which included abuse and degradation of women as a part of the conformity to the group.   They express the adherence to such groups by their attire and body modifications. 
  Outfit and tattoos of motorcycle rockers, street gangs, military and sailors are examples, where the effect of identifying someone as a group member is also recognizing him as a hazard to women.
  
  
• Manipulation
  Any men dealing with large amounts of money, for example insurance agents, bankers or dealers of luxury goods, who want to pursue their own pecuniary advantage by appearing as honest as they are not, choose the crooks' uniform.   Its effects are their method of enhancing the success of their manipulation.   
  Their attire is an expensive looking suit, a tie, a clean shaven face and a neat haircut.   Their trick is creating the false impression, that this intentionally over correct attire lures people to make the mistake to expect correct behavior. 
  Upon myself, the effect is the contrary.  I am so aware of this manipulative strategy, that I never trust a man in a suit and a tie and with a clean shaven face.
     
• Attitude based group membership
  Members and role bearers of religious, woo-woo and political groups of any kind use their attire to signal their group membership.    This has the effect that I can avoid those men, from whom I am separated by a mental abyss. 
   
  

Independence and intellectual identity
 

Wise, rational and decent, non-manipulate people do not make sacrifices of time, money or comfort for the purpose of exterior effects.  They consider and experience external vanity as foolish and irrational.  Their attire serves only their subjective comfort and wellbeing.   They do not attempt to influence others by superficial and manipulative effects, they use verbal communication and correct behavior instead. 

A man wearing cheap sneakers, jeans, t-shirts and a beard due to not being bothered to shave every day expresses by this his rational identity.  (To avoid misunderstandings:  This does not imply neglect.  Comfort does not preclude the attire to be clean and not tattered.)

Depending upon what else I know about his invisible traits and attributes, such a man can have an attracting effect upon me, and he is also a good candidate for becoming trustworthy as a kindred mind.

601. Anecdotal Evidence: How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

601.   Anecdotal Evidence:  How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

A few days ago, a man's profile gave me the impression of his being a nice, decent, and considerate guy.    He used words like honesty, sharing, loving, kind and compassionate in his profile.   He told me, he were fitting my own profile, where I have explicitly mentioned, that I do not want any contact with promiscuous men.   

He seemed interested in further contact with me.   We exchanged a few emails and he agreed also with the importance of communication and of intellectual compatibility.   

But when I had another look at his profile, I was really puzzled.    He had changed his declared intention from actively seeking a relationship to dating but nothing serious.   When I asked him about this unexpected and seemingly incongruous change, his answer was so different from what he had appeared before, that he appeared like a different person.  
.   
He wrote,
1.  that he was "totally discouraged with online dating"
2.  that he now intended to have "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex."

For a moment I was speechless.  When he wrote this, it was morning in his time zone.  Had he written this in the evening, I would have suspected him to be drunk.  
  
1. Even by not being his dream woman, according to his initial interest, the contact with me could more logically have encouraged him.
  
2. Something is strange, when someone with this man's profile decides on such a project.  It is not something to achieve with honesty.   Most women, to whom a man would unequivocally suggest "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex" would feel insulted by this objectification and disrespect.  They would consider him a ridiculous fool for having such expectations.   
Most men, who succeed in getting "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex", do this by lies, manipulation and other methods of misleading a woman to consent based upon the false hope of beginning a relationship.    This is abuse. 

It seemed incongruous and inconsistent, that a man, who had declared himself as valuing compassion and kindness, suddenly plans coldblooded abuse.   It is incomprehensible, how someone suddenly decides to abuse a female body as a toilet for his body waste in spite of his claim of wanting intellectual compatibility.

The following are of course only speculations, as there is no way to find out the truth. 

Desensitization to full comprehension for how much a woman gets hurt, when she is used and discarded is not enough to explain this contradiction.  Desensitization to harming others works best in the absence of compassion.    

The most plausible explanation is this man's overreacting to a state of strong physiological dishomeostasis.    The guy seems to have been reduced from a thinking and feeling human being to a mere animal, being completely under the power of overwhelming instinctive forces.   In this state as an animal, all his human reason appears blurred, distorted or deactivated.    

