717. The Difference Between Animals And Humans

717.   The Difference Between Animals And Humans

Some people deny, that there is any decisive difference between animals and humans.   To me such a claim seems to be made by those in need of an excuse for allowing themselves the behavior of animals in disregard for the consequences. 

The most significant difference is the human ability of memorize sufficient knowledge and experience, which enables only humans for the long term anticipation of the consequences of their behavior.   Thus they are capable to recognize the harmful effects of instinctive behavior to an extent, which can lead to the conscious decision against such behavior.  

Under natural conditions, at some times animals find plenty of food, at others none.    Their instinct to eat as much as possible to store body fat is an evolutionary advantage for survival.   Until 10 000 years ago, and sometimes even much later, this was also the case for humans.
Today the reasoning ability enables humans to not always give in to the impulse to eat, because they want to avoid the anticipated consequence of obesity.    More precisely, the reasoning supplies the knowledge, but the balance between the power of instinctivity and the counter power of rationality and willpower determine the behavior.   Therefore some people are more than others able to keep their weight between healthy limits.  
Overfed pets just get fatter and fatter. 

It is the same concerning the survival of the species.    Animals do not hesitate to copulate, when they are driven by instincts, because they are unable to know, that at some time later, they will be severely punished with the atrocity of giving birth and the burden of raising the offspring.    

Only humans are capable to recognize early enough, that the survival of the species and procreation is a form of self-harming for the individual person.   The cognitive ability of a considerable number of humans to consciously reject procreation is a very unique trait of humans. 

The critical cognitive distance from instincts and the resulting freedom of decision is therefore what makes humans unique.   This ability to prevent self-harming comes along with the ability to also know, when the own behaviors cause harm and suffering to others.

 

When a cat catches a bird and drops it somewhere seriously wounded, the cat lacks any ability to recognize the suffering of the bird.  The same holds true too, when animals seriously hurt each other during struggles for the alpha position.   Animals cannot know, when the side effect of their instinctive behavior is strong suffering.
Humans can know this. Therefore it cannot be morally justified, that many humans use and consider their cognitive qualities only as a tool serving a more successful application of their instincts.   This aggravates the suffering of others instead of avoiding and preventing it.  People, who consciously follow their instinct, are knowingly cruel.  

This means that the cognitive ability to recognize the consequences of the own behavior brings along the moral obligation to avoid harm and suffering of others as much as of oneself.

 

Unfortunately, many people live by double standards.   When they benefit from using their rational brain, they do it.   But when others are concerned, they allow themselves willingly to be ruthlessly determined by instinctive drives. 

The same hunter, who during the day shoots animals feeling entitled to do so due to being a human, nevertheless claims in the evening his right to follow his animal nature by copulating like an alley dog with a prostitute, not perceiving the woman as an abused and degraded human being but only as an object.   Shooting at humans of another country or ethnic group driven by the ingroup-outgroup instinct, he also has allowed himself to be controlled by an animal instinct, even though his reason could recognize this as absurd, as animal but as certainly not human.

Who feels superior to animals due to being human should also be congruent in not giving in to his own animal urges.    Excusing and condoning animal behavior by misrepresenting it as the human nature is not only absurd, but also the consequences are fatal, usually for all parties involved.

716: Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution

716:  Alley Dogs: The Regression To An Earlier Period Of Evolution

Definition: 

I call persons, who copulate without neither getting emotionally attached nor wishing this to happen, as alley dogs.

Copulation like alley dogs is a regression to behaviors prevalent before the specific cognitive qualities of the human brain had evolved.
  

Evolution is not a master plan. As long as a species survives, this only indicates, that in the past the evolutionary net sum of instinctive and in the case of humans also innate cognitive tendencies has resulted in a sufficient amount of procreation.  

Some millions of years ago, when the ancestors of present day humans were still only animals, they copulated by instinct as all animals do.  Some months later it was followed by the birth of the youngster(s).   

At that moment, they had no conscious memory of the copulation and they were not aware, that the agony of birth was caused by the copulation.   

When they copulated, they were also unable to anticipate, that giving birth was the punishment for the female.   

Lacking the comprehension of this causality, they also had no way to avoid the agony of further procreation.

Then the unique evolution of the human cognition began.   One of the aspects thereof is the longterm memory and the ability to anticipate the future consequences of the own and of others' behavior.  This enabled the co-evolution of purely cognitive emotions, which derive from reasoning and not from bodily sensations.   Cognitive emotions are very distinct from sensations like fear in the situation of a real danger or pain after being physically wounded.  

Some of these cognitive emotions are: 

1. Emotional attachment based upon invisible cognitive traits.  
   It is difficult to define love or to put such feeling into words.  But with certainty, whatever there is, it cannot be called love without cognition derived emotional attachment. Traits leading to emotional attachment can be honesty, reliability, empathy, but also intelligence and education, which make it rewarding to be together.
   
   
2. Rational empathy and a theory of mind.  
   By this someone has knowledge about how another person is going to react,  This is more than the anticipation of visible behavior, but also the anticipation of the invisible cognitive emotions.  This includes also those situations, when the reaction of the other will be very distinct from the own reaction under identical circumstances. 
   
   
3. Responsibility and consideration.   When being in advance aware of the consequences and impact of the own behavior upon others, responsibility is the cognitive ability to prevent hurting others by the avoidance of anticipated own cognitive emotions like guilt, shame, remorse.
    
4. Awareness for invisible emotional reactions caused by invisible experiences.   
   This includes taking full account of feelings of selfworth and identity of the self and in others and how these are elicited and effected by interactions.   Examples are appreciation, depreciation, adulation, disdain, honor, equality, indignation, injustice, pride, entitlement and much more.

Sometimes such qualities are called emotional intelligence.  

By instinct only, alley dogs are male, while females attempt to exploit a man as a provider for the children, who get her full attachment, while he gets a subscription to the repeated use of her body.

When cognition modifies the raw instincts, emotional attachment to an intimate partner happens usually fast or immediately in women.  For men usually more repetitions are needed, before the subjective experience of the alley dog copulation is converted into the emotional attachment of making love.
 

Had there been a continued linear evolution of only a growing strength of rationality and cognitive emotions like the one in the list above over instincts, this would have enabled and motivated more and more people to avoid harming others.    As a logical side effect, this would have drastically reduced procreation and maybe the human species would already have been extinct.
Until safe family planning was available, a truly considerate and responsible man would have rather refrained from physical intimacy than ever risking to cause suffering for a woman, who was not fully wishing to have children.   

But the human species did not get extinct.  Some alley dogs continue to sire alley dogs and prevail in the gene pool.  I can see several reasons. 

