643. A Man's Persistent Contact With Ex-Partners Is A Variety Of The Traditional African Polygamy

643.   A Man's Persistent Contact With Ex-Partners Is A Variety Of The Traditional African Polygamy

In entry 642, I pointed out, how prostitution simulates the copulation of mammals, where the male is not impacted by any emotional or cognitive trace after copulating with a female body.  

When a man perceives a deactivated intimate partner as not different from someone, who had never been more intimate than a platonic friend, this also is evidence, that this man does not experience physical intimacy as creating an irreversible permanent special bond, which can never be undone,  but only drastically broken and severed.


I once wrote a term paper upon traditional African family structures.    Simplified, it was like this:  When a man marries for the first time, he and his wife have one hut each in a compound.   They have an intimate relationship, until the first child is born.   Then the physically intimate relationship with this wife is deactivated.   The man marries a second wife, who gets also her own hut.   When she has her first child, the physical intimacy with her also gets deactivated.    Depending on his material resources, he may add several more wives.   When he reaches his limit, he reestablishes the intimacy with the more ancient wives, until they again are pregnant.  
This means, such a man has a harem, which consists during long periods of one active intimate relationship and several deactivated intimate, but temporarily platonic relationships with women, whom he has not discarded as unsuitable.  

A man, who enters a new intimate relationship, while maintaining a platonic friendship with deactivated intimate partners, has the same kind of a harem.  If he would experience emotional attachment as connected with physical intimacy, he would know this.   But if physical intimacy does not create any permanent emotional trace, then he is not aware of creating a harem and he does not know, what he does to the women, whom he denies exclusivity by placing them in the harem.   
He is oblivious of the decisive difference between a deactivated intimate partner and an ex-partner.  


I define an ex-partner as someone, who is discarded from all voluntary contact as being unsuitable for a relationship. 
A woman, who was an intimate partner and who is still treated and considered as a platonic friend, is not an ex-partner, but a deactivated intimate partner.  

I define monogamy as having only one intimate partner at the same time, no matter if active or deactivated.    

I consider and perceive a person, who is not suitable for friendship as also no suitable for an intimate relationship and the step from friendship to physical intimacy as a one-way street and there is no way back.  


I have been thinking hard, but I cannot imagine any valid reason, why two persons get intimately involved and end the relationship, and in spite of this can continue to reciprocally merit each other's friendship.    A valid reason to end a relationship and valid reasons to reciprocally merit each other's friendship are mutually exclusive. 

• When a relationship ends, because one commits an unforgivable transgression, then this means, that the basis for friendship has been forfeited and destroyed.  
  
• When two people have made the mistake of getting involved by infatuation, while they had nothing in common to keep them together, then the they cannot remain the friends they never had been.
  
• When a man gets aware of the banality of his recurrent urge to restore his homeostasis, then as a wise man he understands, that this is inherent in human cognition, which enables intelligent humans to compare more rewarding intellectual activities with the primitive homeostation of animal instincts.  This awareness does not diminish a mature man's attachment to the person of his partner.  
  But if experiencing his own needs for homeostation as a banality suffices for a man to replace his companion's body with another female body for the purpose of enhancing the sensation of primitive thrills, then he is a worthless idiot and an immature jerk and he does not deserve the discarded woman's friendship.  

Therefore any man, who needs to continue the contact with his deactivated intimate partners, scares me for two reasons.  
It makes me suspicious, that physical intimacy is for him not connected with emotional attachment, bonding and commitment, and it indicates a high risk of me being hurt by his ending the relationship for invalid reasons.  

623. Defining A Disorder Without Consideration For The Victims

623.  Defining A Disorder Without Consideration For The Victims

"Now a UCLA-led team of experts has tested a proposed set of criteria to define "hypersexual disorder," also known as sexual addiction, as a new mental health condition."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121019102802.htm

This article is just another example of the implicit general desensitization to the plight of victims.   The paramount importance of treating sexual addiction for the purpose of protecting others from becoming victims is not even mentioned in this article.
Oversexation is not considered a problem, as long as the promiscuous jerks are satisfied, while all the harm is burdened upon their objectified, dumped and cheated upon victims.  But when the jerks suffer themselves, it is all of a sudden recognized as a problem:

"Of the 207 patients they examined, 17 percent had lost a job at least once, 39 percent had a relationship end, 28 percent contracted a sexually transmitted infection and 78 percent had interference with healthy sex."

"Our study showed increased hypersexual behavior was related to greater emotional disturbance, impulsivity and an inability to manage stress."

619. Objectification And The Ingroup-Outgroup Instinct

619.  Objectification And The Ingroup-Outgroup Instinct

The ingroup-outgroup instinct has evolved in many species living in groups.   It provided two sets of behaviors, automatic in animals and as a social norm in humans, which are sometimes very contradictory.   
Examples: 
Outgroup members are prey to be eaten by cannibals, while ingroup members are companions to share the food with. 
Outgroup women are prey to be raped during wars, even by men, who are no brutes to their wives or any ingroup women.

 

When a previously unknown man in real life initiates contact with a woman, for her this always bears the risk of at least the indignation of being considered as prey to be objectified and commodified, if not the worse victimization by violence.   

But there are two distinctive instinctive urges, which unfortunately add to the number of men behaving as disgusting alley dogs towards women.   

There are not only the general jerks, who driven by their instincts promiscuously objectify all women.    There are also the those jerks sufficiently determined by their ingroup-outgroup instinct, who behave differently towards ingroup women while treating outgroup women as mere prey.     

When younger and traveling alone through some Mediterranean countries, I have experienced the following pattern so often, that it started to cause me nausea.   
Sitting somewhere like on a bench in a park and being approached by a man I hoped for some interesting conversation about the country and its society and way of life.    But I was not treated as a human being with a brain.  Instead I was the target of a predator, flirting and attempting to seduce me, perceiving me as prey, as a body to be used.   

I doubt very much, that all of these predators would have caused the same indignation to local ingroup women as they allowed themselves to do to a tourist.  

Being a foreigner made me unequivocally an outgroup person by nationality.    But on a subtle and diffuse level, any subjective distinction by sorting them into either ingroup or outgroup facilitates some men's selective objectification of women.   

When driven by instinct towards abusing indiscriminately any female body for homeostation, while moral imperatives of their religion and culture forbid them promiscuity, uncoupled men suffer discomfort by either dishomeostasis or cognitive dissonance.   Defining an outgroup of women as such, upon whom moral rules do not need to be applied, is their mental trick to acquire homeostasis and avoid cognitive dissonance.   It is the mental trick of the selfish jerks attempting to acquire homeostasis without accepting commitment as not only bringing a subscription to recurrent homeostation but also meaning monogamy and emotional obligations.  