Any option for behavior guided by human compassion and kindness seems to be concealed behind the predominant urge to copulate like a dog in the gutter, and behind the drive to be a predator and to ruthlessly hunt for prey.   This state as an animal lasts until homeostation restores humanity.

I replied, that a man, who objectifies women, is not worthy of me.    His reaction was "F**k you, you crazy broad. Go back to the asylum."    I was merely blunt, but the animal in him became vulgar.


While I am scared of men's dangerous instincts, I also feel sorry for them.   They are afflicted with instincts, which destroy for them the chance to get, what is most beneficial to their human cognition, especially in the case of men, who are intelligent and educated, and only deranged when they experience dishomeostasis.   

This guy is just one example.   Without being deranged temporarily by his instincts, he could have a happy symmetrical committed and bonded relationship with a woman like me.   But his instincts reduce him to a disgusting beast, who temporarily sinks so low as to intend to abuse women as a toilet for his body waste.   No decent woman with dignity and self-respect wants anything to do with such a man.   

It is very difficult for me to imagine, how men's specific physiological sexual dishomeostasis of needing to get rid of body waste feels.   Biologically, women's bodies do not provide this same experience of dishomeostasis.   
My best attempt to comprehend the magnitude of men's problem is to compare it to the urge of an addiction like alcoholism or even an extreme deprivation as is starvation.   Sometimes an extremely strong craving deactivates and overrides all higher cognitive and moral consideration.  The craving person ruthlessly applies any atrocity, which allows him to restore homeostasis, even killing, stealing and robbing. In the case of men, it can be abuse and rape of women.       

Those jerks, who always copulate like dogs in the gutter, oblivious of the damage done to the abused women, are just animals, who have never really become fully human.  
But assuming, that the guy in this incident knows the full meaning of the words used by him in his profile, like kindness and compassion, makes me wonder, what happens after he had his night in the gutter.   How will he feel, when he is back temporarily in a state of homeostasis, becoming fully aware of what he had done to the woman by luring her into his gutter?    Will he feel the same shame and regret as the addict, who in the state of homeostasis wishes to be free from the addiction?

564. Foolish Lies

564.  Foolish Lies

Trust in a close, bonded and committed relationship requires sincerity and honesty without exceptions.   But with strangers and unrelated people, there can be situations, in which lies are a necessity of self-protection.
 

Independent of any moral consideration of the possible harm done by lies, there are rational and irrational lies.   Rational are those with a high probability of getting away with.  Irrational and foolish lies are those, which are determined to be discovered.    In the latter case, being caught with the lies often does more damage than the truth would have done.

Lies in profiles on matchmaking sites are extremely foolish by any person using such a site for its real purpose.   During real life encounters, many of these lies will be discovered immediately.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/fashion/online-dating-as-scientific-research.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

"about 81 percent of people misrepresent their height, weight or age in their profiles,"

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/exagger_dating_7N5Irwi6wBf636XjbJjV3O

"Men are on average 2 inches shorter than they say in their profiles, while women are an inch shorter. About 50 percent of daters fib about their weight. Almost everyone exaggerates their income by 20 percent,

"*24.3% of men and 13.1% of women lie about their age
* Men are on average 2 inches shorter than they say in their online profiles, women are 1 inch shorter
* 59% of women lie about their weight, 55% of men lie about their weight
* People tend to inflate their salaries by 20%
* It rises with age: 20-year-old men and women inflate by 5%; jumps to around 35% for men and women at 50 years old."

The choice to either lie or to be correct about facts and to apply the cautious preference of understatements in the case of attributes with only fuzzy self-evaluation allows some conclusions about the person's motivation and goals.   

It is the choice between disappointing and surprising.  

The preference to risk disappointing is the attempt to manipulate someone to meet once.  
If the disappointing person is a man, he probably is convinced to be such an irresistible guy, that he can seduce the woman for a night, even though his lies have forfeited any trust in him.  
If the disappointing person is a woman, she probably just wants to take advantage of a man paying for an expensive dinner.   

The preference for hoping to be a pleasant surprise is the method to find someone for a long term relationship.    When correct information and understatements are already sufficient to be acceptable for a meeting, then a pleasant surprised adds to attraction and eligibility.      