1. Some people, mostly men are just like animals, because they lack the human emotional restrictions which would prevent them from copulating like alley dogs.  Their behavior is not guided or determined by cognitive emotions.    They contribute more to the gene pool by having more offspring than the considerate men.  Genghis Khan is a good example.  He is reported to have raped thousands of women and his genes are supposed be present in millions of Asians.
   

   1.1.  They can be generally limited in their ability to feel cognitive emotions, as in the case of Alexithymia.   They are not aware, what pain they cause to people, who want to be loved, because they themselves do not know love and are unable to experience emotional attachment.
   
   1.2.  They know, what they do, but do not care, because they are not able to feel guilt, shame or remorse.   They are sociopaths.  

2. The availability of safe birth control has made the consideration for preventing the threat of pregnancy as the most drastic consequence of alley dog copulation obsolete.  
   It needs less cognitive quality to be able to refrain from doing something as drastic as making a woman pregnant. 
   To refrain from abusing a woman as a toilet for body waste because of respect for her brain, to spare the woman the invisible suffering of indignation, devaluation, objectification and humiliation requires a much higher level of cognitive quality in a man.  Less men have it.
   Being free of the fear of pregnancy is great.   But unfortunately it came with the price of the disgust of being (or at my age having been) too frequently approached by alley dogs.
    
3. The human brain including the ability for empathy has evolved for coping with the life in small groups or communities.   Now people are suddenly (seen in the evolutionary timeline) flooded by the media with very realistic representations of extreme atrocities.  This representations are so realistic, that the subconscious brain cannot distinguish between such pictures or movies and real life. 
   Nobody can react permanently with full empathy to this extreme amount of exposure. 
   Desensitization is an unavoidable consequence.  
   
   When a man grows up munching chips while indifferently watching a movie, in which a woman is raped, it is not really astonishing that he will consider hurting 'only' a woman's feeling as a trifle in comparison.    
   
   When a woman grows up sitting in the safety of her home in front of a TV, she also gets a very biased picture.  On TV women are presented as willingly and happily doing and wanting themselves, what really only benefits selfish men.  On TV, these women get rewarded, but never emotionally harmed.  The watching real woman is thus misguided to underestimate, what she gets herself into by making the mistake of complying or imitating behavior, which really is an expression of male instinctivity and male wishes.  When this woman unexpectedly gets very hurt, she learns to understand reality too late and the hard way.
   
4. When one person hurts another, no matter if it is the alley dog the loving woman or any other situation, there are two different perspectives.  
   

   4.1.  The difference between hurting and not hurting behavior is a choice, and therefore people with cognitive emotional quality take themselves the responsibility for what they do to others.
   They never use the behavior of the victim as an excuse, even if the victim could have avoided exposing himself to be vulnerable.
   
   4.2.  Under the impact of desensitization, people have a more selfish perspective based upon the entitlement to do, what they want.   Whoever gets hurt or harmed is attributed as either defective or too stupid to protect himself.  Therefore they feel justified to take no responsibility.   The victim of an alley dog is blamed for not being also an alley dog.  In the case that the suffering reactions of the victim annoy the alley dog, the victim is even blamed for diminishing the alley dog's benefits.
   
   This desensitization has contributed to a present social norm in many western societies, which defines alley dog copulation as allegedly healthy behavior.   Those, who get hurt, are supposed to use those remedies, which contribute to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

It is sad.  All the amazing progress only leads to the material standard of life getting more and more comfortable.  But when it comes to the avoidance of non-physical suffering, there is no progress, but a regress to times before the evolution of the cognition.   

662. Oliver, The Alleged Humanzee

662.  Oliver, The Alleged Humanzee

I have been watching this documentary:
http://documentaryheaven.com/oliver-the-chimp/

At first I suspected it to be a hoax, but after some googling, Oliver's peculiarities as shown seem to have been genuine.   But my curiosity to find out more was disappointed.   

His having the same number of chromosome as chimpanzees has been accepted as sufficient evidence to declare him as a genetic chimpanzee in spite of considerable genetic differences.   

After Oliver's death in 2012, the owners of his carcass cremated him and refused any scientific research on his body.  

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2012/june/the-life-and-times-o.html 

The people in the sanctuary do a good job protecting animals, while they are alive, but this does not justify to boycott scientific progress by impeding research on dead animals' bodies.  

I found some more sources, but I cannot know, how much is based upon evidence, and how much is legend, rumor and hearsay.  

Other bipedal chimpanzees are mentioned:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures/oliverabilene.htm

According to this source, there are several unrecognized and unexplored species of apes in Africa:
http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=3838

So my comments and speculations are only based upon the video showing Oliver.   By both his looks and his bipedalism, he is remarkably different from regular chimpanzees.   But he does not appear to me as a half-breed as would be a first generation hybrid, but more like 3/4 or even 7/8 ape.     With mules, this is at least not impossible:

"A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes."
"A few female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey."

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

"the genetic difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%"

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

Therefore if a man had raped or otherwise abused a female pet chimpanzee, the result could have been a hybrid daughter, who mated with a chimpanzee and become the mother or even the grandmother of Oliver.       

If Oliver really had a human ancestor, if indeed human-ape hybrids are feasible, then this is one more indication, that defining what is human cannot be merely based upon genes, but a distinction by other criteria is required.    

 

The unique human cognition justifies specific privileges, because humans can discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate targets of their behavior.    

 

A hungry lion hunts anything, he does not distinguish between antelopes and humans.   He has not sufficient cognition to know, that if he would only hunt antelopes and never humans, he could be tolerated and left in peace.  A lion is not fit for the privilege to be allowed unlimited liberty.    

But a human hunter can know by his cognition, that he can hunt deer in a limited area without consequences, while sheep on a meadow or the deer in another tribe's territory are no suitable targets for a hunt.   

Therefore the question, who is human, is also the question, who gets the privileges only reserved for humans.   

There is an unfortunate fallacy.   While privileges reserved for humans are derived from the principal and theoretical ability to choose appropriate targets for behavior, this does not mean, that all members of the species homo sapiens do choose the appropriate targets.    They can instead know, what is inappropriate, and they can nevertheless be driven by instinct to do it.  

Cognitive humans are able to keep out, where they have no right to be.  Groups driven by the ingroup-outgroup instinct raid another tribe's territory.   In this case, they behave like animals, but they nevertheless continue to feel entitled to privileges as if they were acting by cognition.     

The genetic distinction serves the selfish needs of those, who want to behave as ruthlessly as animals but also to feel justified to profit from all the privileges reserved to humans.   

