570. Politicians And Morals

570.   Politicians And Morals

As mentioned before, there is a biologically caused asymmetry of many men harming women by excessive instinctive urges for sexual homeostasis and of many women not only getting harmed but participating in their own self-harming due to their instinctive urges for breeding.    As a result, the co-evolved gullibility to religion has established a general desensitization to women's plight of being harmed.   Women's bodies being used by men is not perceived as an outrage and a transgression, but as morally acceptable and as their innate doom. 

But this attitude of accepting the desensitization has consequences far beyond merely harming individual women in private situations.    When someone considers and accepts it as correct behavior and his entitlement to harm women by abuse, commodification, objectification, exploitation and taking advantage, this indicates, that he is a hazard to others, not only to women.  

Not only are politicians elected to work for the benefits of their voters, who have entrusted their interests to them.    Politicians are also paid a salary out of tax payer's money, which is so high, that many of the voters can only dream of such an income.    The trust and the salary oblige politicians to balance their self-interest with the benefits owed to their voters.       

But this is not reality.   As can be easily derived from reading daily in the newspapers about the frequent scandals and misdemeanors of politicians, many of them seem to be more or less corrupt, drastically taking selfish advantages of their positions.   Some are limited by what they can do legally, many get even away with criminal transgressions.   

What a politician does to women is an excellent and valid indication of his attitude to his voters.   If the voters were fully aware of this, they would base their political choice not only on the promises of a politician, but also on his moral integrity.  

A man without hesitation nor inhibitions to cheat on his wife can be expected to also cheat on his voters.    A man not hesitating in abusing a prostitute's body for his selfish instinctive urges can be expected to abuse the power of his position for his own greedy selfish interests.    A man using his position as immunity to rape and harass women can be expected to be criminally corrupt.   

The frequent scandals reported in the press and news indicate clearly, how many of the male politicians are not only commodifying and objectifying women as if this were their entitlement and privilege, but that their position also supplies them with more occasions to harm women than has the average jerk.    

Unfortunately too many voters are themselves desensitized to abuse women and even the female voters are manipulated to overlook, that politicians forfeit their trustworthiness by abusing women.   These voters tolerate the immorality, which harms women, and then they are disappointed and angry, when the corrupt politicians fail to do, what the voters expect.   

But the impact of abusive politicians being reelected is even worse than their mere failing to fulfill their obligations.   The fact of having been voted for by many people creates their reputation as role models worthy to be copied, no matter how morally rotten they are.    

Every time, when a politician is reelected in spite of the public knowledge of his cheating and frequenting brothels, this emits a very wrong signal.   It reinforces the fatal social norm of oversexation, promiscuity and harming women by objectification. 

In an ideal world, politicians would only be elected, if they have sufficient moral integrity of not taking advantage of occasions to harm and exploit others, neither women nor voters. 

543. The Symmetry Or Asymmetry Of Men's Basic Attitude Determines Their Behavior Towards Women

543.   The Symmetry Or Asymmetry Of Men's Basic Attitude Determines Their Behavior Towards Women

In my reply to a comment on entry 540, I explained, how I can only prevent to be harmed and abused in a relationship by the reciprocal conscious choice of a partner, who realistically can expect to get his needs met without hurting or bullying me.   

I have outlined extensively in this blog, how I need to be treated and what treatment and behaviors are not acceptable.    This serves the purpose of enabling any interested man to check reciprocal suitability without hurting.   

This leads on to the problem of predicting the probability of being hurt as early as possible during any contact.    It is futile and even ridiculous to ask any man the direct question, if he commodifies and abuses women.    No man ever would reply in the affirmative.   Some men are not even aware of their own hidden real attitude.   What they believe to be justifiable behavior is experienced as abuse by women.

A man's real basic attitude towards women is more reliably inferred from his behavior.  Basic attitudes are usually congruent with the strength and predominance of instinctive needs and urges.   These attitudes are invisible or hidden, but the behavior is an observable expression of the attitudes.  

Men's basic attitudes towards women are either symmetrical or asymmetrical.  