384. Predictability And Pseudo-Compatibility

Predictability And Pseudo-Compatibility

A relationship as a safe haven needs to be reliable and predictable based upon the justifiable trust, that the other will not commit transgressions and will not do harm or hurtful things.   

Predictability means to be able to make a realistic prognosis of future behaviors by the estimation of probability.   In entry 95, I already mentioned the importance of calculating probabilities of the occurrence of behavior in the future.  In entry 173 I elaborated this by including the importance of considering the attitudes, which are causing or modifying behaviors.   

But the matter is even more complicated.  

Estimating the partner's future behavior implies:

1. It is important to listening to what he declares himself as his attitudes.  
2. His behavior needs to be compared with his expressed attitudes, if it is congruent or if there are contradictions.   Sometimes people are not aware of subconscious attitudes, that are nevertheless strong determinants of their behavior.   Subconscious attitudes can be incongruent with expressed attitudes, when the latter are superficially learned or imitated and not connected to innate tendencies.  Then behavior is congruent with the true hidden attitudes but contradictory to the expressed attitudes.       
3. Observable specific behaviors are indicators of attitudes, but attitudes determine usually a wider variety of correlated behaviors, that can be predicted only when knowing the attitude.
4. Observable proactive behavior allows to estimate probable future behavior.    The absence of proactive behavior is not as much a reliable source of information, because it is not the same as a decision to refrain from a behavior.  

I will use lying as an example.
 
If a woman catches her partner lying to her, she can predict, that he will lie again.   The more frequent his past lies, the more frequently he will lie in the future.  
His lying is a clear indication, that his attitude towards her is not suitable for treating her as a close and bonded partner deserving sincerity and honesty.   This faulty attitudes makes it probable to expect also other sly, manipulative, deceptive behaviors.   

But if the woman never catches her partner telling her a lie, this does not allow equally good predictions, because this by itself is not an indication of his general attitude towards her.   

Her lack of experiencing a lie from him can be due to

1. She did not catch him lying because of her unjustified trust.
2. He had so far no reason or occasion to lie but would otherwise not hesitate
3. He has a reason or attitude to actively refrain from lying. 
   
   These reasons are

• in his person  
  
  • He is someone, who always blurs out what he thinks, no matter to whom, even with unrelated persons, when it has detrimental consequences for him.
  • His self-esteem requires moral behavior and this includes special rules how to treat closely related persons, like not lying to them and not hurting them. 
• his attitude concerning her significance for him.   He values and appreciates her enough to enclose her in the ingroup of people, whom he honors with sincerity and honesty.   
• consideration of the consequences.  
  
  • He fears to be punished for lying by losing her
  • He wants to avoid the disapproval or other punishment by other significant persons like his family 
  • He fears being punished or wants to be rewarded by a deity due to some religious delusion.

Therefore not catching someone lying can either indicate true compatibility with someone, who is sincere and honest and who values her person in a relationship, or it can indicate pseudo-compatibility, when not having experienced someone's lying yet just does not allow predictions for the future.        

311. Courting: Gender Divergence or Convergence

Courting:  Gender Divergence or Convergence

By animal instincts, men are predators driven to spread their genes, and women are prey in self-defence against becoming pregnant by a man with unsuitable genes.   This is the result of evolution, which was not influenced by modern possibilities of birth control.   
In a less drastic form, these instincts determine the different behavioral tendencies in courting and mating even today.   
It is very important to be aware of the differences in the instinctive predispositions of men and women.   But that does not imply any rational reason to accept these differences as good and as unchangeable.

For people, who accept egalitarianism and equality, who do not consider a relationship as a division of labor for the goal of procreation but as a unit for the happiness of two partners, accepting obsolete instinctive urges makes no sense and is very counterproductive.   
An egalitarian man needs to overcome his predator behavior and learn to respect the woman's wishes and respect her abilities as a competent person.   A woman has to learn to accept obligations in return for her equal rights, and not be a passive prey waiting for the predator to chase her.  