Oliver had been captured in the Congo, and the video completely omits questioning his origins.   This omission indicates one of the last taboos, zoophilia and sodomy. 

In all societies of superficially civilized but desensitized men, who consider objectifying and commodifying women as normal expressions of masculinity, restricting abuse to females of the human species serves the justification of being specially privileged while also allowing instinctive behaviors not different from other animals.   Would such a man admit, that zoophilic abuse suffices for him to restore his sexual homeostasis, he would also admit, that he really is not any better or any different from a beast and he would have to face this unpleasant truth.  

But when desensitization has gone even farther, then privileges are not ascribed to human genes, they are considered as the right of the strongest after applying any methods of fighting.   Considering the extreme cruelty of many African armed conflicts, rebellions and wars, including atrocious rapes, there the step from abusing women to abusing chimpanzees is only a small and logical further step.   Human-ape hybrids are extremely rare, if any exist at all, but this is only due to biological reasons and not because dehumanized men keep away from female apes.

A human-ape hybrid would cause serious logical problems, if privileges were to be accorded automatically to beings having the genes of homo sapiens.  This is one more reason, why these genes are not a sufficient justification to give human privileges to any person.     The best criterion is the talent of sufficient cognitive control over those instincts, which cause harm to others.   Only those, who do not harm and abuse others, deserve to be called human.  

At the actual level of evolution, this talent can only be found in a fraction of the species homo sapiens. 

633. Science Suggesting The Importance Of Relationship Maintenance

633.   Science Suggesting The Importance Of Relationship Maintenance

When men driven by sexual dishomeostasis choose those female bodies, which trigger the strongest infatuation in disregard of women's personalities, and when women driven by the urges of the procreation instinct choose suitable providers by physical fitness and assets in disregard of men's personalities, relationships are doomed to fail.

According to this source, relationships need maintenance, which requires cognitive human qualities far outside of the scope of instinctive behavior.    Animals copulate and procreate, but humans use their cognition to create and maintain bonding and attachment.    

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109110059.htm

"Relationships are like cars in that you have do certain things to keep them running, especially when your goal is to strengthen and preserve your bond with your partner,"

"The research showed that openness, positivity, assurances, shared tasks, and a shared social network are strategies that couples can use to make their relationship better,"

"To "open up" your relationship, the researchers encouraged not only talking about your feelings but getting your partner to talk about what she is feeling as well. "

"It's also important to assure your partner that you're in the relationship for the long haul, to divide household chores and responsibilities equally, and to make an effort to include your partner's friends and family in some of your activities,"

"Persons who use any of these maintenance strategies will not only be more satisfied with and committed to their relationship, they are also likely to continue to love and, yes, even like each other throughout its duration,"

"These approaches had the most influence on the quality of the relationship when persons believed their partner was also performing relationship maintenance,"

"The study suggests that what you do doesn't matter as much as whether the things you're doing are noticed by your partner."

593. Commodification And Trust

593.  Commodification And Trust

A correct assessment of trustworthiness is very important when interacting with others, especially when deciding on future interactions.    The better the assessment of trustworthiness, the better the prediction of behavior.  

Consciously paying attention to consistent, congruent and plausible behaviors is one method, but there is more:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911113047.htm

"Certain nonverbal gestures trigger emotional reactions we're not consciously aware of, and these reactions are enormously important for understanding how interpersonal relationships develop,"

"Nexi is a humanoid social robot  ....  While conversing with the participants, Nexi -- operated remotely by researchers -- either expressed cues that were considered less than trustworthy or expressed similar, but non-trust-related cues. Confirming their theory, the team found that participants exposed to Nexi's untrustworthy cues intuited that Nexi was likely to cheat them and adjusted their financial decisions accordingly."

While too much trust bears the risk of being harmed, there cannot be any close relationship without or with insufficient trust.   

A close relationship is symmetrical between equal partners based upon mutual trust and reciprocal trustworthiness.  
Trust is based upon the expected trustworthiness as a trait, whenever somebody is considered to be a person and a human being.   Only persons are checked for being trustworthy, and clues as in the research for trustworthiness are only perceived and expected from persons (or robots imitating them).  

Commodification is asymmetrical between a user as a subject and a used utility as an object. Utilities are functional or dysfunctional and the prediction of their reliable functioning in the future is a question of probability and experience.  In the case of inanimate objects, this is logically not a question of trust and trustworthiness.  A utility like a vacuum cleaner is not asked, if it intents and is able to function the next day, followed by the assessment, if the answer is honest or a lie.  

Due to trust not being a relevant factor when using an inanimate utility, the commodification of women as if they were inanimate objects creates a distorted situation.  
The owner has full control over a utility.   When he puts the vacuum cleaner in a closet, he can expect to retrieve it in an unaltered state, whenever he wants.   He has no need to trust the vacuum cleaner to not leave the closet.
When a man has established control over a commodified woman, he expects to have once and for good ascertained her availability for being used at his convenience without this being a situation requiring to consider trust.


It the comparison with a vacuum cleaner appears a bit too drastic, here is another metaphor:   When a man commodifies a woman, she is for him, what a dairy cow is for a farmer.   

A farmer's dairy cow is valuable possession under his full control. 
The cow brings him lots of benefits, as long as she receives careful maintenance for her physical wellbeing.  He is aware that appropriate maintenance is in his own self-interest.  
The farmer learns, how to handle a cow, from instructors and books, by observing her for signs of dysfunction, by using trial and error and by consulting a veterinarian.
The farmer does not expect to get any information from the cow by asking her questions, nor does he bother about intellectual or emotional needs.  She is a body and he gets the benefits from her body.  
Trust or any personal traits do not contribute to his prediction concerning the amount of future benefits or the assessment of the cow's value.   


But a woman is not a utility, and in contrast to a vacuum cleaner or a dairy cow, external and physical control does not include control over her mind, having full control over her is only the controlling man's illusion.    Neglect, oblivion or denial of the importance of the woman's trustworthiness and personality does not annihilate their impact.   

Whenever the woman wants to trust, to be trusted, to find trustworthiness in a partner and recognition of her own trustworthiness, then being kept outside his protective defense of control dooms the relationship.     

Omitting any focus on or attention for the assessment of trustworthiness makes commodification even also risky for the man himself.   If he is unfortunate or stupid in whom he picks as a utility to be used, he does not get control as expected over a suitably helpless victim.   In the worst case for him, he gets commodifed in return, for example by a breeder, whose priority are her children and who only exploits him materially as a provider. 


Trust and control are mutually exclusive, while control is a behavioral consequence of or ingredient in commodification.    