This mental trick enables jerks to have the sincere delusion to be decent and correct men, as long as they refrain from promiscuous behavior with women of their ingroup, while feeling free and justified to behave like alley dogs with women from any outgroup.   
The social history of an ingroup defined as an upper class, where so called gentlemen abused the servants and other poor and lower class women, is one example.           

618. What Comes First: Attitude Or Behavior?

618.   What Comes First:  Attitude Or Behavior?

In entry 615 I already mentioned the fascinating web page http://www.manipulative-people.com and work of George Simon.   I spent some hours reading his description of persons who in his words are disturbed characters.  

My writing on this blog is focusing upon my subjective and female preference of what attitudes and behaviors make a man either attractive or repulsive.    While reading Simon's texts, it has become clear to me, that those men, whom I describe as jerks, are a subgroup of Simon's disturbed character.   Jerks are male disturbed characters, whose victims of their disturbed behavior are women.    What I call commodification, objectification, domination, entitlement delusion and more, I found it all mentioned by Simon, in different words and explained in better English.  

Only he has come to a different conclusion concerning what causes, maintains, enables and reinforces the character disturbances.  

"One of the central tenets of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is that there is an inextricable relationship between a person’s core beliefs, the attitudes those beliefs have engendered, and the ways the person’s attitudes prompt him or her to to behave in various situations."

http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/12/08/disturbed-characters-thinking/

I fully agree with this, because any discrepancy between core values (as I dislike the word belief), attitudes and behaviors causes unpleasant cognitive dissonance.   Getting aware of such a discrepancy motivates towards either changing the attitude or the behavior.   

If I have understood correctly, in Simon's view the attitudes and core beliefs come first and the behavior is the consequence thereof.  
Simon accepts the notion of the free will.   I have not found any explicit statement about this, but implicitly he seems to explain attitudes and core values as mainly or entirely acquired by education, socialization and external influences.  

From my point of view, which is derived from evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, the free will is a myth.   Behaviors are determined by the combination of the force of instinctivity, the avoidance of punishment and of dishomeostasis and the appetency of rewards and stimulation of the brain's pleasure center.   This is facilitated by the knowledge stored in the memory and anticipatory thinking.   

Subconscious instinctive urges are consciously experienced as the inclination towards specific behaviors.   Instinctive urges are mainly the animal instincts for procreation, sexuality, hierarchy, ingroup-outgroup, gregariousness.   

The cognitive and conscious attitudes follow as a justification when giving in to being driven by the urges, attitudes are formed to avoid cognitive dissonance.    These attitudes are influenced and modified by education and social norms either encouraging or repressing instinctive behavior.    

Attitudes and subsequent behaviors differ between individuals in the same society according to differing strength of their instinctivity and also between individuals with the same strength of instinctivity but living in different societies.  
The worst jerks and worst cases of Simon's male disturbed character are men with a high instinctivity, whose abuse of women is additionally enabled and reinforced in a permissive society.   

Accordingly I also disagree about how, if at all, disturbed characters can be changed:

"Changing some aspect of our behavior is always the first step toward having a change of heart. Just as our way of thinking influences our behavior, so our actions and the consequences that stem from them influence how we think about things, the attitudes we harbor, and the beliefs we hold about how to get along in life. Making meaningful changes in the way we typically do things is a prerequisite for changing the kind of person we are."

http://counsellingresource.com/features/2012/04/02/disturbed-characters-can-they-change/

I doubt, that attitudes can be changed, as long as these attitudes are an expression of an implicit identity defined by the acceptance of animal instincts.     A change of attitudes would require the conscious choice of an identity derived from the preference for cognition as superior over instincts.    But before someone is able to consider instincts as obsolete and disturbing evolutionary ballast to be overridden in favor of not harming others, he has first to get aware and recognize, how much he is driven by instincts.  
As long as someone accepts himself as an instinct driven animal and thus allows himself his instinctive urges without experiencing cognitive dissonance, he will continue to behave as a disturbed character. 

614. Changing Role Models

614.   Changing Role Models

For the purpose of reducing the boredom of doing household chores, I am sometimes listening to simple and superficial stuff like old radio shows.  Thus I also listened to a serial about a private detective called Richard Diamond, consisting of several dozen episodes broadcasted around 1950.  
As it is a Hollywood production, the hero was created as what at that period of time was the fictional prototype of masculinity.    Being a prototype, Diamond was certainly the role model for many contemporary young men.   Just as was and is James Bond for the generation of their sons and grandsons. 

Diamond and Bond have a lot in common (, as much as I can know from only having ever seen one unpleasant Bond film without any wish for more).  
Both role models are aggressive and tough, never have any fear, being very apt with weapons, fists and also with verbal flippancy.   Both are not destroyable, no matter how much they get beaten up or injured.  Both are never impacted by any guilt or emotional effects after having killed anybody as an everyday event of no consequence.

But there is one very decisive distinction between both role models. 

James Bond is a disgusting promiscuous women abusing jerk.  Were he real, he would be every decent woman's nightmare.  
 
Richard Diamond appears to be principally a decent guy.  Throughout the entire series, he has the same girlfriend, Helen, treating her correctly.    Being the prototype of a stud, he is portrayed as catching every woman's interest and as flirting with all of them, but this is the limit.   He is not only a role model of being true to Helen, but he is shown as being true by choice, not by lack of opportunity.   
Diamond is also presented as not merely infatuated with Helen's body but also attached to her as a person, whom he appreciates enough to spend a lot of his spare time with her, including shared non-physical activities.   
Monogamy is an implicitly and indirectly expressed part of this role model.  Whenever Helen expresses jealousy of one of his female clients, he does not reproach her, but defends or clears himself as being true to her.  An such jealousy is a part of Helen's being also a role model, it is not at all shown as inappropriate. 

Richard Diamond is certainly not my ideal of a man, because I prefer non-aggressive intellectuals.   But at least he is not someone abusing women as does his thoroughly repulsive successor James Bond.    

As far as role models have an influence, someone like Diamond can bring out the relatively best in men, but Bond certainly reinforces their worst.   

604. Commodification Under The Influence Of Culture

604.   Commodification Under The Influence Of Culture

Biologically seen, there are factors determining the watershed between the intrinsic commitment of nice guys and the promiscuity of abusive jerks.   

These factors are the innate strength of men's instinctive urges causing the discomfort of sexual dishomeostasis and the innate quality and strength of the cognition upon the behavior.  

Demisexual intellectuals with a strong need for bonding are able to appreciate women's personality, promiscuous jerks are programmed to always degrade women as objects for use.   But there are also the fence sitters having behavioral predispositions in a delicate balance between instinctive urges and cognitive strength.   Upon them, culture and social norms are a third and decisive influence.     

