732. How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

732.   How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

This continues entry 702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women, which seems to have been misunderstood.    So I add some clarification:

An unpartnered man, who respects women as humans with a brain and a personality, behaves following these guidelines: 

He recognizes the risk of making himself a nuisance to women and the necessity to avoid this.   He accepts to prevent causing any harm to women and to his own ability to respect woman.   He never copulates like an alley dog, not by payed abuse nor by taking advantage of the consent of women without self-respect.   His need to cope with his recurrent physiological tensions requires a non-abusive method to maintain his homeostasis.

This method is the unrestricted use of his hand but with the clear cognitive attitude and goal of this being a merely mechanical way of cleansing.  
He is motivated to not jeopardize his respectful attitude towards women.   Therefore he avoids anything, which would desensitize him and which would trick his subconscious mind to automatically confound female bodies as toilets for his body waste.   
He distinguishes cognitively between mechanical cleansing and physical intimacy as a facet of a longterm monogamous bonded attachment.  

Therefore he never looks at pornography.  
 

Pornography has been made by abusing real women.  The customer of pornography is mislead towards the cognitive pseudo-justification and trivialization of watching women apparently enjoying copulation.  He avoids cognitive dissonance by the complete denial, that abused and disgusted women have only feigned and pretended in front of a camera, what appeals to the animal in him.  

The realistic quality of photos and movies tricks the male mind to confuse the combination of his manipulations while merely watching as if he himself had also experienced the performance of what he does not recognize as abuse.   The result of habitual exposure is a fatal desensitization and subconsciously learning and enhancing the automatic and spontaneous degradation of women as objects.   

Exaggerated male urges for female bodies have evolved over millions of years.   Photography only exists since 200 years.  Therefore a man needing mechanical relief can perform this without pornography.  

He never fantasizes about any really existing woman.  

Alley dog copulation without longterm emotional attachment and respect for a woman's brain and personality are mutually exclusive.  
When a man's animal instincts make him feel the urge to copulate like an alley dog, his choice of subsequent behavior makes a big difference only for the targeted woman.   If a man approaches her suggesting the physical abuse of her body, this informs her of his disrespect.   If he only abuses her in his fantasy while finding solitary relief, she usually does not even know it.  
But for the man's subconscious mind in both cases the experience is similar.  It is the successful and pleasurably rewarded degradation of a woman's body as a toilet.   Thus his respect for her person is damaged in both cases, no matter if she has agreed to real abuse or if her agreement was only a part of his fantasy.   

Only the woman, who is approached, can show her indignation and adjust her behavior towards him.   In the case of fantasized abuse, the targeted woman is impeded from appropriate reactions by the ignorance of his unnoticed disrespect.   While due to her unawareness of his hidden degradation and insult she continues to be friendly to an unworthy man, his subconscious mind is prone to misinterpret her lack of any indignation as consent or even encouragement.   

The side effect hereof is the deformation of his expectations and his accompanying loss of respect for women.  Instead of acknowledging all degradation and objectification of women as an outrage, he gets mislead to consider the indignation of women with self-respect as a defect in comparison with too many women appearing to him as if not bothered. As the result of this desensitization he considers only those women, who seem to comply with their own objectification, as healthy and appealing.    

Preserving the ability to respect women requires to avoid this effect.   

Any man, who disagrees with these guidelines, does not respect women.  

665. Possible Disruptions When Avoiding To Harm

665.   Possible Disruptions When Avoiding To Harm

As mentioned several times already, I consider the Epicurean principle of not harming as the basis of how I want to interact with other people.  I prefer to avoid those, who are determined otherwise like for example religious people, who justify harming by an alleged reward in the afterlife.
 

 
When two persons respect each other as equals and are consciously motivated to avoid harming each other, this does not automatically mean the absence of disruption by involuntary harming.

Harming includes hurting the other's feelings.   This implies the involvement of two sides, one person behaving in a specific way and another person perceiving this behavior as painful.

Some causes of disruption:

1.  Misunderstanding of the situation.    

Both can be guided by disparate and incongruent implicit expectations and unverified imaginary options.   
Well meant behavior based upon one set of such implicit presumptions can be perceived as for example betrayal, disappointment, disregard or depreciation by someone with another set.     This is the case for proactive and reactive behavior. 