This leads to distinguishable dynamics:  

• If a man lacks the ability to assess trustworthiness and gets harmed too often by trusting the wrong persons, resorting to the replacement of trust by control is his method of coping, the result is commodification.   
  It could be called secondary commodification, because it is a side effect of control as a coping mechanism.
  
• If a man is driven by instincts to perceive women principally as commodities, control is the method to establish the commodification.   In this case trusting and the perception for any information serving the assessment of trustworthiness are deactivated as not needed and they may have never been trained and developed. 
  This could be called primary commodification.  Control is used, because women do not opt to be commodified, as long as they have a choice for an alternative.  

This distinction is of no practical significance to the woman, who is helplessly under the control, until she removes herself. This distinction would only be important, if such a man ever attempted to overcome the commodification.   But as commodification means, that a man subjectively has the power to get the benefits he wants, unfortunately he lacks any motivation to end it.   

Trustworthiness as a human cognitive trait and trusting as a person's reactive attitude have both an impact upon behavior, even though they are ignored when replaced by control.   There are many more traits and attitudes having an important reciprocal impact upon the interaction between cognitive humans, but which are not expected from commodities, no matter if inanimate objects or animals. Their denial is as detrimental as is the denial of trust. Responsibility, consideration, empathy, caring, intellectual appreciation are just a few of a long list.  

562. Animals - Empathy, Emotion, Sensation

562.  Animals - Empathy, Emotion, Sensation

Some people deny the human cognition to be unique enough to be a fundamental difference between animals and humans.  I consider this cognition as unique by its effect of enabling only humans to have a conscious identity as an individual.   The decisive criteria for this conscious individuality is one special quality of the human cognition:  It allows the insight, that rejecting procreation is beneficial for individuals, especially for women, who are those most directly harmed by breeding.   

As long as no animal has the cognitive ability to prefer not to breed, I will continue to consider humans as very distinct from animals.

One of the arguments against the distinction between humans and animals is the alleged empathy of animals by the interpretation of research results finding active mirror neurons in brain scans.   

Of course I recognize that animals suffer pain and that not making them suffer is a moral issue. 
But apparent suffering or contentment of animals does not imply, that they feel emotions and are not just reacting like programmed robots to sensations by either avoidance of unpleasant stimuli or appetence to pleasant stimuli.

I prefer to define as a sensation any perceptive event triggering an instinctive automatic reaction, no matter if the reaction is innate or learned and no matter if it comes from inside the animal's body as is for example hunger or from outside as is for example fear.

I prefer to restrict the word emotion to what is consciously felt, reflected upon, remembered, communicated about in a way, that requires the use of the unique human cognition.  
In this sense, empathy is a human emotion.   Mirror neurons may trigger instinctive behavior in animals, but I am reluctant to call this empathy.

There is no way to get direct answers from animals concerning how much, if any cognition any of them might have.   There is no unequivocal method to decide, if animals have emotions or only sensations.  

But I am not the only one with doubts concerning the empathy of animals:     

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120812160800.htm

"Empathy -- recognizing and sharing feelings experienced by another individual -- is a key human trait and to understand its evolution numerous studies have looked for evidence of it in non-human animals."

"'To prove empathy any experiment must show an individual understands another's feelings and is driven by the psychological goal of improving another's wellbeing. Our view is that, so far, there is no proof of this outside of humans.'"

"The ability to rescue another individual in distress, a typical empathic response of humans, appears in several other animals. ....  such studies are not rigorous enough to separate examples of 'pro-social' behavior, the tendency to behave so as to benefit another individual, from genuine empathy."

''however, the reproductive benefits of this kind of behavior are relatively well understood as, in nature, they are helping individuals to which they are likely to be genetically related or whose survival is otherwise beneficial to the actor."

"It would also need to disentangle empathy from acting simply to stop the trapped animal's stress signals -- something that can be psychologically selfish and does not need to involve empathy."

526. The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

526.  The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

This is my personal, subjective opinion:

The difference between genuine and pseudo intellectuals is their subjective identity.    Those cognitive capacities, which are generally attributed as to be those needed for intellectuality only exist in human brains, not in any animal.   

The genuine intellectuals identify with these cognitive capacities as the essence of their person, they identify with what is only typically human, they identify with the cognitive distinction as not being animals.  

The pseudo-intellectuals identify as animals with special additional cognitive abilities.  

In both cases, the subjective identity includes the actual self and the ideal self.    

I define an intellectual man as someone, who experiences and considers sexual activities as a dull, but unavoidable banality not worth wasting time and effort on it.   His cognitive needs for intellectual, cultural and creative pursuits and activities are so predominant, that in comparison he considers physical stimulation by food and sex as unattractive and unimportant.  

He is aware and in peace with the body's needs to be healthy and to keep the brain in the best possible functional state to ascertain the joy of intellectual pleasures.   

Such an intellectual copes with his physical needs for homeostasis in a way, that does not hurt women's dignity.  The cognitive basis of his way of life includes all aspects and thus also his attitude towards women and his awareness and interest concerning how women experience his behavior.  

He never commodifies or objectifies a woman.    He restricts his needs for homeostasis to non-damaging and non-abusive interactions.   He accepts a fair exchange, where he fulfills a woman's needs for being an exclusive companion for shared intellectuality in a monogamous arrangement.

An intellectual man focuses his reaction to the perception of his dishomeostasis on finding such a companion and on treating her with dignity, appreciation and respect.    The homeostation inside the relationship enables him to be not effected by any sexual stimuli from any third party.   

Instead of being triggered by pornography or by any other stranger's sexual intrusion into his perception, he just gets annoyed or he does not even notice it.   

He is not or little susceptible to such triggers to animal instincts, instead he is very perceptive to the attraction of a woman's mind and personality. 

Genuine intellectual men identify as their cognition, while they are aware of the necessity of some instincts to enable the survival of their brain.   But they do not see themselves as animals, they identify with all those cognitive capacities, which only humans have, but animals do not.

Genuine intellectual men are not driven by urges to commodify women by a blurred brain oblivious of what they are doing.    Their clear brain enables them to be free to use their cognition to be considerate and responsible. 

By the definition above I am describing a rare minority of men, because I am looking for a man as a partner.   If I would define women in an analogous way, the definition would be different.   While women lack the biological urge for proactive sexual homeostasis, they are more prone to be driven by the biological urge to procreate, which then lures them to comply with being abused by men's urges.   So genuinely intellectual women are childfree, because they experience raising children as dull, boring and unappealing.     