Yet when I am reading the advice on dating sites for both women and men, the gist of all the advice is the acceptance of the instinctive tendencies of the other gender and submission.    Men are encouraged to pursue women with the disrespect of not taking her expression of her wishes for serious, not taking a 'no' for a 'no'.  (I already wrote entry 274 about this.)   Women are encouraged to be exploitative instead of being fair, they are encouraged to play games like that of pretending to be hard to get.  People play such insincere and disrespectful games during courting, but they are quite often neither aware of the problem, nor able to drastically change their attitudes after getting involved, when they would need to be mutually sincere and respectful as caring partners. 

Predators focus on the success of the hunt, they are oblivious and unconcerned about what follows, once they have gained control over the prey.  

 
These leads to serious problems:

Both partners cannot know, if the other is playing the allegedly expected courtship game or just expressing the true personality.
If a woman accepts the disrespect of not being taken for serious in her expressed wishes during courtship, she cannot know, if the man would ever take her for serious or always disrespect her.  
If a woman allows and accepts to be pampered during courtship, the man cannot know, if she is selfish and would forever take advantage of him or not.    
By misinterpreting the other's unsuitable personality as only playing a game, people can end up with an incompatible and unsuitable partner.    
Courting is the time before making a decision, therefore honesty and sincerity are of paramount importance during the time of courting.   

In entry 310 I already described the situation, that by a man's instinctive affliction to be blurred in his judgement and getting involved as a result of infatuation with a body, a couple can discover too late, that as a person the woman is insignificant to the man.   The woman suffers, when the man does not give her the emotional and intellectual commitment, that she craves.   If a man plays the predator game, this enhances a woman's risk to end up as insignificant, when she confounds his pursuing her as prey with being significant for him.  

In my opinion, all dating advice, that encourages men to take the role of a predator, and women to take the role of prey, is not only wrong, but dangerous.    Instead, people should be encouraged to be honest and sincere, to show and to be guided by their true amount of interest, their true behavioral inclinations and needs.   People should base their courting and the decision, whom to court, on a roughly equal amount of attraction and interest.   Happiness for a long time and the importance of a committed relationship are too serious to play games.   

266. Inexactitude, Trust, Manipulation

Inexactitude, Trust, Manipulation

A few days ago, I was contacted by someone, who indicated his age in his profile as 65, but revealed in his email, that he was two years older.    As I consider 67 as the age limit of my search, the difference by itself is trivial.   It is more an inexactitude than a serious lie, but still, he had deliberately told something not exactly correct.  

Trust needs the expectation of being always told the exact truth.   After that admission, how could I have learned to trust someone like him?    For the doubtful gain to get a reply from women, who may not reply to his true age, he forfeited the possibility of trust.

But it is worse than that.   Attempting to get a reply by an incorrect information is outright disrespect and manipulation.    When a woman has made her own decision about the accepted age range and other criteria of a match, this is her legitimate own choice.   A man with respect for her takes her choice for serious.    If he does not, this shows, that he does not take the woman for serious.    I admit, that I have no sympathy for the kind of men, who believe, that when a woman says yes or no or whatever else, she does not mean it.    I dislike this kind of game players.

There is something absurd in the thinking of such a man, who believes that if he only manipulates the woman to accept contact with him in spite of her own criteria, then she will be so swept off her feet by his grandiosity.  Some men really believe, that a woman forgets and gives up, what she really wants, just because he happens to be interested in her.     

 

He replied, that lying about the age is common behavior, and it seemed as if for him, there was nothing wrong about it.   Obviously, he was willing to accept a woman, who lies about her age and was not much bothered about issues of trust and trustworthiness.    I doubt, that such a man wants a woman as a close companion for intrinsic commitment.    If he only wants her body, than for this purpose, the body of a liar is as good as the body of an honest woman.

261. Commitment and Pseudo-Honesty

Commitment and Pseudo-Honesty

Commitment requires unrestricted and uninhibited honest communication about the true innermost feelings, based upon mutual trust and enabling mutual support.   

Bonding disabled men often believe themselves to be honest, because they tell no direct lies.    But by hiding things, that would be important for their partner to know, they are not sincere.   When the partner of such a man experiences few or even no lies ever, she trusts his honesty much more than is justified.    This form of pseudo-honesty is a trap and can be very misleading to a committed woman.     Either she wrongly assumes that he is really sincere and what he tells her is all there is and there is nothing hidden.   Or she projects her own commitment upon him, filling the untold gaps with what she takes so much for granted, that she omits to be explicit about it.    Both mistakes often have very painful consequences.