2.  Not knowing the other well.    

Not harming by consideration is not possible without knowledge of the other's individual resilience and sensitivities. 
The responsibility of behaving morally according to one's own standards does not suffice to avoid, that the other feels hurt by the subjective perception of for example offense, slight, humiliation or rejection.    

3.  Misinterpretation due to lacking trust.  

Trust or the lack thereof has an impact upon the interpretation of the other's behavior and utterings as either benevolent or as a cause for suspicion.   Someone not trusting and feeling slighted can jump to the conclusion, that there really is a slight.

Some methods to avoid such disruptions

1.   Avoiding ambiguity.   

Clear agreements, explicit consent and outspoken options can lead to congruity and realism of expectations.    It allows a rational choice between pursuing or abandoning an endeavor.

2.   Adding consideration to responsibility.   

Acquiring sufficient knowledge about the other's value system, focus of identity and the impact of past experiences enables people to behave with consideration.   Involuntary hurting can best be avoided by knowing as much as possible of the other's subjective perception of all relevant behaviors.    

While responsibility can be regarded as a general moral obligation, consideration adds deliberate care for the other's wellbeing.

3.  The benefit of the doubt.   

Restricting all evaluation of the other to using the most trustful interpretation of his behavior avoids to mistake distrusting interpretations as indicating and even evidence for the justification of distrust.   Acting as if trusting enables real trust to grow, while this does not preclude to be nevertheless prepared for discovering the justification of the distrustful interpretation.  
Someone feeling slighted can ask back for further explanation in the awareness, that what he feels is only subjective and can be based upon wrong premises.

These methods constitute a learning process accomplished by rational and constructive communication, outspoken, direct, blunt and to the point of the matter.   

It is a learning process for both sides.   Learning how to be considerate is only possible, when the one feeling hurt acknowledges and admits the own vulnerability and refrains from blaming, grudging or accusing.  

I am aware that this does not sound very romantic.   But the special situation of beginning a contact by written messages and thus void of all non-verbal information asks for specific proceedings.  

The first step is a reciprocal consent and awareness concerning the options.    This means reciprocally ascertaining, that what each wants and needs as a goal is principally indeed offered by the other.      
The second step is a phase of constructive communication, which can lead to either the planning of a real life meeting or to the decision to abandon this goal.    
 

A well prepared meeting is then also the moment to start becoming romantic.

645. The Implications Of Men Fighting Over Women

645.    The Implications Of Men Fighting Over Women 

I recently read an article, which while mainly about another topic mentions men fighting over women.  

"NC: I reported in my 1988 article, “Life Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in a Tribal Population” (Science 239: 985-992) that unokais (men who had killed others) had 3 times the average number of children than same-age non-unokais and 2.5 times the average number of wives."

"I found the Yanomamö quite violent, without any outside provocation making them so, and that their violence revolved around competition for women. Specifically, there was chronic and sometimes violent competition to obtain nubile, young females."

"Now if a scientist studying yaks, bullfrogs, bats, deer, salamanders, or any non-human animal stated that they competed for opportunities to mate, no one in biology would have taken that to be anything other than an accurate observation. But if you say that about human beings, it becomes “lurid speculation.”"

Source: 

Savage Science: Excerpt of an Interview of Napoleon A. Chagnon
by Frank Miele, Senior Editor, Skeptic Magazine
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-03-06/


Being a woman, I perceive men, who fight over access to and control over women, as a hazard. 

A not partnered man experiencing sexual dishomeostasis often encounters obstacles between his instinctive urges and the access to a woman's body.    Depending upon circumstances, these obstacles are varieties of who controls this access.  Men's methods how to react to these obstacles depend not only upon the factual control, but also upon an individual man's attitude towards women.

1.   When women are controlled and owned by men.   

Under different social and historical circumstances, there are and have been many situations, where women are and were under the control of men, enforced by structural power and physical strength.   This control can be legal or illegal, the controlling men can be family members, religious gurus, autocratic leaders, owners of slaves, captors, abductors, kidnappers, who restrict the access to the women under their power.  
Access can only be obtained by fighting, payment or clever means of outwitting and overriding this control.    Any transfer of who controls a woman is between men, while the woman herself has no influence.

Depending on his general attitude towards women, a man's congruent behavior respects or denies the woman's own wishes to have control over herself. 

1.1.  A man freeing a respected women attempts to win her consent by creating emotional attachment and commitment and he disagrees with any man's usurped alleged right to control a woman.   History, fairy tales, fables and novels are full of such stories.  