A symmetrical attitude can be expected, when a man's innate needs are balanced, when his conscious non-physical needs for intellectual and emotional intimacy, activities and a safe haven shared with a bonded companion are at least as strong as his physical instinctive needs for homeostasis.    

Experiencing only or predominantly those instinctive needs leads to the asymmetry of the basic attitude.   

1.   Asymmetrical basic attitude.   

Commodification, objectification and peripherisation are asymmetrical varieties of the basic attitude, they all determine men to hurt and abuse women.  
These attitudes are expressed by the secondary attitude of implicit or explicit claims of entitlement, which are inappropriate, because they aim at acquiring onesided benefits only for these men.   Feeling entitled to benefits not otherwise available they also feel entitled to hurting and harming behaviors as the method to acquire the benefits.   
1.1.  In the case of the entitlement delusion, abusers are oblivious, that what they believe to be their entitlement, is considered and perceived as outrageous and preposterous by others.    Therefore it does not even occur to them to hide their entitlement delusion, to the contrary they are surprised, when the women disagree.    They get angry and aggressive bullies and they consider any woman as defective and flawed, who refuses to let them have, what they feel entitled to get.   They are the least hazard to women by being easily recognizable.
1.2.  The entitlement is combined with the awareness, that others disagree.   This makes them a hazard, because they use manipulations, tricks and pretense to get, what they feel entitled to but which is otherwise not available.   

1.3.   Sometimes men are not aware, that their behavior expresses entitlement.   Their fallacy of believing to be in agreement with a woman's symmetrical expectations makes them also a hazard.   More about this follows below.

2.  Symmetrical basic attitude.

Egalitarianism and bonded monogamy are varieties of a symmetrical basic attitude, which determines a man to have more reasons to protect a woman against being hurt and harmed than to inflict it upon them.    
These basic attitudes are expressed by secondary attitudes, as are for example responsibility, consideration, commitment as including obligations, caring, reliability, predictability, trustworthiness.    People often declare these attitudes explicitly as forming their value system, which they identify with.   But even without being consciously chosen, these secondary attitude determine specific behaviors.    


Unfortunately, things are more complicated.     The behavior is usually a fairly good indication of and congruent with the real basic attitude.   
But any verbal declaration of secondary attitudes cannot be relied upon, because they are influenced considerably by social, cultural and educational influences.   Someone's mere claim to be responsible does not imply, that he really knows, what responsibility means and what behavior expresses responsibility.      

As a consequence, when a man agrees with or even offers proactively to behave according to specific secondary attitudes, this is far from a guarantee for a woman to really be treated according to her expectations.   
In the case, that the man is not purposefully manipulating her, this is caused by the man using words without comprehending their full and correct meaning, which eludes him due to his lacking the corresponding basic attitude.   The man agrees with something, because he knows it to be expected from him or as the condition for being accepted.     But he agrees to give, what he has misunderstood as the meaning of the word, not what the woman expects by using the same word.   


Commitment is an example.     

Entitlement and feeling obligations are mutually exclusive.    When someone feels entitled to a benefit, this means he feels no obligation to give something back.  Whenever someone already considers something as his property or his due, he sees no logical reason to earn or acquire it by a deal.
Accepting an obligation is the contrary, it is the recognition of another person's entitlement to get benefits in return for what is given as part of a deal.

1.   A man with an asymmetrical basic attitude misunderstands commitment as a method of establishing entitlement by ascertaining his control over a woman.    This serves to get benefits from the woman at his convenience.  

2.   A man with a symmetrical basic attitude agrees on a deal concerning the benefits of the relationship for the woman as equally valid as his own.   He accepts commitment as including the obligation to fulfill his part of the deal in return for the benefits he gets.   

Both use the same word, commitment, but they do not mean the same.    When a man gets subjectively committed by feeling entitled and a woman subjectively gets committed with the expectations of a man being bound by obligations towards her, this will lead to serious suffering for the woman.   


The symmetry or asymmetry of the basic attitude depends on fairly stable innate traits as are the instinctive and the intellectual needs.  As long as men succeed to enforce getting benefits from commodification, they have no logical reason to give up their privileges.    Therefore it is rather improbably that a man's asymmetrical attitude changes into a symmetrical one.   