1.  Such men omit telling the woman things, because they perceive themselves as singles with a woman peripherally attached, and therefore they consider a lot as their own private matters and as none of her business.     But a woman, who perceives herself in a committed relationship, feels the need and considers herself as entitled to know.   
As an example, a bonded couples decides together, what to spend their shared resources of money on, while a single man considers his money as his personal property, even when they share expenses, and he perceives it as his unlimited right to buy, whatever he wants to buy, without consulting her.   

There are two varieties of such a disruptive situation:
1.1.   The man does not talk with the woman about important issues, because it does not even occur to him, that it could be important to inform her.    He believes to be telling her everything she has a right to know.   
1.2.   The incompatible situation of a non-bonded man with a committed woman expecting commitment from him leads to conflicts, and he feels it as his right to slyly and sneakily keep information from her to avoid unpleasant arguments.   He is unaware of the fact, that by this method of avoiding conflicts, he also impedes any improvement of the relationship.   

2.   Sometimes bonding disabled men believe to be sincere, because they have some kind of psychological trouble, that either makes them unaware themselves of what they hide from her, or they lie to themselves and then expect the others to share their believe in their own lies.    When they are in denial of unpleasant realities or when they project their own problems upon others, they are dishonest with themselves.   
Narcissists are a good example.   They are emotional weenies behind a mask of bullies on the outside.   They firmly believe in their own grandiosity and expect reverence and adulation even from people, who are more skilled and better educated.    They hide the vulnerable, anxious weeny from themselves and therefore they cannot reveal the truth to a partner.   

In all these cases, there is a vicious circle.    Lack of sincere and unrestricted communication impedes bonding, and lack of bonding impedes sincere and unrestricted communication.  

My mindmate is someone, who reveals his true self to me, who shares his innermost feelings with me, who wants me to know him as he really is, with all his strengths and also all his weaknesses.   He is someone, who can accept support from a partner and who asks for support.   He is someone, who does not feel any need to play a role and hide himself behind a mask.     He is someone, who needs a relationship and a partner, and who is able to admit it.    
My mindmate is someone, who is not only honest by not telling lies, but who is sincere also in not hiding anything from me.  

181. Honesty and Capitalism

Honesty and Capitalism

For christians, absolute honesty is required as obedience to their god.   If christians are honest, they expect to be rewarded in the afterlife, and if they are honest with detrimental consequences, they expect a bonus reward for it.

Rational people evaluate the feasibility of honesty depending on the social context and the circumstances.   For people, who want to be honest, capitalism is a harsh world, where one has to control the personal and spontaneous inclinations as a necessity for self-protection. 

There are basically two different kinds of social relationships and interactions:

1.  Private relationships between mates, spouses, friends, family members, that are based upon benevolence, based upon the principle of fairness and the caring for the others' wellbeing and equal entitlements to benefits and advantages. 

There can be no doubt, that caring and benevolent relationships between private people require absolute honesty and sincerity, trust and trustworthiness, without hesitation and exceptions.   

2.  Business relationships of any kind, where both sides attempt to ruthlessly get as much profit and onesided advantage from the other as they can.    People doing business cannot be honest by the very definition of business, because honesty would jeopardize the profit.   They are as malevolent as they can while still succeeding to profit.  
Business interactions are quite often asymmetrical in the distribution of power.    The powerful person dictates the conditions.   Therefore a person with economical power doing business is automatically the other's ruthless enemy.
2.1.  The powerful business enemy decides the price of something, that the other needs.
2.2.  The powerful employer enemy decides, how much he pays for the work.

In business, there is a limit of justifiable honesty, beyond which self-defense against the enemy is vital and honesty self-damaging.    Absolute honesty with the enemy cannot be rationally justified, because the enemy is not honest.   

It is a difficult task to draw a line.   But when honesty would facilitate and enhance the honest person's exploitation, then this justifies to limit honesty in self-defense.    Nobody is obliged to contribute to being taken advantage of.   Of course, this is no justification to become as ruthless as taking advantage of others as an over reaction.  

In short, reactive reduced honesty to the dishonest business enemy is not the same as dishonesty by own initiative and a voluntary decision.