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905135340.htm

"To be a 'success' in evolutionary terms, women need to have access to resources for raising offspring, and men need to have access to fertile females. Researchers have argued that women tend to prefer partners who have an ability to invest resources in their children (i.e., wealthy men), and men tend to prefer partners who appear fertile (i.e., young women) because evolutionary adaptations have programmed these preferences in our brains."

"They found that the gender difference in mate preferences predicted by evolutionary psychology models "is highest in gender-unequal societies, and smallest in the most gender-equal societies," according to Zentner."

"Because increasing gender equality reduces gender differences in mate selection, these studies indicate that the strategies men and women use to choose mates may not be as hardwired as scientists originally thought."

"But he also adds evolutionary roots shouldn't be ruled out entirely.

"Indeed, the capacity to change behaviors and attitudes relatively quickly in response to societal changes may itself be driven by an evolutionary program that rewards flexibility over rigidity.""

When a promiscuous jerk copulates with a female body like a dog in the gutter, this is determined by four factors.   

• The experience of the intrinsic urges of dishomeostasis, 
• The enhancement and magnification of the impact of dishomeostasis by external triggers upon the perception.
• The availability of bodies for easy abuse.    
• The basic attitude of accepting promiscuity as appropriate behavior without any damage to his self-esteem or confidence.   

While only the innate magnitude of dishomeostasis is biological, the availability and ubiquity of external triggers, the availability of bodies for ready use, and the choice between promiscuity and monogamy as part of the ideal-self depend also upon the social environment.   

I was a child in Germany in the 50s, before the fatal sexual revolution freed the worst in men.    The 50s were certainly not a golden age for women, while there was still no reliable birth control, no legal abortion and husbands had unjustifiable legal rights like the one to forbid their wives to have a job.   

But as far as women were commodified, it was as wombs, not as objects and utilities serving men's animal instincts.  There was no public objectification of women.   Sexuality was restricted to its appropriate place inside the privacy of the bedroom of committed couples.  

There were no pictures of naked or lascivious women in any public place, not in commercials, magazines or newspapers, nor in movies.  Most women were aware, that being nice but decently dressed was in their own best interest, just as was also the conscious rejection of any involvement except long-term commitment.    

It was a golden age of beneficial wise prudery.    

Public life was free from detrimental triggers for male instincts.   

There were too many jerks then too, but they were jerks by their own innate animality, they were jerks in spite of a social norm of commitment and monogamy.  Abusing women was not facilitated for them.  These jerks had to consciously decide first, that they really wanted to abuse a woman, because finding the hidden prostitution and pornography required a proactive search. 

The nice guys and the fence sitters were spared the involuntary exposure to triggers, which were incongruent with their real wishes and inclinations for intrinsic commitment based upon their cognitive personality.    

When they experienced the discomfort of dishomeostasis, the circumstances due to the social norm and the culture smoothed their path much more towards commitment and monogamy than towards promiscuity.   

In the 50s, it was much easier for intrinsic nice guys to remain decent, nothing perturbed and distracted them from living in congruency with their cognitive ability to appreciate women.     

Today, the public objectification of women does not only cause a lot of harm to women, but it also causes self-harming to those nice guys, who would be most happy in bonded monogamous commitment.   They are exposed without having a choice to the ubiquitous triggers to their worst animal instincts by the combination of the excellent quality of the realism of the media, the oversexation of every day life and the social norm of male promiscuity and female acquiescence.

The potentially responsible and considerate nice guys and the fence sitters are in the unfortunate situation of being triggered by instincts and encouraged by social norm to use those too many women, who acquiesce too easily.  Such women are also manipulated by the same social norm into believing, that promiscuity were modern, monogamy were prudish and old fashioned and that the only chance to successfully compete with other women is to allow themselves to be available first for use lest another would be chosen for being easier to get.  The sad result are many women suffering from unilateral and not-reciprocated attachment.  The men get desensitized by using too many women.    This is, how fence sitters convert themselves more and more to jerks.   

The guy described in entry 601 is a good example.    In the 50s, the easiest way to homeostation would have been to continue his efforts towards finding commitment, which he initially seemed to really want.   But now, the social norm and the triggers lured and lure him to desensitize himself, until he will be unfit for commitment by his own doing.     

 

I have a very high regard and appreciation for those nice guys, who are determined by their cognition and no trigger of any strength has the impact to cause them to stray from decency towards abusing women as bodies.   

The true quality of a man reveals itself, when no trigger and no influence can ever make him sink so low as to become promiscuous.    Such men are rare, but they do exist.    I am looking for one of them as my mindmate.  

602. Inconsistent Morals

602.  Inconsistent Morals 

In entry 601 I was puzzled about someone, who appeared and presented himself rather convincingly in his profile as a nice guy in search of a long term relationship, yet he decided suddenly to become an abusive jerk and to pursue the plan to copulate like a dog in the gutter.  

As the following article shows, some people are prone to lack moral integrity:

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2012/may/wearing-two-different-hats-moral-decisions-may-depend-situation

"An individual’s sense of right or wrong may change depending on their activities at the time – and they may not be aware of their own shifting moral integrity — according to a new study looking at why people make ethical or unethical decisions."

"workers who tend to have dual roles in their jobs would change their moral judgments based on what they thought was expected of them at the moment."

"“When people switch hats, they often switch moral compasses,” Leavitt said. “People like to think they are inherently moral creatures – you either have character or you don’t. But our studies show that the same person may make a completely different decision based on what hat they may be wearing at the time, often without even realizing it.”"

"Whether they know it or not, people are often taking in messages about what their role is and what is expected of them, and this may conflict with what they know to be the moral or correct decision."

"“We find that people tend to make decisions that may conflict with their morals when they are overwhelmed, or when they are just doing routine tasks without thinking of the consequences,” Leavitt said. “We tend to play out a script as if our role has already been written. So the bottom line is, slow down and think about the consequences when making an ethical decision.”"

Maybe this research is a clue towards interpreting, how some men may attempt or pretend to be decent and monogamous, whenever they are in contact with women, yet when they are in the company of a bunch of outspoken jerks and machos they nevertheless switch to the fallacy, that the objectification and other forms of the abuse of women were appropriate behavior.   As too many men already consider this as the social norm, they reinforce each other in the fallacy, that there were nothing ethically wrong with their attitude towards women. 

Maybe the man described in entry 601 had been drinking with a group of buddies, who bragged about their successes as predators, thus triggering his ambition to compete with them.   If his wish to live up to their social norm is strong, it overrides any moral consideration or responsibility towards women..  