Appropriate treatment of a woman comes only natural, when it is grounded in a man's symmetrical basic attitude, while a man with an asymmetrical attitude is innately oblivious of how to treat a woman without hurting her.   

Such a man has a serious problem even when he is so much attracted to a specific woman, that this motivates him to attempt to treat her how she wants to be treated as the price for being accepted.    

He has not clue, how to behave, unless he gets a recipe for every situation.   He experiences, that every behavior, which is logical for him under the premise of his entitlement, fails and is rejected by someone, who expects him to fulfill obligations.

Whenever he is ignorant of the suitable recipe, he is prone to relapse to the inappropriate hurting behavior derived from his alleged entitlement.   
This causes a very fragile situation:  The woman is not respected as an equal, she is only a commodity temporarily treated as if she were appreciated and respected.  
This can only last, as long as this gives him subjectively more benefits then bullying her to usurp his alleged entitlement to benefits.   

She cannot be happy, because happiness requires to be perceived as an equal partner in a symmetrical relationship.  But due to his relapses she is fully aware of the indignation and degradation of not really being appreciated and respected, even though his attempts create the intermittent appearance as if. 

A woman's happiness requires a man's symmetrical basic attitude.     

540. Accepting Obligations By Agreement Or By Marriage

540.   Accepting Obligations By Agreement Or By Marriage

The rational choice of a partner for a relationship is based upon long-term cost-benefit calculations with the result of the deal being advantageous for both partners.   Such cost-benefit calculations use consent and realistic knowledge concerning costs and benefits not only for oneself but also for the partner to be.

Given sufficient intelligence, wisdom and maturity to accept the golden rule and the tit-for-tat principle, this implies to have accepted the costs as obligations, before deciding to start profiting from available benefits.   

Any attempts to get long-term benefits while refusing to accept obligations are doomed.  Accepting obligations and feeling bound by them once and for good is a part of what defines genuine commitment.  Such obligations are an indispensable requirement for making a relationship a safe haven of reliability, predictability and trustworthiness for each other.  
 

Unfortunately, there are substantial differences between the subjective definition of commitment and especially the perception of when it starts.  

Serious emotional disaster for women is caused by the unfortunate instinctive difference concerning the emotional impact of the first act of physical intimacy or the lack thereof.   

Some men, who are not jerks by feeling entitled to objectify women, are nevertheless caught by their need for homeostasis in the trap of the fallacy, that their being triggered to copulate with female bodies without emotional attachment were based upon the reciprocity of mere objectification not creating commitment.
Many women get emotionally attached and committed automatically by physical intimacy and their fallacy is to assume the automatic commitment to be reciprocal.  

 

1.   Commitment by agreement

Commitment by agreement is the reciprocal acceptance of obligations which starts, as soon as a couple agrees to be committed.   It is based upon both partners' full awareness of both fallacies and of the hazard of women's risk to be harmed and men's risk to be the one causing harm.    

While this is the only viable basis for a long term relationship, it can only work given full consent and awareness about what creates and constitutes commitment in the experience of the partner.   

Commitment by agreement is intrinsic commitment, the obligations accepted are to the partner as someone, whose needs are an expression of the individual personality.          

2.   Commitment by legal marriage

The signature at the town hall as the act of legal marriage is also an act of implicitly accepting obligations.   But these obligations are based upon the marriage laws of the country.    Legal marriage means accepting standard obligations, which are not a conscious choice based upon the recognition of the partner's real and individual needs. 
  

Commitment by legal marriage is extrinsic commitment.

3.   Comparing both commitments

Commitment by agreement is a deal between two persons.   While it is based upon the real needs of both partners, it depends entirely on their deliberate choice to continue to fulfill the obligations.   The partners have no legal power over each other.  (Any use of usurped power by physical or situational advantages is a transgression and breaking the agreement of two equals.)  The only power they have is leaving, when the other fails or commits transgressions.  

Commitment by legal marriage is a twofold deal with society as represented by the country's laws.   