Someone gave me an example of a moral dilemma.   He got offered a 30% discount on glasses as a member of AAA without even being required to show the membership card.   

But to me, the moral dilemma is not about just being tempted, but that there is no fair deal.   

In this example, I see two scenarios:
1.  AAA pays money to the optician to compensate for the discount.   People join AAA to get help with their car, not to pay for other people's glasses.   When AAA pays money to opticians, this adds to the membership cost and this is money stolen from their members.  
2.  AAA does not pay money to the optician.   Then the people, who are not members, pay a higher price to compensate in the optician's calculation for the discount given to the members.   Again, this is stealing some customors' money.   Shops should calculate the lowest possible price for all customers and make them only pay for what they really want. 
An example: The optician calculates the minimum price, for which he considers to be able to sell glasses without a loss for himself.    If the glasses would cost 120$ for all customers, and he would sell them for 30% discount to every third customer at 93$, then the other customers would have to pay 133$ to compensate for the loss.  

Therefore in scenario 2, the dilemma of the customer is not just that between being honest or being dishonest, but between either taking advantage or being taken advantage of oneself.    I have no answer, maybe the best way is to make one's own average with the world by saying yes to the membership questions only once in a while.    

Sometimes I check, if the prices are correct on the paper slip from the cash register.   Lately, I discovered, that instead of 12 items, they had only made me pay for 2.   It was not a big thing, maybe 4€, that I had paid less.    Prices in supermarket are calculated in a way, that all the losses by some people's shoplifting are paid by all the not stealing customers.    Therefore I did not feel any obligation to go back and pay for their mistake.   Instead I felt that for once I got a compensation for all the money, that I had paid over a long time for the dishonesty of others.    I have no choice to pay the price, that they calculate, without buying food I would starve.   

The optician calculates the price of the glasses by costs, like raw material, equipment, the shop location and expenses like taxes, that are outside his influence.   But he has two own decisions:  How much interest he decides to get from his investment in the business and how much wages he pays to himself compared with what he pays to his employees.   
So if an optician calculates on a basis, that his income is 5 times that of his poor customer, is he honest?    The customer may have to live on potatoes and spaghetti for a month to afford the glasses.   If all opticians use their power to decide to earn that much, the customer has no choice for a cheaper price elsewhere.    


There are these food store chains, who sell food for low prices.   They use their economic power to press the farmers to sell their produce for prices so low, that it is nearly their ruin.   Poor people go there and count the coins in their pocket, if they rather can afford bread or milk.    But the owner of those supermarkets get rich, some of them have become multimillionaires.    Are they honest?   Or are they thieves, who got rich by using their power to steal money from the farmers, from their customers and from their employees?  


We have a choice to limit private relationships to those people, with whom there is a basis of trust and unconditional honesty.   We have a choice to select our contacts for where we have the safety of being able to be honest without risk.  
But unfortunately, survival in a capitalist society requires to carefully dose honesty with the business enemies, whom we cannot avoid, else we perish.   
In capitalism, honesty gets punished.    For any person, who prefers honesty, this is one more reason to loathe capitalism as inhuman.

126. Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 1

Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice

I never wanted a hero or daredevil, who risks his life and health in dangerous activities.  He would only make me worry.   Therefore I consider a man, who avoids real risks, as wise and reasonable and not as coward.   He is no more a coward than I am myself when being cautious.

But there is one kind of courage, that is of paramount importance for me in my future partner:   Interpersonal courage.   I have no tolerance for interpersonal cowardice, because it is a method of avoiding pain by making another suffer instead.   In the relationship with an interpersonal coward, I would be the one, who suffers.
   
This concerns two aspects:   Weaknesses and Mistakes/Transgressions.  

In real life, especially at work, it is sometimes necessary to hide weaknesses and to correct mistakes secretly to avoid bad consequences.   A mature man knows, that the same interpersonal courage, that is required between trusting partners, can be very foolish with strangers.   But in a committed relationship, this is detrimental cowardice and not acceptable.