597. Commodification And Wanting

597.   Commodification And Wanting

When a sane, mature and rational person declares to want something, this is an expression of a mere wish and of nothing more.   Wishing does not imply any assumption concerning the availability or feasibility nor does it imply any claim to get it.

Attempts towards gratification are an independent next step.   Such attempts are limited by the full recognition of and awareness for the rights of others and by the moral obligation to refrain from harming others and from usurping and seizing.     

The rational method to get gratification is earning it.  When it comes as a gift, it is received with gratitude and not taken for granted.
 

Immature and selfish jerks have a blatant delusional fallacy in their thinking.  When they say 'I want x', they really mean to say 'I demand x, because I believe myself to be entitled to get x immediately'.  They confound wanting something with the entitlement to automatically get it.  They believe, that everybody and the society owe to given to them, whatever they want and when they want it.  

Relationships are entered for the purpose of meeting specific needs.   The difference between mere wishes and claims of alleged entitlement contributes to the difference between egalitarian bonded couples and asymmetrical commodification.   

A bonded, caring, considerate couple feels reciprocally responsible for the careful use of their pooled resources.   Those expenses have priority, of which the benefits are shared by both partners   Any expenses only benefiting one partner are secondary.  Shared decision are based upon agreement as being fair.  Reciprocal gratification of wishes is perceived with gratitude as a gift or as a favor.     

The commodification of women is one special case of the fallacy of mistaking wanting as an automatic justification for claims, demands, coercion and usurpation.  A jerk informing a commodified woman of what he wants feel automatically also entitled to get it immediately. 

• Commodifying men experience and consider it as their baseline of normality, if they always get everything immediately whenever they demand it.   
  They take all received benefits for granted.  They are blind to recognize, when someone does something for them by choice and by a voluntary decision.   They do not know, what favors are.  They do not know gratitude.  
  Any expression of love, care and affection by voluntarily doing something for such a man is lost and not recognized as such.  Whatever gratification he receives, he always confounds it as if it were his due and as if she were only doing her duty. 
  
• When the reaction to commodifying men's demands is refusal,
  
  • they seize their alleged due by hook or by crook, by domination, coercion, bullying, if they have the power to do so.
  • they get extremely angry, aggressive, frustrated and unpleasant, when they lack the power to enforce gratification.

588. A Jerk With A Halo - 3

588.   A Jerk With A Halo - 3

The general disregard for women as persons enables too many accomplished men to behave as jerks with halos and get away with it without damaging their own reputation. 

Albert Einstein is another jerk with a halo.   

1.  He was a jerk in how he treated the women in his life:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2133922/Was-Einstein-worlds-worst-husband-Wife-ordered-room-tidy-serve-meals-day--expect-NO-affection--stop-talking-demands-it.html

"the father of the theory of relativity is known to have had many liaisons throughout his marriage to Maric. In fact, he became involved with Elsa, a first cousin who would become his second wife, in 1912, when he was still married to his first wife."

"although Einstein married Elsa in 1919, within four years he was already involved with Bette Neumann, his secretary and the niece of one of his friends. "

"Einstein proposed that he and Maric should stay together for the sake of the children.
But with his proposal came an austere list of demands to which his wife must adhere."

The list:

http://www.listsofnote.com/2012/04/einsteins-demands.html   

"CONDITIONS

You will make sure:

that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:

my sitting at home with you;
my going out or travelling with you.

You will obey the following points in your relations with me:

you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
you will stop talking to me if I request it;you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior."

2.   While the amount of his first wife Mileva's exact contribution to his work is not certain and a topic of a lot of debate, he did neither recognize not show any gratitude for her cooperation.

http://www.womeninscience.org/story.php?storyID=105

"Mileva focused her energies on Albert's career. Some scholars believe Mileva did the math for the Theory of Relativity, others say she corrected Einstein's math, and still others claim she was even more deeply involved. The paper outlining the theory is signed with a hyphenated name Einstein-Marty, the Hungarian form of her maiden name Maric."

"He never acknowledged his first wife or her work."

587. A Jerk With A Halo - 2

587.  A Jerk With A Halo - 2

Someone mentioned in an email his affinity with Ernest Hemingway.   It was already years ago, since I had read a few of his books.  Only having a vague idea about enjoying the books but disliking his machismo, I read his Wikipedia biography and discovered, that he was another jerk with a halo. 

According to this biography, Hemingway has ruthlessly repeated a cruel pattern with three of his wives.   First he cheated on them, then dumped and replaced them with the accomplice of the cheating.    This makes him a jerk with a halo as defined in entry 586.  

But he was not only a jerk with a halo put upon him by many of his readers, he also haloed himself: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-a-farewell-to-macho.html

"Hemingway needed a new wife for every big book. And even when he was cheating on a wife with her friend, he painted himself as a victim of predatory and trusting women.

Writing in “A Moveable Feast” about dumping his older first wife, Hadley, for his older second wife, Pauline, he whinged that “the oldest trick” is “that an unmarried young woman becomes the temporary best friend of another young woman who is married, goes to live with the husband and wife and then unknowingly, innocently and unrelentingly sets out to marry the husband.”

“He’d acted like a boor and a bully and an overly competitive jerk,” "

586. Jerks With Halos

586.  Jerks With Halos

In entry 381 I described Diego Rivera as a jerk with a halo.   He is just one specimen of many, and it is a pattern of very detrimental and unfavorable dynamics.

I consider people (usually men) as jerks with a halo, when they are accomplished or outstanding in some area, as artists, writers, scientists, actors, politicians or even as benefactors for many people, while they also inflict a lot of suffering upon persons close to them.   

Jerks are jerks, and the suffering of their victims is real and no halo seen by any third party does reduce this suffering, it only hides it in an unjustifiable way.
  
Accomplishments need to be evaluated by themselves, without any impact upon the subjective recognition of the magnitude of personal transgressions.   The harm done to the unfortunate victims is an unacceptable moral failure, this is independent of any coexisting achievements.   

Accomplishments do not exempt people from being responsible for what they do to others.  

But this is unfortunately not reality.   Instead, there is a general tendency to condone unacceptable, immoral and cruel behaviors in proportional accordance with the transgressor's fame due to his accomplishments.  By this fallacy of accepted compensation, someone can buy by his accomplishments the right to harm without consequences.

This fallacy is enhanced and perpetuated by any combination of several factors, which all lead to the underestimation of the harm done to the victims: 

1.   Women's apparent and alleged compliance when continuing to expose themselves to their plight.   
1.1.  Women are dependent upon the material support by the man, especially by raising children.   They would leave the jerk, if the could.  
1.2.  Women in asymmetrical relationships have got onesidedly emotionally attached to the jerk, who in return has an entitlement delusion.  His fallacy is his belief, that women exist for his convenience, his accomplishments justifying their commodification.  I described this in entry 268 (The Jerk Attachment Syndrome).