It is a deal between each partner and society, and the focus of the legal obligations are financial and they do not matter, unless they are claimed and backed up by the power of the enforcing law.   Therefore legal marriage has the most impact not when there is harmony, but when there is failure.  
Commitment by legal marriage is also a deal between both partners and society as a power to give practical benefits, when being together is otherwise as problem, because both partners do not share the same citizenship.  


4.   Which commitment for whom?

4.1.   When a couple is compatible, bonded by the shared need for intellectual intimacy and companionship and their focus is upon the immaterial benefits of being each other's safe haven, then commitment by agreement and cohabitation are all they need.    Legal marriage brings no further benefits to the quality of their commitment.  

4.2.  In the case, that both partners are not from the same country then sometimes legal marriage is needed to enable being together.    But in this case, legal marriage cannot be a substitute for having been bound first by the agreed obligations of commitment.  

5.  The refusal to accept obligations without legal marriage indicates commodification

Some men consider legal marriage as the only possible and binding form of commitment.   They do not feel any obligations to a woman until marriage, while they do not hesitate to use her body at their convenience.    This is big red flag of commodification.  

Commitment by agreement as a deal with a woman requires the perception of her being significant as a partner with a mind.    A man, for whom a woman is a commodity or utility, is unable to perceive her as a person to make a deal with.

  
No man makes a deal with car about how to use it.   If a man makes a deal about the car, it is with the owner as how to use it and for what costs.   
When a man refuses to accept any obligations other than by legal marriage, he is like someone leasing the woman from society.   Legal marriage is such a man's deal with society for the goal of getting control over the commodified woman.

What the commodified woman wants and needs herself does not matter and is insignificant.  Such a man accepts as a price, whatever social norms, gender roles, religion or the political system behind the marriage laws in his country demand.   In his mind, he deals with society, which supplies a woman to him for the purpose of homeostasis and for other services, and he accepts the price demanded by society as his due.  
 

It is not enough to rely on a man's claims of wanting commitment, it is a fallacy to mistake a man's willingness to get married as an expression of commitment.   If there can be any valid indication of a man's attitude towards women, this can only be his acceptance and recognition of explicitly described and defined obligations.   

A wise woman never allows a man to touch her unless he accepts that this is the begin of commitment and of having obligations.   

A wise woman never marries a man, unless his behavior before marriage is very unequivocally guided and restricted by his acceptance of and full compliance with agreed upon obligations.

If a man cannot commit in his behavior without marriage, it cannot be expected that he will agree upon any obligations beyond those imposed by the marriage laws.    He will not behave any better after being married than before.

337. There Is No Safe Haven Without Reliability and Predictability

There Is No Safe Haven Without Reliability and Predictability

In entry 335, I explained the importance of avoiding the risk of being dumped by a wise choice of a compatible mindmate, who is able and motivated to commit to being bonded.  

Precluding dumping is one important step towards making a relationship predictable and reliable as a safe haven.

Fear, threat, insecurity, apprehension of being dumped are poison for a relationship.   To prevent this, it is of vital importance, that both partners explicitly accept the mutual obligation to first make efforts to solve their conflicts, no matter, how much stamina and strain is required, before they consider to end the relationship by consent.  The binding obligation to not dump under any circumstances has to be carved in stone for both partners.  Else there cannot be trust. 

If someone is either unable or unwilling to accept the no-dumping obligation, this is enough reason to abstain from getting involved.  
  
But this obligation is not to be misunderstood as a protection for a transgressor from the consequences.   Precluding proactive dumping does not prohibit an adequate reaction to a serious transgression.  Ending a relationship as a reaction to a dealbreaking transgression like cheating is not dumping.    Therefore the agreement being the precondition of getting involved has to include consensual definitions of what behaviors are transgressions.  I consider dumping as a transgression.  

The no-dumping obligation is also not a license for hurting and harmful behavior without taking responsibility as explained in entry 336.    If a partner causes harm irresponsibly, he is entitled to be given a fair chance, cooperation and support to change his behavior, but if he refuses, then ending a toxic relationship is also not dumping.    