Pseudo-intellectuals share with genuine intellectuals the cognitive capacity to enjoy intellectual pursuits.   But they are afflicted with so much animal instinctive urges, that these urges partially deactivate or blur their cognition in their treatment of women.    Whenever their instincts are triggered, this effect is stronger then their cognition. 

When pseudo intellectual jerks objectify women, they are not any better than moronic jerks.   For the suffering of an abused woman, it makes no difference, if the jerk is always a moronic animal. or if he is a brilliant man all the time in all other aspects of life, but turns into a moronic animal only whenever interacting with a woman.    Their cognition is dysfunctional, whenever they fail to recognize the damage done by the objectification of women.  

Pseudo-intellectuals accept to be animals, they are comfortable when identifying with their instinctive urges and their entitlement to follow them.   They even consider their most primitive instincts as something valuable, because they subjectively experience it as pleasure, independent of the cost for the victims.   They do not value cognition by itself, only as a tool to serve their instincts.

Prototype 1 is Sartre.   While he wrote philosophical texts of high value, which were mostly independent of his primitive instincts, in his personal behavior, he was nothing more than a jerk and a pseudo-intellectual.    He and Beauvoir could have been the model of a monogamous companionship of two caring and exclusively bonded partners.   They could have been the ideal intellectual couple.   

Instead they both left behind them an insensitively cruel trail of hurt, abused and objectified women and men.    He was a jerk, because he was ruled by his most primitive instincts feeling entitled to abuse any woman, whom he could manipulate into compliance.   Beauvoir imitated him.   She was at least his equal as a jerk, because she most probably had not the same biological proactive urge for homeostasis, as men have due to their biology, but she was as abusive as a man.  

Prototype 2 is Casanova.    Sartre wrote intellectual texts, which were not under the influence of his affliction, he became an animal only when abusing women.    Casanova was even worse.   His intellectual capacities were never free to be used for their own sake and benefit, they were reduced to be only a tool dominated by his instincts.    He used all his cognitive abilities to serve his instinctive goals of acquiring supply for his never ending urge to abuse.    And his cognition was so blurred, that he misinterpreted his abuse as beneficial to women.    Some pseudo-intellectuals are very dangerous. 

My mindmate to be found is a genuine intellectual according to my definition and he agrees with this definition.     

505. Science Indicating The Harm Of Pornography

505.   Science Indicating The Harm Of Pornography

For emotionally unharmed people, monogamy, commitment and exclusive pair-bonding are basic cognitive and emotional human needs. 
Promiscuity, polygyny, cheating, dumping, degrading and abusing others as mere bodies cause serious emotional harm to people.   

While the emotional benefits for individual human beings derived from the exclusivity of monogamy are the topic of romance in novels and movies, scientific research instead focuses mainly on general social, economic and evolutionary benefits of monogamy.  

Whenever I am reading men's profiles and the ubiquitous promiscuous and perverse wishes and goals, in addition to some feedback to this blog and to my own profiles, I sometimes feel as if I were an alien from another planet thrown into a filthy gutter.     

But luckily, I am not entirely alone with my evaluation of the damage done by the artificial social norm of an oversexed society.   There are learned and knowledgeable scientists studying the serious harm done by pornography.  

When already repeatedly expressing my disgust about the ubiquity of jerks openly pursuing promiscuity on the Internet and about the general oversexation of society, I had omitted to put special emphasis on pornography as the core of the problem.  Promiscuity is more an abstract concept, while pornography is its real life representation.  
The entire detrimental effects of the general oversexation including the subtle and indirect damage are like an iceberg, of which only one seventh is visible above the water.   This visible part is pornography, of which the harm can be shown most easily.     I already have called promiscuity a scourge of humanity, and so is pornography as its most visible expression.
 
While I was fully aware of the kind of damage done to users' brains by the exposure to pornography, I had not been aware to which extreme extensity and pervasiveness pornography had grown along with the ubiquity of the Internet.    While I cannot avoid being exposed to the general oversexation of daily life against my will, the access to pornography on the web requires proactive behavior.    By being able to avoid it, I was not fully aware the real magnitude of the problem.    

I attributed promiscuity directly to men's being physiologically driven by their strong animal instincts, this being aggravated by their having lost first the sensitivity to appreciate an emotional safe haven and subsequently also lacking the motivation to use self-control.  
Those promiscuous jerks and emotional psychopaths, whom I described throughout this blog as prototypes from my worst nightmares, have probably not become obnoxious and disgusting merely by an innate disposition.   Instead it is more probable, that the additional exposure to huge amounts of pornography has magnified their innate predisposition, until all their human qualities had been destroyed.  

It seems that pornography converts potential jerks into irreversible jerks.  

There has been done a lot of research on the different aspects of the harm done by pornography, and learned people have expressed and explained it much better, than I could do.   The following is a list of a some very good sources for further information.

Patrick F. Fagan: 
A Poison In The Home
http://www.diolaf.org/documents/Marriage%20and%20Family%20Life/Pornography%20Resources/a%20poison%20in%20the%20home.pdf
 

Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.
The Effects of Pornography on Individuals, Marriage, Family and Community
http://www.wifamilyaction.org/files/trya.campaigntoolbox.org/downloads/FRC_PornStudy_0.pdf
 

Mary Eberstadt  Mary Anne Layden 
THE SOCIAL COSTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
http://www.internetsafety101.org/upload/file/Social%20Costs%20of%20Pornography%20Report.pdf

Dr. Victor B. Cline:  
Pornography’s Effects On Adults and Children
http://www.stop.org.za/Victor%20Cline%27s%20Study.pdf

Ana J. Bridges 
Pornography's Effects on Interpersonal Relationships
http://www.socialcostsofpornography.com//Bridges_Pornographys_Effect_on_Interpersonal_Relationships.pdf
 

Jackson Katz: 
Pornography And Men's Consciousness
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/genderandmedia/assignments/katz001.pdf

Rebecca Whisnant: 
Confronting pornography:  Some conceptual basics.
http://stoppornculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Whisnant-Confronting-Pornography.pdf

489. Demisexuality And Morals

489.   Demisexuality And Morals
Somewhere I read the suggestion to imagine a world, where more people were demisexual.    
My spontaneous reaction was to think, that this would be one huge step nearer to paradise, especially for women.   But this needs some elaboration. 

Humans can hardly survive alone, they need to be part of a system of cooperation and division of labor.   As a result, they need rules to guide the behavior.   

I am an atheist, so I omit any consideration of rules followed by people in fear of punishment and consequences from any deity or agent, that does not really exist.  This therefore excludes considering the special monogamy of men, who fear to be punished by a god.   