2.  The generalization of suggestive influences of religion, especially christianity, upon both the jerks and the victims.  The jerks with halos subjectively consider their accomplishment as their currency to buy the right to harm women. 

In religion, sin is believed to be compensatable by penitence, so that after having paid for the previous sin, there is no cognitive obstacle to prevent the next sin.  Replacing penitence by accomplishments is a fallacy, which is not very far fetched, considering the weirdness of the religious beliefs in themselves.
Thus jerks are not only haloed by others, but they also halo themselves by believing, that their accomplishments entitle them to privileges, even when the privileges harm others.  

Women allow men to harm them for the purpose of buying the reward after death with the currency of their forgiving the unforgivable and by their prolonged suffering .  

3.  Sometimes people feel a vague, fuzzy and unspecified need to improve themselves, but are uncertain, how to proceed.  When they discover persons, whom they do not know personally, but only by the presentation in their work and in the media, such persons are chosen as role models.   The nearer the role models appear to be perfect, the stronger the appeal to imitate them.  The successful imitation boosts the self-esteem and causes good feelings.  This motivates to maintain the idealization of the role model, even when it is not at all justified in the case of haloed jerks.   As a consequence, the idealization of such a role model is protected by the denial of unpleasant and dark sides.    The focus is restricted to the perception of the halo, while the jerk underneath is willfully overlooked.   

Seen from this perspective, many admired and famous men are in reality only jerks with halos.  

579. The Rotten Apple Metaphor

579.   The Rotten Apple Metaphor

Apples can rot inside and remain perfect on the outside.   They look and smell very appetizing and appealing to bite into them.   But the first bite into the invisible rot causes to puke and to spit.   

Putting the apple on display with the bite on the hidden back side, the apple continues to appear appealing to the senses in spite of the cognitive knowledge of the eating experience.   It is the classical case of an appetence-aversion conflict, which is best solved by discarding the apple from the vision.

There are men like this.   They appear perfect, when it comes to similarities in values, hobbies, interests, attitudes and tastes.   They radiate pseudo-propinquity.    But as soon as a woman gets involved, she gets harmed.   It is her moment of truth, of experiencing the rotten jerk inside, who hurts and disgusts her with abuse, domination and commodification. 
As soon as she distances herself out of the reach of immediate harm, he continues to appear as appealing as before due to the same attributes, but she is cognitively cured by her knowledge of what she experiences by getting near him.  Such a man also brings a woman into an appetence-aversion conflict, which is best solved by severing all connections.  

There is just one difference.   The rotten apple mercifully destroys itself by rotting entirely and no second person is tempted to have a bite.  Those rotten jerks continue to harm women.  Whatever harm they do to them has no impact upon the jerks themselves, whose misleading appearance as nice guys does not get damaged.     

548. The Evolution Of Men's Brains Lags Behind The Evolution Of Women's Cognitive Needs

548.   The Evolution Of Men's Brains Lags Behind The Evolution Of Women's Cognitive Needs

The technical quality of visual and auditory imitations of people on screens has reached a level of similarity, to which human brains have not evolved.   The inability of the human brain to distinguish between real persons and their virtual representations on screens effects the subconscious mind of both genders.    

But only in men this effect aggravates and enhances their unfortunate instinctive urges so drastically, that many of them become emotionally crippled by the tragic commodification and objectification of women.   

Consumers of pornography are misled by their brains to confound the perception of pornography as if it was the experience of observing the real bodies of the objectified women.   The more often men expose themselves to this fallacy, the more this distorts their attitude, expectations and behavior towards all women.   

This fallacy is perpetuated by the discrepancy of men's conscious superficial awareness of merely looking at a screen and the subconscious susceptibility.   They are either ignorant of the damaging impact of pornography upon their subconscious mind, or they choose denial, when women attempt to warn them.  
Men are not born as commodifying jerks, they are only born with a high risk to becoming jerks by the exposure to pornography.   

As usually, writing about what I personally perceive as an outrage against women's dignity is easily dismissed as a frustrated woman's rants refusing to accept her purpose as seen by many jerks, unless my complaints are backed up by other sources.  

So I just found an article on this topic:

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:2pPhsT0Gex0J:scholar.google.com/&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1

 Here are some interesting quotes:

"In The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places (1996) Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass argue that there is no essential or functional difference in how the brain responds to the ‘real’ physical world, and how it responds to media images and artificial entities. According to Reeves and Nass our “old brains” have not yet caught up with our new media technologies and they do not have the sophistication to distinguish between a real physical object in the world and a media image or robotic simulation of that same object. This means that people tend to respond in essentially the same way to screen images of a person or a virtual computer persona as they would to a real person. Even though we may be consciously aware that screen images and simulated entities are not real, nevertheless, we have an ingrained unconscious tendency to treat them as if they were"

"Recent research into the phenomenon of mirror neurons also suggests a neuroscientific basis for this physical and emotional response to screen images and artificial entities. Experiments show that areas of the brain collectively known as the ‘mirror neuron system’ respond not only when individuals perform an action themselves but also when they watch someone else perform that action. Watching someone pick up an object triggers a similar response to actually picking up the object yourself. Screen-based actions and experiences also trigger mirror neuron responses and corresponding physical motor responses; pornography is a key example here."

"Of course, this tendency to treat screen images and robots as social partners means that we have a corresponding tendency to expect them to react in ways that are socially and naturally appropriate and believable. When they don’t, and our expectations are not met, the result can be one of frustration, disappointment and annoyance."

This last quote is important concerning an additional trigger for men to harm women.   While men's brains confound the realistic pornographic images with real women, these picture are nevertheless restricted to the screen and not available for tactile abuse.   This can cause men to feel frustration and anger.    

When such frustration is added to a man's already distorted general attitude towards women, he becomes an even worse hazard of inflicting real life abuse and harm upon any woman happening to be in his reach.

539. Movies Are Contributing To The Harm Done By Promiscuous Jerks

539.   Movies Are Contributing To The Harm Done By Promiscuous Jerks

I have been mentioning before, that promiscuous jerks are predisposed by instinctive animal urges, but that the harm done to the victims is magnified by the sad influence of the media propagating, enhancing and reinforcing the social norm of oversexation.  

A recent study gives some evidence, that the influence of movies is contributing to women's plight by supplying the wrong role models.    