Realistically seen, jerks cannot be impeded by any agreement from selfish, cruel and ruthless behavior.  
A jerk, who lures and tricks a woman to allow him the use of the body under the false pretense of committing, will also not hesitate to selfishly break any agreement by dumping a woman at his convenience. (entry 292)    
A jerk, who uses the explicit or obviously implicit threat of dumping as a method of extortion to secure himself a position of dominance and power does this, no matter what he had pretended to agree upon.  

Jerks need to be avoided by a wise choice of a compatible partner.    But a preventive no-dumping agreement can be very beneficial, when the fear of being dumped is caused by

• ignorance, unawareness, not knowing each other well enough
• misunderstandings, misinterpretations and an ambiguous situation
• lacking or deficient communication
• lack of any explicit clarification and consent concerning the status and kind of the relationship     
• desensitization as a result of mistakenly considering dumping as socially acceptable, because it happens too often
• bad experience of having been dumped before

The fear of being dumped has emotional and behavioral consequences, and their experience and expression are disruptive and destructive to both the individual wellbeing and the relationship.  

• stress, tension, helplessness
• being alert all the time without the ability to relax, walking on eggshells
• feeling compelled to censor and control verbal expressions and behavior
• denial and recoiling from solving conflicts
• grudging external submission to the will of the other
• serving the needs of the other but repressing the own needs 
• play a fake role
• dishonesty and insincerity
• hiding the own true feelings and true opinions

Such a situation cannot last.   Unsolved conflicts get worse.   Self-denial of all own needs leads to a breaking point, when the person cannot take more.   Nobody can hide the true personality forever, the final discovery of the fakery is much worse than if someone has been genuine from the beginning.  The person risks to get dumped and rejected as the fake person, while the hidden genuine person would have been accepted. 
Sometimes not only one, but both partners fear to be dumped and each is oblivious of the other having the same fear.

The consequences of the fear of being dumped can be experienced, even while there is no awareness for the reason or while they are attributed to other causes.  
The fear of being dumped can become so unbearable, that sometimes the afflicted find alleviation by dumping the other first to prevent being dumped.   This is especially tragic, if the other in reality had never even considered dumping.      

276. Needs, Habits, Consideration and the Relationship Deal

Needs, Habits, Consideration and the Relationship Deal
As already mentioned several times, a viable relationship is based upon fulfilling each other's relationship needs.   A relationship deal is an agreement about which needs each expects to be fulfilled as the purpose of having the relationship.   This also requires, that they agree about how much the fulfillment of every need costs the other.     This means that both partners evaluate, if they can principally fulfill all needs, and if the subjective costs of all the needs of the other are in proportion with what can be gained in return.

There are very different kinds of needs.   Some needs are

• practical, concrete and material, while others are emotional, abstract and immaterial.
• fulfilled by actively doing something, other needs are fulfilled by abstaining from doing something.
• very costly to fulfill, others are easily fulfilled or even cost nothing.
• simple, others are complex on different levels of abstraction.
• subjective and individual of the partner, other needs are based upon general obligations or consideration between decent and civilized humans.

1.  Subjective and individual needs:

Examples:

1.1.  A man snores horribly, whenever he drinks alcohol.    The woman has the need to sleep undisturbed by the snoring, so she asks him not to drink alcohol in the evening.  
This is a practical need.  It is a need for abstaining.  It costs him something, how much depends on how much he needs to drink something to relax, assuming that he is not an alcoholic.   

1.2.  A woman has the need to share as much as possible.   She wants to share activities, this is a practical need.   She wants to share decisions, this is an emotional need.  On the practical level, when money is limited, an important shared decision is the question, what to spend money on.    For example, she wants to spend money on vacations together.   
This is a material need.   Going on a vacation is an action.   The subjective cost can be high or low, this depends on how much the man feels deprived of having more money for personal purposes like buying an expensive car for himself.
It is also an emotional need.   Sharing and consulting her before every decision, that has consequences and any impact upon both her, is an expression of respect, of appreciation, of equality, of closeness, of being important enough to be included in his life.      
It costs him nothing, if he is bonded and sharing is also for him a basis of the relationship.    It is a very costly need, if he is someone considering himself as entitled to dominate.       