I consider morals as a choice based upon the consideration of the consequences of the own behavior upon others.  For non-religious people, the most logical rules are those derived from a balance between self-interest and responsibility and consideration.    
There is the golden rule, there is the tit-for-tat strategy and there is the Epicurean principle of not harming and not be harmed.    Behavior in accordance with such principles can be called moral behavior.  

There are two kinds of moral behavior, proactive and abstaining.    Proactive moral behavior means fulfilling accepted obligations, abstaining moral behavior means to refrain from hurting and harming actions.    The latter includes avoiding invisible harm and emotional hurting.   Knowing, which behavior inflicts physical or material damage, is generally unambiguous and usually easy.   But recognizing invisible emotional damage requires knowledge and awareness, predicting and preventing it needs even more thereof.  

When potential victims are spared from being hurt or harmed, it is not always obvious, why they are spared.    Someone can either use self-control in accordance to moral rules, or he can just have no urge or need towards this action.  

The difference between promiscuous behavior compared with monogamy and demisexuality is an important aspect of human life, where people are either hurt or spared.  

To illustrate this:

I have been mentioning in previous blog entries my disgust, when at a younger age travelling in Mediterranean countries, I was approached by male predators initiating contact with me as prey.   I would have appreciated a serious and civilized conversation.   But they were more often than not just jerks drooling over my body.    Their intention to harm me was obvious. 
But in the few cases, when I did get the chance to have a nice, friendly and intellectually interested talk about the country's culture, I was not able to know the reason, why I was spared the insult.   

The men's reason not to attempt to harm me could be:

• Generally moral:   The consideration to not risk to hurt a woman by using her body, while she gets probably emotionally attached.       
• Monogamously moral:  The consideration for his partner, whom he does not want to hurt by cheating.
• Selectively only drooling over some bodies, but not over all and I had the luck to not trigger his instincts.
• As a demisexual never drooling over a body.

Being emotionally attached to a person and needing the reciprocity of exclusive attachment in return is an experience made by so many human beings, that it can be considered a part of human nature.   Being cheated on or dumped by someone, with whom there is such an attachment, is one of the most frequent reasons of emotional pain.  

It can be so extreme, that it causes not only severe suffering, but often also PTSD, alcoholism, illegal and prescription drug abuse, suicide, violence, outbreak of dormant psychiatric illness.   There is also the indirect damage to the children of broken families.   Someone under emotional distress is more prone to cause an accident at a job, where he is responsible for other people's safety.  

If this sounds like an exaggeration, it is because in the media and in the social norm, monogamy has become stigmatized as outdated, while promiscuity is supposed to be normal behavior.   It is a very damaging myth and urban legend, when the promiscuous jerks not only claim, that people were not made to be monogamous, but when they also influence others to imitate them.  

It is the other way around: Many people are not made to be the victims of promiscuity.  Those who suffer as the victims of ruthless and cruel promiscuity are treated and considered as defective not only by social norms, desensitization, denial and power structures, but also by the christian religion demanding them to accept suffering and to wait for the compensation after death.  
  
But while the social norm encourages promiscuous jerks to feel no conscience or inhibition, the emotional and psychological reality of individual victim's experiences is very different.    Anybody, who reads self-help forums about relationships and personal experiences, will again and again read heart-breaking stories of the same problem:   Persons, especially women, suffer nearly always severe pain, when dumped or cheated by the partner, to whom they had become emotionally attached and whose exclusivity had become their emotional need.   

Feeling attached and then being dumped and not valued as a partner is being hurt and harmed.   Moral behavior means not only to avoid hurting.  It also means to avoid the risk of hurting.   Every time, when two persons get intimately involved, this realistically bears the risk of creating emotional attachment, even in spite of both consenting not to get attached.    In the best case, the situation remains symmetrical, either both or none.    

But as a result of biological differences, usually a woman bears the much higher risk of planned or involuntary emotional attachment.    This implies a high responsibility for a man, in the case of his wish to behave morally.    If he does not care, he is a jerk.   Since the promiscuous use of a body always includes the risk of hurting, promiscuity can be considered as immoral behavior.   As a conscious choice, it is an immoral attitude.  

When a person avoids unreciprocated attachment, this appears as moral behavior in the perception of the person not made a victim.   But a man, whose behavior appears moral, can abstain from promiscuous abuse for different reasons:

• He is consciously living morally.  He is monogamous by empathy, consideration and responsibility.
• He is demisexual.   Female bodies do not trigger sexual instincts, so monogamy comes natural to him.  

Therefore demisexuals are the men with the highest quality of outwardly appropriate behavior towards women, even though their behavior is not necessarily caused by a conscious moral decision.   

A world, in which all men are demisexuals, would be a better world, as long as there are not more men morally motivated to avoid hurting women by being monogamous.

This will be continued. 

339. Quality of Conscious Decisions - Consequencity and Gullibility

Quality of Conscious Decisions - Consequencity and Gullibility

In entry 338 I was describing the personality trait of consequencity.    In entry 328 I speculated about the evolution of gullibility, but when using the word 'gullibility', this implicitly included credulity.   Credulity and rationality are describing thought processes, while gullibility and consequencity describe the interaction with influences from the environment.    Gullibility includes credulity, consequencity includes rationality and logic, but it is not automatically also the reverse, as acting is also impacted by factors others than cognition.     

The following are some more general thoughts about decisions, consequencity and gullibility.   This entry is concerned with the influence of external sources upon decisions in general.   This includes also the decision of the choice of a partner and the decisions concerning the behavior as a partner in a relationship.   All considerations of the influence of unconscious, 'intuitive' decisions are omitted in this entry.   These are not unimportant, but including them would make this topic too complex. 

The quality of a decision as evaluated by its execution depends upon the amount of skepticism, the freedom of choice and the trait of consequencity or gullibility.   Conscious decisions are based upon the premises of information derived from both, external sources and introspection.     Skepticism and credulity or rationality have an impact upon the quality of the chosen premises, consequencity or gullibility has an impact upon the process of deciding to act in according to the chosen premises and freedom has an impact on the execution of a decision.    

1. Skepticism is a talent and a skill in processing the input of information and stimuli.   It can be compared to many other achievements, where talent is the needed, but the skill has to be developed by learning and training.  Scientific thinking as a part of the education at university certainly is one good method to develop skepticism.   Skepticism is probably distributed along a bell curve.    High skepticism allows a better choice of the most appropriate information to be used in a decision.    Credulity includes unverified believes into the premises, incredulity and rationality refuse all believes, but skepticism helps to make the best choice of premises with a high probability of being valid.
   