Aspect 1.  Weaknesses

In this context I use the word weakness for anything, that somebody has been born with or he has acquired later, and what he wants to hide.   It is about invisible weaknesses.   A physical ailment is not a weakness, but being a hypochondriac is.   Being bald is not a weakness, being ashamed of it is.     
It can be something, that he considers himself as a weakness, no matter if this is only his personal opinion, or if others think the same.    Or it can be something, that he believes that others consider as a weakness, even when he himself does not agree. 

As a few examples, people have emotions like fear, anxiety, phobia, paranoia, shame, helplessness and embarrassment, they are allergic to some situation and overreact sometimes and they prefer to keep this as private matter.

It is wise to avoid being vulnerable with the wrong people.   But it is also wise to be aware of the own weaknesses, so one can work on overcoming and conquering them instead of being determined by them.   That includes accepting support from trustworthy people.  

Partners bonded as a committed, trusting couple support each other, cooperate to cope and grow together.   This of course is based upon a solid basis of appreciation, respect and validation of each other, that cannot be damaged by the knowledge of real or subjectively ascribed weaknesses.  

The interpersonal courage between two committed partners requires, that they both are absolutely sincere and honest with each other, with no restrictions, censoring or withholding of any information, not only about facts, but also about themselves, their feelings, perceptions and experiences, no matter how difficult or painful it is to admit something.    But when there is a bond of trust, it should not be painful.  


When one or both hide their weaknesses, something is very wrong with the relationship.   It is like with trust.   Trust requires trustworthiness as the complement.    Interpersonal courage about weaknesses requires as the complement, that an admitted weakness is never used to justify depreciation and devaluation or in any other way to the disadvantage of the other.   

When a man hides his weaknesses from a partner, there are two varieties of the dynamics.   Both are based on the faulty concept, that a relationship is and should be a hierarchy.    He often is not even aware of this fatal error in his judgement.  
= He considers himself as superior and he wants to feel superior.   In this situation, he hides his own weaknesses, and the woman's onesided interpersonal courage is detrimental.    Admitting a weakness does not gain her the benefit of receiving support, but it leads to more depreciation and being treated as even more inferior.  
= He attempts and believes to be an equal.  He is worried, that by admitting his weaknesses, he risks to appear to or to be considered inferior by his partner.   He may think, that hiding weaknesses is a part of his role as a man.
In both varieties, his hiding of his weaknesses has behavioral consequences, that have a detrimental impact upon the partner and the relationship.  


A man in an intrinsically committed relationship shares every decision with his partner, whenever this decision has any impact upon her and the relationship.   That implies sharing all relevant information, not only external facts, but also needs and feelings, before they agree on a decision based on the joint information.   That decision is rationally convincing to both.   They both know, that shared decisions are better for them than any solitary decisions could ever be.  

But when some task or problem requires a decision, and the men hides his feelings and needs, then he impedes a shared decision.   He cannot convince his partner of his reasons for what he wants to decide without revealing all his reasons.    When they therefore do not agree or when he already knows, that he cannot convince her, then he even keeps her ignorant of whatever goes on in his mind.   Instead he forces his solitary decision upon her.   

Whatever leads to it, when a woman is taken by surprise by a man's solitary decision, this has very bad consequences on the relationship:

1.   A decision, that is not the result of a rational procedure to solve a problem, but is distorted under the pressure of strong emotions is often very bad, inappropriate and detrimental even to his own most selfish interests.    Sometimes he may successfully fight against his weakness for a while, but when he finally yields to it, the sudden act of weird behavior does more damage than what he wanted to avoid.
Thus, he does damage to himself by depriving himself of her support, her information, her cooperation.

2.   By forcing a solitary decision upon her, he sometimes upsets common plans or interferes with her life in a way, that triggers a reaction from her.   When she is suddenly the target of behavior, that is incomprehensible for her, then she cannot react any better than what her limited knowledge of the situation permits.  
In ignorance of what problem his is coping with and what he is hiding from her, her reactions can unintentionally make things worse for both.   Her own confusion and irritation can set off sequences of dynamics destroying or damaging the relationship.   