2.  The need for the partner's acceptance of his obligation to overcome disturbing habits.

Example:

A man has bad habits like using the f-word or burping, and this disturbs the woman.   When the woman asks him to stop those habits, it is not expressing a need in the sense of a favor to please her.    Overcoming disturbing bad habits is an obligation of politeness and civility.   This obligation is a part of commitment.  

It is important to be explicit in the relationship deal about the obligation to overcome bad habits and to agree, which behaviors are bad habits and which are to be accepted and tolerated as the partner's basic rights to be himself.      

3.  Considerations

Considerations means fulfilling individual needs of the partner, that cost nothing but are important her.
  
Example:

A woman dislikes everything Teutonic, because she associates it with the Nazi history and Auschwitz, and this includes names like Kriemhild (more in entry 186).  She has a strong aversion to be called by such a name.   
Not hearing the name is an emotional need of hers, which costs him nothing to fulfill.    It is an act of consideration.   Considerations are similar to overcoming bad habits, they are included in politeness and civility and therefore a part of the relationship deal.   


When a man fulfills all the woman's needs, that he has accepted in the relationship deal, and when he shows the civility to fight his bad habits and when he has considerations for her, then she can interpret this as an expression of his caring for, respecting, appreciating and valuing her. 

But if the men in my examples continue to drink in the evening, buy a car without consulting her, consider burping and calling her Kriemhild as their entitlement, then this expresses something fundamentally deficient in the relationship.    All these behaviors are clear indications of disrespect, depreciation and lack of caring.    By denying her her needs, civility and consideration, he denies her her most basic emotional need of being treated and perceived as a cherished equal valued and cared for partner.   

If the man appreciates her, and he fails to do something, that she rightfully expects, then he welcomes her feedback as a reminder for him to do, what he wants to do or feels an obligation to do.
But if the man depreciates her, and he fails to do something, that she rightfully expects, then he perceives her feedback as unwarranted criticizing and even as nagging.       

Therefore, the relationship deal and all agreements of a couple need to be carved in stone for both of them, until and unless they both agree unequivocally to change it.   Otherwise the relationship is doomed.   

271. Emotional Morons and Impaired Abstract Thinking - 1

Emotional Morons and Impaired Abstract Thinking - 1

In entry 161, I distinguished between the jerk and the emotional moron in the amount of damage done to a mature woman due to the absence or presence of a conscience.  
In entry 264, I compared the emotional effects of an emotional moron with those of Procrustes.

But my description of an emotional moron was only describing one subtype.    The problem is more complex.  

The damage done by an emotional moron depends on two main factors.

1.   He does not know, how to treat the woman according to her wishes and needs.  
2.   He cannot be influenced by her to treat her the way she needs to be treated.

In scenario 2 of entry 161, I described the emotional moron as an immature man with enough insight, empathy and perception to allow to be influenced to improve.    He is someone, who has developed at least normal intelligence and abstraction abilities, but his development of emotional intelligence is delayed and lagging behind, maybe as a result of not having had the occasion to learn.   

There is a different type of emotional moron, who appears even more like a jerk without being one.    He has a general problem with impaired abstract thinking.   

1.  The emotional moron with impaired abstract thinking is oblivious of how to treat a woman the way she needs to be treated, but he does not know it. 

The development of the human mind goes from egocentric and concrete thinking during childhood to the ability of abstract thinking of adults.    Abstract thinking also is a development from the simple knowledge, that for example what someone says can be either true or false to the more complex understanding of the manipulative purpose of lies and intrigue.  

When someone's development gets stuck somewhere between concrete and simple abstract thinking, this causes an impairment in his coping with many aspects of life.    This can remain unnoticed by superficial contact.   It has the most detrimental impact on very close persons like a partner or family members.  

An excellent memory enables a person with impaired abstract thinking to compensate so well, that he can bluff others to appear intelligent.  He does not bluff consciously, he bluffs himself too, because he is not aware, that he has a deficit.  He lives with the belief, that all others are like him, having an excellent memory and concrete thinking.  He even can get a university degree by memorizing abstract ideas so well, that he can pass tests by reproducing, what he had read without comprehension.    He can impress people by talking about what he has not really understood, as long as he can avoid situations, where appropriate behavior is impossible unless guided by the full comprehension of complex abstractions.     He may fail at a job without this being attributed to a lack of abstract thinking neither by him nor by others. 