2. Decisions can only be executed they way they are derived from the premises, when there is the freedom to act in accordance.    When people are coerced by circumstances, they often yield and do, what they do not want to do.  They end up suffering cognitive dissonance.
   
3. Between light and darkness, there is a scale of shades.    But darkness as one end is absolute, it is the complete absence of light, while all the rest of the scale means more or less of light.   There is always darkness, when there is no light, but the light is stronger than the darkness, and the shades of light deactivate the power of darkness upon the visual perception of humans and many animals.  
   This metaphor is a good description of the scale between gullibility at one end and consequencity at the other.   There is one limitation, though.   To human perception, there is always either light or darkness, even with closed eyes.   There is no perception of a nothing, that is neither light nor darkness.    But while there are no conscious decisions when there is neither gullibility nor consequencity, there is still behavior, determined by instincts alone.  
   Therefore I am limiting this entry to conscious decisions that require human cognition, defined in a simplified way by the presence of enough rationality to understand simple if-then logic and contingencies.   
   Then in analogy to my metaphor, a human decision can be fully derived by consequencity only in the absence of all gullibility, while gullibility more or less deactivates consequencity depending on the strength of gullibility. 
   
   This leads to a more precise definition of consequencity as a personality trait, which includes not only the complete absence of gullibility, but also a low level thereof. 

A person with high skepticism and high consequencity has the best predisposition to make good decisions, but this is not automatically predetermining optimized decisions.   While religion and simple quackeries like homeopathy are easy to discard and to reject, there are often situations, in which a person is impeded by the inability or impossibility to evaluate information to react in an appropriate way to an influence.   
Modern life is too complex to be well informed about everything, many claims are spread, of which the verifications are beyond reach, some important premises can be overlooked or are not available, there are misunderstandings, misinterpretations, manipulations, lies and there are more possible interferences.    A person can often be in the situation, that a decision is required or expected, while there is no way to choose or access enough valid premises.   

For gullible people, this is no obstacle, they let themselves be influenced by others without even hesitating.   But this situation leads people with predominant consequencity either into inertia, or they make consciously a haphazard decision by flipping a coin or some similar method, but they refuse to be influenced by any irrationality, and that makes them appear as stubborn and obstinate.    Another possible mistake is rejecting proffered good premises as irrational.    

High skepticism and high consequencity together help to enhance the quality of decisions, but this is limited by many other factors, and many decisions later on turn out to have been a mistake.   This includes the unfortunate choice of an incompatible partner.  

314. Mating Strategies - The Instinctive And The Intellectual Paradigm

By now, I have been writing over 300 entries in this blog, and the number of page views per day due to being found in Google is not growing.   Therefore I attempted to get more publicity by joining articlesbase, where I published entre 287 with a link to this blog.    Some hours later, my text had been copied to more than a dozen sites.    But I was not really prepared for the discovery, that my text would be presented in dubious places between texts favoring the degradation of women.   This has instigated me to write the following strong text in favor of monogamy and respect for women and also publish it on articlesbase.    


Mating Strategies - The Instinctive And The Intellectual Paradigm

When men's instincts are awakened, when they drool over women's bodies, when they are in need to restore their sexual homeostasis, their reasoning capacity gets blurred and they become irresponsible animals.    They regress to the primitive state of predators, whose temporarily dysfunctional brains are entirely focused upon one goal: how to acquire the use of a woman's body.   If they are not as successful as their instinctivity urges them, they become manipulators and jerks.   
Some poor misguided fools even invest money in jerk-training.   They call themselves euphemistically pick-up-artists (PUA), but PUA really stands for pick-up-animals, because of their lack of one basic human quality: the ability to respect a woman.  I call them emotional psychopaths, because they feel entitled to be ruthless predators.  Those jerks are repugnant to decent women, but they are oblivious of this.   

Unfortunately, these jerks are encouraged by foolish women.   If all women had the wisdom to reject jerks as pathetic and ludicrous, they would have a reason to learn to respect women.  
   
A foolish woman derives her identify primarily from the quality of her body.   She feels good about herself, as long as she believes herself to be a beauty, but she is not bothered, if she drops out from high school.  A foolish woman accepts her role as prey, she does not feel indignation, instead she feels flattered.   A foolish woman attempts to trigger men's most primitive instincts by purposefully running around half naked in provocative attire and by flirtatious behavior.   She even takes pride in triggering a man's instincts.   
Such a woman is as pathetic and ludicrous as the jerk.   She has the delusion, that by getting a man infatuated with her body, she motivates him to marry her and to spend the rest of his life with her.   She is naive and mistaken.    As soon as the jerk has restored his homeostasis, he gets aware, that she is only an insignificant commodity for him.    As far as stupidity is concerned, predator and prey are a match, but the predator enjoys his triumph, the prey suffers.    As predator and prey, they both lack dignity.
  
When the instincts take temporary control over a man, the breeding instinct is the true driving force behind the sexual instinct.   Two bodies check each other's quality for healthy offspring, while any consideration for long-term individual happiness is temporarily in oblivion.    A jerk is promiscuous, he wants to spread his genes.  Once he had succeeded to gain the temporary control over the prey, he restarts his hunt for a new prey.

Wise women do the exact contrary of the demeanor of foolish women, because they derive their identity from their intellect.  A wise woman presents herself with an anti-sexy exterior, she does not flirt, she does everything possible to avoid and discourage men from getting infatuated with her body.     Her priority is to be respected, valued, appreciated as an equal partner.   For her it is of paramount importance, that her well functioning brain and her intellectual competence are of higher value to a man than her body.     A wise woman chooses a man for intrinsic commitment, bonding, closeness, she wants to be a man's valued companion and confident.  
A wise woman does not allow a man access to her body, unless he deserves it by respecting her personality, she insists to create emotional and intellectual intimacy, before she allows physical intimacy as the sealing of the bond.  
A wise woman needs a wise man, who is hypoanimalistic, who is not a blind slave of his instincts, but who is controlled by his brain, and who also derives his identity from his intellectual, emotional and moral qualities.   A wise man is monogamous, because monogamy gives him the joy of bonding.   He wants to be human and he agrees with the woman in her disdain for promiscuous studs as animals.   A wise man does not hurt a woman's dignity, she does not need to protect it.

We live in times, where the human brain has invented the most amazing things, like pictures from Mars, cell phones, relativity theory and reliable birth control.   But instinct driven jerks and foolish women still behave as if they are cave people 500.000 years ago.   