3.  When he forces his solitary decision upon her, his behavior comes for her out of the blue, it is incomprehensible and even stunning.   After a few repetitions, he becomes a walking time bomb for her.    She learns, that at any moment, he might again do some hurtful things to her, and she is not able to understand, why.
This has severe consequences:
She is helpless, because it is not in her power to protect herself against anything, that is done to her out of the blue.   No matter, how wise, mature and intelligent she may be, she is not allowed to use her skills to improve anything, not for both, not for him, not for herself.   She is the target without an influence.
Even if he explains his motives and reason afterwards, being unprepared for his actions takes away from her the reliability and predictability of a relationship being a safe haven.   By doing, what he feels compelled by his own emotions, without consulting her, without giving her a chance to participate in a solution not damaging to her, he destroys her trust.  She cannot relax, but is on her guard, even scared, because instead of a safe haven, for her the relationship is a source of stress, strain and depletion of energy.  

4.  When a man hides the true reasons for his decisions, when his actions appear too often incomprehensible, irrational, stupid, absurd, preposterous, this can have a much more drastic effect upon the woman's evaluation of a man than a weakness, that is a minor issue in need of her support.   He wants to hide something of little importance to her to preserve her appreciation, but the very actions to hide it are very drastic, sometimes unforgivable and do cause the woman to loose the respect for him.    He achieves a hundredfold of what he wanted to avoid.  
Not being able anymore to take a man for serious, drives an egalitarian woman as much away as does being treated as inferior.   But when she is treated as inferior by the same man, who causes her to loose respect for him by his own behavior, this is the certain end of the relationship.  

To sum it up:  Once I have fully accepted a man as suitable (more in entry 83 and 102), then a few weaknesses cannot destroy my appreciation.    But the interpersonal cowardice of making me suffer by any attempt to hide those weaknesses will be a dealbreaker.    Interpersonal courage has to grow along with trust as a part of emotional and intellectual intimacy, before the bond is sealed by physical intimacy.   

20. Constructive Communication

Constructive Communication

Constructive communication is a core part of the ERCP.    To feel emotionally save and bonded in harmony requires the absence of distortions by unresolved conflicts.    The motivation to resolve conflicts by communicating is an expression of the appreciation of the partner as important and equal.   

1.  Harmony is so important, that communicating about all conflicts needs to be continued, until it is resolved, no matter, how long it takes, hours, even days, when the problem is complicated.  Both partners need to talk about everything, that has an impact upon each other, and the best procedure is to do this also as a prevention of conflicts.    Solving a conflict also requires to generalize the solution to a kind of policy guiding both to prevent similar conflicts.   I feel very uncomfortable with pending conflicts.

2.  Both partners need to make sure, that both mutually know exactly all, what the other knows and thinks, in as much as it has anything to do with the topic of the conflict.    This is the most important part of the process.    All attempts to suggest a solution are futile, until there is a shared basis of information.    Using logic together upon the same premises can lead to a satisfying shared conclusion.   Using logic upon distinct premises causes many conflicts.   

3.  This means to ask questions, to listen and to proffer all information, that has not been asked for.   

Jumping to conclusions must be avoided.   Assumptions are suggestions, that need to be verified or discarded.   Statements need to be blunt, direct, explicit to avoid misunderstandings by subtleties and hints.   Verbal communication is fair, while provoking and probing the reactions of the other as a lab rat is not acceptable.  

4.  Honesty without hiding anything is essential, to always say, what one means, and to mean, what one says, and to trust the same from the other.  

External facts should be offered with evidence, but all statements about personal introspection, emotions, perceptions, experiences, needs should be taken for serious and as subjective reality without doubting.   

5.  To be right or wrong is of no importance.   A conflict needs a solution, which convinces both as being the best.    Communicating serves not the purpose of contradicting the other but to understand, what the other can contribute to a convincing progress. 

6.  It is important to be aware of the modules of the communication.   If one person needs ten sentences to explain a thought, then it is destructive, if the other discards or tries to prove wrong single sentences instead of attempting to comprehend the entire thought before reacting.

7.  Conflicts need to be analysed on two levels, the direct practical level and the abstract meta level of how the values and attitudes causing the conflicting behavior have an impact upon the bond and viability of the relationship.    Many apparently trivial incidents can have a very significant meaning of ethical disappointment as breaking trust or indicating depreciation.    Profound harmony requires to solve the meta level of conflicts sometimes more then the superficial issue.   

I am looking for a partner, who agrees to strife for harmony based on such a concept of communication.