Emotional intelligence is more than the innate ability to feel empathy for someone visibly experiencing something familiar due to own experience.   It requires also the simple abstract thinking to perceive, that the other can visibly experience things, that oneself does not experience the same way, and comprehend, that this is nevertheless the other's valid reality.   But that is not enough, there is also the requirement to accept, that the other has a subjective reality, that is not visible and different from the own.    This reality is only accessible by inquiry about the other's feelings and needs, and by taking the answer for serious and at face value.   A caring mature partner uses this information as his guidance how to treat the partner.
  
The emotional moron, who is stuck in concrete thinking, is unable to take this perspective.   Depending on when his development got stuck, caring is limited.   He can emphasize with tooth ache and project his own physical needs upon the partner.    But the abstract understanding of the hidden different but genuine needs, emotions and perception of another person is beyond his ability.  
Just as he can bluff to appear intelligent, he can also use his good memory to bluff himself and his partner to appear having emotional intelligence.   As with general intelligence, as soon as he needs to behave in accordance with his bluff, of which he is unaware, he fails.  

1.1.   The emotional moron cannot experience abstract emotions.

Example.   An emotional moron has derived theoretical knowledge about relationship matters from books and he believes to know how to treat a woman.   As a result, he promises her to never embarrass her.    She is pleased and misinterprets this as an indication of his emotional intelligence.    But the word embarrassing just does not mean the same to him as to her.   
For him, it has only the very simple concrete meaning of not showing any really gross behavior in public.    For her, the word means a lot more, it is an abstract concept of never doing anything, that would cause her to feel bad due to strangers being witnesses of what he does.    For her, conduct like letting strangers hear private conversations, bad table manners, public inappropriate behavior of any subtle kind and much more are embarrassing, while for him, it is not, because he is oblivious, that such behavior can be perceived as embarrassing by anybody.
As a consequence, in spite of his good intentions and his promise, he is unable to avoid to embarrass her once in a while.   This has detrimental consequences on two levels.    Not only does she feel embarrassed by his behavior, while he has no clue of what he is doing to her.   Even worse, on a more abstract and complex level, she feels betrayed by the fact, that he has broken his promise.  This is painful to her and he is unable to comprehend it.    

In his concrete reality, only emotions and sensations like hunger, fear and anger are real.    In her abstract reality, there are complex and abstract emotions, like respected or hurt dignity, appreciation or depreciation, equality or humiliation and much more, that he has never felt.    He has some fuzzy and vague idea of the meaning of words like dignity, and believes to know, what they mean.   But he has no clue, that he is personally void of something.   He believes that such abstract emotions are rare and experiencing them is restricted to the realm of special people like philosophers.      Therefore he is unable to comprehend or even imagine to ever cause her such feelings, and  even less that those feelings can be strong enough to have an devastating effect upon her.  

1.2.  The emotional moron cannot experience the emotions derived from abstract concepts and life philosophies:

Example:  Concepts like intrinsic commitment as a safe haven based upon the trust that the partner is reliably bound by accepted obligations is far beyond the impaired abstract abilities of an emotional moron.   
His concrete world is simple:   Marriage means to accept all the obligation, that the law has defined for a married man.  Any other obligations are unknown to him and beyond his imagination.   For him a monogamous relationship without being married is exactly the same as being friends with benefits with exclusivity added.  He is oblivious of any implicit obligations beyond not cheating.  He sincerely considers himself as a single man, free to do, what he wants to do.    What he in this concrete thinking believes to be correct behavior, in her reality of abstract emotions can be a transgression and a painful, even traumatic experience.    

When a woman gets involved with a man based upon his declaration that he means it to last for the rest of his life, she takes this as an implicit promise to be a committed partner sharing decisions.    When he then decides something important by himself, excluding and not even consulting her, in his concrete thinking he has acted appropriately as a single man.   To her, it is a very serious pain on two levels of abstraction.   First, she feels very disrespected as not important enough to be consulted, but on a more abstract level, she feels this as a betrayal in her understanding of commitment.   