304. Emotional Morons and the Evolution of Cognition

Emotional Morons and the Evolution of Cognition
I think that humans are like cars, where the accelerator and the brake are both pressed and the speed depends on the relative force used on both.   The accelerator are the instincts for individual survival and for the survival of the species by breeding, the brake is the power of cognition counteracting and controlling the innate urges.   The steering wheel is handled by culture and social influences.

Depending on individual differences, some people are more driven by instincts, like the breeders and hedonists, who become unpleasant any time for no more reason than that they are hungry and do not get food immediately.   There are the childfree and the epicureans, who can get absorbed with intellectual and social joys and do not even notice, when they are hungry.
 

Survival on the instinctive level does not require cognition, as long as a species survives in any habitat, where there are sufficient resources for the instinctive survival behaviors.   That means, that by instinct, humans at any time during evolution could survive in appropriate surroundings independent of how far cognition had already developed.   

This leads me to the idea, that maybe the intellectual, emotional and social development  during childhood is a representation of human development during evolution.   Due to the shorter life expectancy I will compare the level of maturity and intellectual achievements at the age of 25 and not the wisdom some people acquire at old age. 

Studies of chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas comparing their social behavior, tool use etc sometimes compare them to have as adults roughly the mental age of a very young human child.   The evolutionary split between the apes and homo sapiens has taken place several million years back.   So maybe one million years ago, 25 year old adults of our ancestors could have reached the mental age of a child today of any age below ten.   Maybe 500.000 years ago 25 year olds reached a mental age of an adolescent of today.   Today in our complex society, a child of that age is helpless and unable to survive by itself.   But in an adult body in those past times, the instincts guarantied survival, and the mental development was enhancing survival but not a necessity.   

To speculate even more, I am wondering, if persons, who in our epoch remain immature or retarded in adulthood are maybe genetic relapses to an earlier phase of evolution.    Maybe someone, who today appears as an emotional moron would have been a very average and fully adapted and successful caveman 100.000 years ago.   Maybe in those days all humans were selfcentered, considered others as commodities, had not yet developed full empathy, abstract morals and emotions or a conscience and were guided by punishment and reward.    Maybe even psychopaths are just cavemen living in the wrong time.   

58. The Illusion of Originality

The Illusion of Originality
I was my own idea then, what I wrote in entry 22 about The Real Difference Between Animals and Humans.    But in world of so many people, there is most probably always someone, who already had the same thought before me. 

I just watched a documentary on http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-makes-us-human/ and the author Leroi ends the second part with the observation.

"We alone among the animals can step beyond our biology.   Perhaps it is this, that truly makes us human."

While I had not an original idea, I got my idea validated. 

55. My Reasons to Distinguish Between Male Humans and Male Animals

My Reasons to Distinguish Between Male Humans and Male Animals

A woman gave me this feedback in an email:
"I don’t know if you are aware that some of your entries give the impression that you despise or even hate men; ... but it may deter a good man to get in touch with you."

Indeed, to deter someone with a wrong impression is about the last thing I would ever want.   The only purpose of this blog is to find a decent compatible partner.  

Therefore I want to made it explicitly clear:   I distinguish two kinds of men, those who are predominantly animals, and those who are predominantly humans.   The humans to me are those of categories 3 and 4 in entry 54.   

I declare, that I consider the true human men as very precious and I am longing and impatient to find one to share my life with.    But I do loathe and despise the male animals.

My reason for this distinction are based upon personal experience, not quantified anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence.    

1.   Personal experience.
When I was younger, I travelled alone through Mediterranean countries.    I was interested in the culture and in the life of the people.    So I was interested to talk to people.   But it was just not possible with any man.    I just was prey to their instincts.    I attempted as much as I could to avoid triggering instincts.   In fact, I did everything possible to make myself as antisexy as possible, wearing  jeans or bermudas at least down to the knee and t-shirts three sizes larger than the jeans, nontransparent and closed to the neck.    In spite of all my efforts, it has even happened to me to walk in bright day light through a park, and one of those animals walked up to me and whispered a sum of money into my ear.    I spat in front of the feet of that animal.   
I felt so disheartened, that there was just nothing, I could do to protect my dignity against being treated as a mere body.   I felt so helpless, that I could do nothing to avoid triggering instincts.   
Now I am old enough that the young animals ignore me, and the animals of my own age have reached a phase in their life, when their worst urges usually have calmed down.   But if someone would have hurt my pride at a younger age, he still is the same animal with the same disgusting attitude to consider it acceptable to use a woman's body as a utility for his instincts.    I do not want to get involved with a calmed down animal without knowing it, I want a human man, who never had the attitude to use a woman's body.    Just as I would not want a liar, who only does not lie, because he cannot lie any more after having lost his voice.  

2.  Not quantified anecdotal evidence.
On dating sites, there is a choice of what kind of relationship people are looking for.   Some sites include an option for 'intimate encounters', 'no strings fun' and similar expressions.     It is very discouraging to see, that on those sites, the majority of men choose such options at least as an additional option while also searching for a long term serious relationship, if it is not their only goal.    After noticing this, I started to get suspicious about the decency of the men on the more serious matching sites, where such disgusting options where not available.   But in the absence of such options, how could I know, if they would choose one if available?   

3.  Scientific evidence. 
http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf  
Clark/Hatfield: Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers
In two studies, when a woman approaches a stranger saying "I have been noticing you around campus.  I find you to be very attractive." and "Would you go to bed with me tonight?", the majority of men agreed.   In 1978, 75% did, in 1982, 69%.   And those were university students, those who had the best chance to develop their rationality and to learn to respect women as equal intellectual beings.  


After having said all this, I think I better avoid to be misunderstood.   I defend my dignity as a person with a mind with fervor against animals attempting to degrade me to be used as an object.   
But once I know that I am respected, accepted and acknowledged as a person and an equal partner, then I consider integrated intimacy of intellectual, emotional and physical closeness as natural.    Intimacy has to develop in a truly human sequence, first as mindmates, then as emotional mates and as the last step as bedmates.  

22. The Real Difference Between Animals and Humans

The Real Difference Between Animals and Humans

As long as there has been philosophers, they were debating, what distinguishes humans from animals.   Probably because without an answer, how could they decide, whom to ascribe an immortal soul.  

They considered tools, language, money and trading, adherence to rules, consciousness of themselves.   And for most of it, science found rudimentary traced in monkeys and apes after some training.

But there is one fundamental distinction:   Animals are always driven by instinct to behave in favor of the survival of their genes.   Even when they do not procreate themselves, then at least they help raise the offspring of their siblings, with whom they share half of their genes.  

Only humans are capable to consciously know, that it is not beneficial to procreate, only they can decide as individuals to stay childfree.