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717162743.htm

"Adolescents who are exposed to more sexual content in movies start having sex at younger ages, have more sexual partners, and are less likely to use condoms with casual sexual partners,"

"Many adolescents turn to movies to acquire "sexual scripts" that offer examples of how to behave when confronted with complicated emotional situations. For 57 percent of American adolescents between the ages of 14 and 16, the media is their greatest source of sexual information. They often don't differentiate between what they see on the screen and what they must confront in daily life ."

What this study indicates as the fatal influence of sexual scenes in general movies, can logically be expected to be even worse in pornographic movies. 


There are other sources providing some further contextual explanations.    

1.  Kanazawa has pointed out, that people are misled to confound the mere moving pictures of people on TV with personal friends, because the evolution of the human cognition had no yet enough time to adapt to the realistic technical representations of people.   The spontaneous and subconscious human perception does not distinguish sufficiently.    

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/ehb2002.pdf

This has fatal consequences.   

Commercial movies are made to entertain people, not to educate them towards responsibility and consideration.   The stories of movies are not realistic.  They are in some way extreme and often dangerously pseudo-realistic.   Women are often abused in a drastic way, which in real life would be legally punished, but the severe harm experienced by them is omitted in the movies, because it is not entertaining.    They are damaged as objects, not harmed as humans.

Adolescents need the valid and beneficial role model of the happy serenity of a bonded monogamous couple.   But what should be encouraged most for imitation lacks any entertaining thrill.  Such a couple's happiness is as beneficial for the two partners themselves as it is dull and boring to the curiosity of gossiping and scandal enjoying bystanders, not matter if in real life or on a screen.    

Therefore the perception of the adolescents watching movies is mislead by confounding the images of the role models on the screen with real people appearing as an extension of their social environment.   Thus the influence of such role models to be imitated is dangerously strong.   

The adolescents are misled to consider the unreal, fantastic and extreme events and activities of the observed stories as if this were a valid representation of real life.

For the consumers of the movies and even more of pornography, abuse seems to end without any consequences, when the movie ends.  But in real life, abuse not only concerns a transgressor, but also a victim.   The abuser's onesided perception of having terminated the abusive event does not really end it.   Real life jerks cannot fully avoid to witness the visible reactions of the victims.  Even those jerks, who are not bothered or insensitive to whatever they do themselves often do notice the suffering, when the victims are their family members harmed by other jerks.

In short, real life harm has more or less observable consequences, which serve as a deterrent.   This deterrent is lacking in the movies.  The harm done by the promiscuity shown in the movies is hidden and omitted as if it did not exist.  Thus the movies mislead adolescents towards oblivion and denial of what they do to their victims by imitating the abuse.

2.   Milgram's experiment have been lately reinterpreted:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120718164947.htm

"The researchers hypothesized that, rather than obedience to authority, the participants' behavior might be better explained by their patterns of social identification. They surmised that conditions that encouraged identification with the experimenter (and, by extension, the scientific community) led participants to follow the experimenters' orders, while conditions that encouraged identification with the learner (and the general community) led participants to defy the experimenters' orders."

Explaining the physically barbaric act of applying electro shocks by identification can be generalized to explain the emotionally barbaric act of men's promiscuous objectifying of women's bodies also by the identification with the imitated actors in the movies.

537. The Golden Rule - A Modified Version For Men

537.   The Golden Rule - A Modified Version For Men

The Golden Rule as quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself"

"One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."

The second form of the golden rule does not prevent women from being objectified and commodified, the first form even encourages men to do so. 

When men are driven so much by their instinctive urges for homeostasis, that it deactivates their cognition and blurs their reason, they perceive every female body as a potential target for their animal needs, at least subconsciously.   

In this situation, jerks and psychopaths do not feel any need for justification, they ruthlessly act upon their entitlement delusion for promiscuity.   They are determined to get homeostation by hook or by crook, their methods include seducing, paying, manipulating and coercing.    Their abuse of women is out of the reach of any moderation by the influence of the golden rule.

But many of those men, who consciously attempt to be guided by the golden rule, fatally misinterpret it as an encouragement to project their own inclinations, wishes and needs upon women.   Many men in the state of dishomeostasis dream, hope, wish or even wait to be proactively approached by self-objectifying women offering homeostation without demanding or expecting anything for themselves.   As this is a denial of reality, these men take the initiative and approach women for the purpose of objectification.   Subjectively they follow the golden rule: They are doing to the women only exactly what they wish done to themselves.   
This misinterpretation of the golden rule impedes these men from being aware, that and how much they are insulting women with this depreciation, devaluation and indignation.  

While men in the state of dishomeostasis are prone to be unaware of what they themselves are doing, this does not automatically distort their general judgment.  The same men, who themselves do not hesitate to sleep around like alley dogs, may well feel outrage, when their mother/sister/daughter becomes the prey of his fellow alley dogs. 

Therefore I suggest this golden rule for men:

A man should treat women as he would like others to treat his mother/sister/daughter/wife/girl friend.

A man should not treat women in ways that he would not like his mother/sister/daughter/wife/girl friend to be treated.

532. Bullying And Commodification Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin

532.   Bullying And Commodification Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin  

The words commodification and objectification have two meanings, as the attitude with the mere potential to harm and as a behavior with a harmed target.   The step from the attitude to the behavior is accomplished by bullying.   Therefore bullying and commodification are two sides of the same coin.   They reinforce, enhance and enable each other.

Commodification leads to bullying, bullying is an indication of the attitude of commodification. 

Bullying is a method to take, what is not available without coercion.   Commodification is the attitude of subjective asymmetrical entitlement to more than what is appropriate from the victim's perspective.       
Bullying enables the behavioral commodification by onesided decision.  Successful behavioral commodification of a disagreeing victims requires bullying.  

Men's subjective entitlement to commodify women is merely a preposterous and delusional attitude of pathetic jerks, as long as women are able to avoid being mistreated and abused by them.   Even though there are specific situations of women's self-commodification when breeding, generally speaking women in their right mind do not consciously agree to be commodified.   Instead they resist and refuse compliance and acquiescence, as long as they are under no restrictions to do so.    But unfortunately, disagreement with outrageous attitudes is not a sufficient protection against such attitudes being imposed by asymmetrical power. 

When a man only wants, wishes and expects from a woman, what is fair, just and appropriate, he often gets it without even asking.    Else asking or rationally convincing are usually sufficient methods.   Bullying is not an options.   When the own needs are not met in a relationship without coercion, this does not justify bullying, it is an indication of a mismatch.  