To be continued

145. Caring Man or Jerk - 7

Caring Man or Jerk - 7
There are also other forms of betrayal, that are more general then dumping as described in entry 143.    This concerns the obligation of being bound by agreements as an expression of basic morals. 

1.  For mature sensitive people, breaking a bond is a very painful and traumatic experience.    Wise people attempt to avoid it by not getting bonded prematurely.   They know, that they cannot prevent long term developments, but they can prevent short term disaster.   Therefore they do the following, before sealing commitment:

1.1.  They verify, if they are emotionally, ethically, intellectually compatible.  
 

1.1.1.  They make sure, that they share all basic values and attitudes.   They agree, what they consider both as transgressions.   They make sure, that there is nothing, that one considers a transgression, while the other feels no inhibitions to do it.  
1.1.2.  They both declare all their needs and requirement from the partner in the relationship. 
1.1.3.  Each makes a careful introspection, if s/he can fulfill the other's needs, and how much they perceive it as a sacrifice.   
1.1.4.  This includes also the extrapolation of fulfilling those needs for a long time to come, not only momentarily. 
1.1.5.  They both evaluate, if there are obstacles, that cannot be overcome.   If not, they calculate each, if the relationship is beneficial.  

1.2.  If they have no doubt, that the relationship is beneficial for both, they continue.  

1.2.1.  They plan the framework of the relationship, that includes how to organize the practical modalities of the life together, where to live, how to handle material resources and such.    
1.2.2.   They define the relationship.   What is exclusive for them, what has priority, what is shared, what behavior is a transgression, which needs they fulfil for each other and how.   Each agrees explicitly not to do, what the other wants never to suffer.    
 
1.3.  They both agree, that the framework and definition of the relationship are binding, as soon as the have entered and sealed commitment.   They both accept the mutual obligation to stick to it, until they both agree together to modify it.   
This makes the relationship reliable and predictable.  Every onesided change of this agreement is a betrayal, because it is a breach of the trust, that what is accepted at the moment of getting involved is really, what the relationship will be like.  
The sealing of the agreement has to be based on two principles.  WYGIWYA:   What you get is what you accept.   WYAIWYG:   What you accept is what you get.  
That means, that getting involved based upon an agreement is accepting exactly that agreement without any hidden agenda of changing it later or attempting to modify it.   It means also not to expect and demand more than what is included in the agreement.  
Of course, this does not exclude the necessary process of mutual adaptation concerning habits.  

When someone bases the decision to get involved in a committed relationship upon an agreement, while this person would not enter the relationship without this agreement, then this makes sticking to the agreement an obligation and breaking the agreement a serious betrayal and transgression. 

2.  Jerks dump easily, because they are bonding-disabled.   They do not feel bound by any agreement.   They get involved by infatuation, without consideration for the partner.  

2.1.  Some examples:  
2.1.1.   If one wants children, the other not, they are not compatible.    If they both agree on not having children, and a few months later, one starts to want children, this is not correct.   This person should have made a more thorough introspection.   But by getting involved, this person now has an obligation to stick to the conditions of having accepted a childfree relationship.   The jerk continues to put pressure for the purpose of breeding, it is betrayal, and if the jerk ends the relationship to find another breeder, it is also betrayal.  
2.1.2.  If the man has accepted not to indulge in any dangerous activity, because the woman would worry too much about him, then buying a motorcycle a few months later against her protest is betrayal and he is a jerk.   Planning to buy the motorcycle, he was not compatible and should not have got involved.   After getting involved, it was his obligation not to buy a motorcycle.
2.1.3.  An ethical vegetarian and a meateater are not compatible.   If the meateater agrees to stop eating meat, but starts to eat meat again after a few months, this is also an act of betrayal and he is a jerk.    The meateater has accepted to respect the vegetarians values, and is obliged to stick to it.
2.1.4.  When the couple has agreed, where to live, and this is for some external reasons the only possible place, but one changes his mind after getting involved, he is a jerk and this is a serious betrayal.   Refusing to be together at the agreed upon only possible place is a form of dumping.   

A jerk, who does not feel bound by agreements, is not suitable for me.