1.2.  A man with the attitude of subjectively justified objectification and commodification acquires control over a woman as over the possession of a utility.    Having the delusion that acquiring control creates unlimited rights, he abuses women in disregard of their own wishes.   The victory of one man over the other determines, who will be the one imposing the abuse upon women, who themselves have no chance to avoid this..    

2.   When women have themselves the legal and/or factual control over their own body.  

In this situation, a rational man respecting and appreciating a woman as an equal partner with her own capacity to decide does not fight or compete with other men over her.    He recognizes that only the woman herself is entitled to deny or allow access to her body.   He knows that unless she needs to be freed from another man's illegal and unjustified control as in 1.1., every agreement for any interaction is strictly between him and her.   

As long as their behavior is correct and not breaking any preexisting freely chosen obligations, nobody else matters or has a right to interfere.   Even in the case of a cheating woman, she is herself responsible for the transgression.  The betrayed partner has a right to direct his consequences to her, but this does not justify to fight over her as if she were a stolen possession.

Fighting over women can have many forms.   While animals and some men fight by using physical violence, in modern societies men often compete by more subtle means.   But this still implies blatant disregard for women's ability to decide for themselves.
The story of the wager in entry 119 is a good example.    Even though in this event the woman apparently made her own choice, the circumstances were created by two men.  She was manipulated by them for the purpose of winning a wager.  

There is a very serious and dangerous fallacy in a man's thinking, if he competes and fights over a woman with another man, who has no factual legal or illegal control over her.   Such fighting implies a man's lack of respect and regard for the woman as a person.    

2.1.   Fighting over women implies a general justification of male control and dominance over women.    Instead of principally rejecting such control, men fight over who of them can have it.   

2.2.  Men fighting over a woman deprive her of the choice between all of them.   The loser usually is no more available to her.   Either the winner impedes the loser(s) to get near her, or they withdraw discouraged.   Even a winner, who has enough consideration to not attempt to control her, thus limits who other than he himself gets a chance to attempt winning her consent.  

2.3.  Men competing misrepresent themselves in their attempts to appear each better than the other.  This deprives her of a more realistic assessment of any of them, which would enable her rationally evaluate each of them compared with her needs.    Competing has the best result for those men with the most advanced skills as manipulators, bluffers and liars.  

2.4.  A man fighting over a woman often respects his rival more than he respects the woman.   In this case he fights mainly for the psychological benefits of winning against a valued opponent.  Winning is the main objective, the woman herself is not important.  

2.5.  Fighting means taking risks of being harmed and it means strain and effort.    Therefore the winner is inclined to feel entitled to his prize.   But winning the fight only removes another man as an obstacle, it does not automatically make the woman want him.
Some men are afflicted with the fallacy of wrongly assuming, that as the winners they are automatically attractive and wanted by the women.   

Thus they are prone to become a nuisance when not accepting the woman's rejection.
If such a man would realistically consider the probabilities of a woman's choice between consent and rejection, this would make fighting less attractive.  It would motivate him to attempt to win her directly instead and respect her choice.   

644. A Literary Example Of A Delusional Man

644.  A Literary Example Of A Delusional Man

I just listened to the audio version of The Golden Silence by C.N and A.M. Williamson, which is legally available at
http://librivox.org/the-golden-silence-by-cn-and-am-williamson.  
(I really appreciate the excellent work of all the volunteers at librivox.org and www.litteratureaudio.com, who have done the reading of this and many other books.)

I am aware that this book was written in 1911, more than a hundred years ago, and I know, that the world has changed since then.   I am also aware, that what is told as a fictional story, does not imply it ever having happened in real life.   
Yet somehow it seems very probable, that a man can really be as delusional and as dangerous as was that man in the story, and this is very scary.   

By circumstances of the story, a young girl got under the power of an islamic man somewhere in northern Africa.  He had become very infatuated with her beauty and he pretended and believed to love her.   According to his understanding of correct behavior and honor, he wanted her as his wife.   So he threatened to force her into marriage, if she would not consent.   

But love requires respect for an equal, which he did not have for her.   His complete disrespect for her own ability to know herself, what is best for her, caused him the delusion, that forcing himself upon her were beneficial for her, so that he could do this without having any bad conscience.   

Two quotes summing it up: 

"I do not fear thy hate. When thou belongest to me, I will know how to turn it into love."

"Give me thy love, and thou canst bend me as thou wilt.  Refuse it, and I will break thee."