Bullying in a relationship is an asymmetrical method for the purpose of getting benefits from the partner, who does not agree to owe these benefits.   A bully takes advantage of whatever power is available to him.   The average man is so much stronger than the average woman, that he is able to beat her up and kill her without a weapon.   Therefore any display of anger, rage, aggression appears as a threat, which is strong enough to trigger many women's spontaneous fear and cringing, even without the experience of having been beaten.   
Additionally to bullying, there is also sometimes the advantage of asymmetrical situational power, when one of two conflicting goals is easier to enforce then the other.   When one wants to leave and the other wants him to stay, the one leaving has the power to do so, the other has no means to hold him back.  
 

Women cannot be rationally convinced of the acceptability of being commodified by men.  But in spite of the impossibility to rationally justify the commodification of women, bullying bears the tragic consequence of misleading men to misinterpret the bullied women's alleged outward acquiescence and compliance as if it were agreement.   
This is the cause of an unfortunate vicious spiral:   Immature and selfish men start their interaction with females during puberty already with the delusion of being entitled to onesided benefits from objectified and commodified women.  They are reinforced by the social norm of the ubiquitous oversexation of every day life.   They feel entitled to get the benefits by hook or by crook, and thus they bully women considering this as a legitimate method.    Under the entitlement delusion, any absence of resistance, any resignation or external helpless compliance is misinterpreted as agreement.   

The more often their bullying is successful, the more their delusion gets worse.   They not only expect the victims' agreement with being commodified, but they also take the alleged agreement for granted and for justified.  


Subjectively for a man, bullying is as much or as little justified as is commodification.   This has also another implication:   When for a man bullying is a principally justified behavior, having become a regular habit, he is prone to use it not only in situations, when he really otherwise would not get what he wants.   He is also prone to bully, when he only wrongly believes this to be the only method available, even though in reality he just has not been patient or outspoken and explicit enough to enable the woman to do, what she is motivated to do.   

Therefore any bullying is also a clear indication of an attitude of commodification, when this attitude has not yet been discovered, because it is incongruent with the man's verbally claimed attitude towards women.

Bullying is a clear expression of depreciation and disrespect for her person, even when the man claims verbally his wish for an equal partner.    An egalitarian man does not bully, a bully is not an egalitarian.    

Being bullied by a man is harmful for a woman on two levels.  A bullied woman suffers from being denied the reciprocal bonding and commitment and from being denied her dignity as an equal person.  


But bullying is only a successful strategy for those jerks, who are satisfied by the short-term commodification, when the abused woman is discarded and replaced, before she has been bullied beyond her endurance into dysfunctionality.    

Whenever a man prefers the benefits of the long-term commodification of the same woman, his bullying impedes his own intentions.  The immediate success of his bullying seems to reward him.   This reinforces the bullying.   

But he is mistaken to think that all is well, only because he experiences it as well for himself.   He is oblivious, that all apparent submission of the woman is only her helpless and powerless lack of resistance on the outside.   On the inside, there is no alleged recognition of his entitlement, on the contrary, her hidden grudges grow with every instance of being bullied.   

She experiences as transgressions, what he believes to be his entitlement.    Every additional such transgressions damages her trust and her feelings for him a bit more. 

  

His greed to get too many benefits by commodifying her leads him to be left in the end with nothing after he has bullied her away by bullying her once too often.   

529. Contact With Ex-Partners, Reliability And Trust

529.   Contact With Ex-Partners, Reliability And Trust

Whenever I read in a man's profile, that he continues contact with his ex(es), I recoil.    When I explained my reasons in entry 76, I only mentioned the impertinence of a man's feeling entitled to have a harem of more than one intimate partner and of not valuing a woman enough to give her a genuinely exclusive place in his life.   
Ex(es) can never be converted to be the same as platonic friends, they will remain forever deactivated intimate partners.   Because the special ties created by physical intimacy can never be undone.   The friendship of two persons, who have never been physically intimate, and the alleged mere friendship of two persons, who have deactivated their previous physical intimacy, are fundamentally distinct and can never be the same.  

But in entry 76, I omitted, that the friendship with ex(es) is also a significant indirect indication of how much harm and hurting is to be expected from such men.  
A man, who is friends with his ex(es), can never be trusted to be a reliable partner in a relationship being a safe haven.   His friendship with his ex(es) tells me, that he either starts or ends relationships for insufficient reasons.   Therefore he is a hazard to do the same to me.    

A man's personality, instinctivity and his subsequent attitude towards women, is expressed and represented in the specific reasons, which for him are sufficient to enter and to end a physically intimate relationship.   These reasons indicate, if he either commodifies and objectifies women or if he appreciates them as persons to commit to, to bond and to share his life with.

The history of a man's past relationships can thus be helpful to assess a man's individual choice of reasons and thus to evaluate the risk of being hurt by him.    His maintained friendship with ex(es) or the absence thereof is a valuable information allowing some conclusions.     

A man, who is determined more by his human cognition than by is animal instincts, is able to base both decisions, to enter and to end a relationship, on careful considerations and on consent.    Therefore a man's careful decisions are an indication of his being more human than an animal.    Intrinsic commitment is human.    Animals just copulate.  

Intrinsic commitment means to accept obligations towards the partner, to be considerate, responsible and therefore reliable.   The decision to enter physical intimacy is inseparably also the decision to be committed.   Otherwise it is the abuse of an objectified body and a violation of human dignity.     
Therefore a decent, valuable, humane man asks himself, if he is ready and willing to begin a committed long-term relationship, before he gets physically involved with a woman.   He asks himself, it he appreciates the person enough for commitment.   If he gets aware, that he is only triggered by instincts, he refrains from touching her.   He does not want to be an unworthy animal. 

Intrinsic commitment includes the obligation to end a relationship only 

• by a onesided decision, if the partner has become unworthy having first created this reason by committing an unforgivable transgression.
• by consent, after working hard and persistently together on solving all problems and conflicts.   But this should be a very rare case, as such an blatant incompatibility should have precluded the couple to enter the relationship.   As long as a couple has not forfeited the reciprocal justification for true friendship by unforgivable transgressions, they should be able to solve their conflicts and stay together.

Friendship in the true sense of the word means to see qualities of character in a person, friendship requires trust, honesty, integrity and more.  Intrinsic commitment between a couple has the same requirements of character as has friendship, only the benefits of bonding, of monogamy and of sharing the life and home with exclusively one partner are added.  
Without the qualities to be friends, two persons are not suitable to each other for intrinsic commitment.  When people at one moment in time are really suitable as true friends to get physically involved and share their life in a monogamous arrangement, then their commitment is for better or for worse and ending it can only be justified by very good reasons.   Therefore whenever someone and his ex are still true friends, their commitment has never really ended.   Intrinsic commitment only ends, when reasons impede friendship

A man's intrinsic commitment makes him reliable and predictable, because he allows the woman enough influence on how the relationship impacts her life.    She is not the victim of decisions imposed upon her out of the blue as she is by objectifying jerks, instead she is involved in all shared decisions. 


A man's friendship with his ex(es) is a big red flag.  

When a man perceives and experiences no difference between a friendship, which has always been platonic, and the friendship with a woman, with whom there had been physical intimacy in the past, this is a clear indication of his animal instincts being so strong, that he is innately determined for the objectification of women's bodies.   It means that physical intimacy does not automatically create intrinsic commitment.   
1.  It can mean, that he has exes from any kind of promiscuous non-committed arrangements, no matter if it was an affair or friends with benefits or whatever.    He has commodified and objectified a woman based upon reciprocity.   Had he dumped her, she would probably refuse to remain friends with a jerk.   But mutual abuse is nevertheless abuse, and entering a physical relationship without commitment is a dangerous attitude indicating the predominance of the man's instincts.  
I can never trust a man to be committed with me by physical intimacy, if he has a history of using others without commitment.
2.  He still wants his ex, in spite of her having committed a transgression.    He maintains a friendship for her, even though she is unworthy.   He still craves for her body, in spite of her unworthy personality.   This means, that her personality is not significant.   Either he is not free to commit or the non-physical qualities of a woman are generally of no significance to him.  
3.  He has dumped her for insufficient and selfish reasons, but she wants him back and has forgiven him in spite of his being unworthy and a jerk.  He probably wants more than he is willing to give.  He is probably unable to need and appreciate a partner as much as is necessary to motivate him to invest enough time and effort into a relationship.  Instead he has developed the habit of discarding and replacing as the easy way out.    

Whatever he has done to his ex(es), he is prone also to do to me.   

In all three scenarios, such men are a hazard, there is a very high risk of being hurt by them.  Men, who have dumped women for insufficient reasons or who have committed other transgression, get fatally wrong signals from those women, who still accept and treat them as friends.   Instead of being punished by the appropriate rejection as unworthy jerks, they learn to misinterpret the inappropriate friendship as if there were nothing wrong with their behavior.   
Every ex, who reacts with continued friendship to a jerk's transgressions, implicitly reinforces readiness to repeat such transgressions on the next woman.   While ending all contact with a jerk does not stop him from behaving as a jerk, at least this does not encourage him.


On dating advice sites, sometimes people are warned about new contacts talking bad about their ex-partners.   I disagree.  I have more trust, when a man feels hurt by specific behaviors of his ex and when he can convincingly explain, what efforts he did to repair the relationship and why it failed.   While I of course cannot know, what really has happened, a man's feeling hurt and treated badly by his ex indicates, that he at least subjectively was not the transgressor and whatever behavior he feels hurt from is something, that he hopefully has learned not to do upon others.  When a man talks too well about an ex, this makes me suspicious, because people learn more from their own suffering than from getting away with making others suffer.     

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.     

524. The Absence Of Urges Is Better Than Self-Control

524.  The Absence Of Urges Is Better Than Self-Control

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120606142704.htm

"A study by University of Iowa neuroscientist and neuro-marketing expert William Hedgcock confirms previous studies that show self-control is a finite commodity that is depleted by use. Once the pool has dried up, we're less likely to keep our cool the next time we're faced with a situation that requires self-control."

"But Hedgcock's study is the first to actually show it happening in the brain using fMRI images that scan people as they perform self-control tasks. "

"The study could also modify previous thinking that considered self-control to be like a muscle. Hedgcock says his images seem to suggest that it's like a pool that can be drained by use then replenished through time in a lower conflict environment, away from temptations that require its use."

This study backs up my opinion, that if a woman wants a man predominantly for the safe haven of the companionship of two persons, then the wisest choice is a man, whose instinctive subconscious reactions to the stimulation by objectified female bodies is as low as can be found.  

A low instinctivity man is no hazard, because by his own innate predisposition, attitudes and genuine needs he is more attracted to a woman's personality than to her body.   Therefore he is not prone to be drawn into a struggle against temptations, which he does not have.     

A high instinctivity man, who only has rationally decided to treat a woman as an equal partner according to her needs, because he has cognitive conscious reasons to do so, including the wish to prevent losing her, needs to exercise a lot of self-control against strong instinctive urges to objectify women.   He is a hazard, because whenever his self-control has been depleted by any other task, he is prone to behave in an inconsiderate and irresponsible way. 
 

This has even further implications.    A relationship needs hard work and effort to improve it, to communicate about unpleasant conflicts, to face reality without denial and avoidance.    Sometimes a lot of willpower is needed to do this.  
Someone of low instinctivity, who does not need to waste his willpower on fighting the strong animal inside himself, has more willpower left to invest into the constructive work on the relationship.  
Also whenever a high instinctivity man has depleted his willpower in an attempt to solve relationship conflicts, he is prone to behave as a jerk due to not being able to resist some temptations.         

517. Realistic Expectations After Having Discarded The Myth Of The Free Will

517.   Realistic Expectations After Having Discarded The Myth Of The Free Will

This is the reply to a comment on entry 515.   

I am fully aware, that I can only expect good behavior from people, whose reasons for treating me well are beneficial for themselves according to any of the varieties described in entry 512.    As long as there is no such reason or as long as I am ignorant of them having such reasons, I consider people as a possible hazard for being hurt or harmed.   I am reluctant to trust and rely upon anybody, unless I know, what benefits they get or expect from me in return.

This is important for the choice of a mindmate, whom I need to be reliable and trustworthy enough to make a relationship a safe haven.    

I can realistically expect to be treated with behavior determined by care, consideration and responsibility only under at least the following conditions:
1.  The partner knows, what I subjectively experience as such behavior and what is required from him to provide me with this experience.   
2.  The partner derives benefits from being with me and is fully aware of them.  He appreciates the benefits without taking them for granted or feeling entitled to have them.

2.1.  He either evaluates the benefits as sufficient to justify to himself all the necessary disadvantages to earn them.  
2.2.  Or the benefits happen to be simultaneously beneficial for him and for me.  
3.  The partner bases his behavior consistently upon the expectation and anticipation of maintaining long term benefits and upon the realistic knowledge of the consequences for himself if behaving otherwise.

This of course has to be reciprocal.   I can only earn a safe haven for myself, if what I can offer is also perceived as sufficiently beneficial by the partner.  

I am realistic.   If someone is selfish, has entitlement delusions, takes one sided advantages for granted, then there is nothing to be done except to protect myself by keeping at a safe distance from such a jerk.     An entitlement delusion to perceive a woman as a utility is not a decision of a free will to change.  It is a predisposition of a jerk's brain, which makes being with him a hazard.   
As long as someone feels good about himself and about his own behavior, he will not change, no matter what I do or say.    Jerks cannot be changed, only avoided.