Such a delusion in combination with the power to enforce it makes a man dangerous.   But when his religion also tells him, that having power over women, and having four wives and an unlimited number of concubines is the will of his deity, then he is any woman's worst possible enemy.     

While this story is an extreme example, unfortunately many men are misguided to sincerely overestimate the benefits of what they do to women and to underestimate without any doubt the harm they do.  

574. The Baseline Of Insignificance

574.   The Baseline Of Insignificance

There are billions of people of this globe.   I know that they exist as an abstract mass of people, but not as individuals, as long as I have never even heard their individual names.  They are insignificant for me personally.    This has nothing to do with the ingroup-outgroup instinct.   The German stranger living down the street is as insignificant to me as any stranger on another continent.  

I perceive all human beings as a kind of prototype, as long as they are not known to me personally as individuals.  People visibly and unequivocally engaging in specific behaviors, no matter if for example performing religious rituals or as spectators at a sports event, are a subgroup of the general prototype distinguished by one of more special additional attributes.  

The existence of these prototypical humans has only one impact upon myself:  They are beings not to be harmed.  
Not harming as the baseline of behavior with strangers requires nothing more than distant politeness in the case of superficial haphazard interactions.  As long as I keep away from them and it causes no harm, I am free to choose, what to think or say about them.   
Their insignificance for me is the baseline.   I owe them no proactive beneficial behavior.    I do not owe them any respect, because I cannot know, if they as individuals deserve it or not.   


Based upon this, it is justified to discreetly ridiculing the weird irrational behaviors of people in Lourdes as explained in entry 573.  

• It is not harming by propagating prejudice.   Laughing at irrational expressions is laughing at something really and publicly displayed.   Propagating prejudice would mean to make unfounded detrimental claims by alleged contingencies. 
  
• It is neither interpersonal cowardice not talking behind people's back, because both these behaviors are clearly defined as reproachable under the limiting conditions of concerning people personally known.
  Encouraging a person into his face to pray for health and then talk with others behind his back about his foolishness to pray is cowardice. 
  Being told in confidence about someone's illness and then breaking the trust of telling this to others is talking behind his back.
  Sharing the opinion about how expecting to be cured in Lourdes is preposterous and laughing about it is neither of this, because it concerns the public behavior of strangers. 
  Nobody has any rational reason and even less moral obligation to approach a complete stranger to inform him of the own unfavorable cognitive reaction to his public behavior (unless the interference serves to protect a third party).      
  The rational reason to approach a stranger would be the intention of mutually beneficial interactions, not to offend him.
  
• The absence of personalization is not the same as depersonalization.   As stranger is insignificant but is considered as the prototype of a person entitled to not be harmed, he has just not been known as having an individuality.   
  Depersonalization is an ingredient in the justification of harming by commodification.   Depersonalization is the wilful undoing of a previous personalized contact for the purpose of asymmetrical advantages.  

468. Reactions To Alleged Flaws

468.   Reactions To Alleged Flaws

The topic of entry 466 was the implication, that ascribing a flaw means the indirect claim of the allegedly flawed person's inferiority.   There is a clear distinction between a friendly and respectful noticing of someone's peculiarities and the devaluation of ascribing a flaw. 

1.  My definition of a flaw:

A flaw is a peculiar attribute, that is   

• detrimental to the own life of the flawed person or
• detrimental to the targets of flawed behavior

1.1.  A flaw is not trivial. 
It is a significant detriment according to the evaluation or experience of the one calling it a flaw.  Without being detrimental, it is a peculiarity and not a flaw.   Ascribing a flaw is a devaluation, calling something a peculiarity is not. 
Alleging a flaw without consent is always an insult, even when someone recognizes having the peculiar attribute, but disagrees to evaluate it as detrimental.  
When the alleged flaw concerns attributes or traits contributing to the person's identity, then it is not only an insult, but a rejection of the person. 

1.2.  There are detriments, that people cannot agree about, unless they share some basic values and attitudes.  

1.2.1.  A good example is the reciprocal disrespect of christians and atheists.  
For an atheist like me, a christian is flawed, because his behavior is often detrimental to others not sharing his beliefs.   Christians' belief in the reward in the afterlife is their justification to hurt others.  

Christians believe atheists to be detrimental to themselves as they are believed to suffer in hell.  

Atheists and christians can never agree on who is flawed, because they derive the logic for their mutual evaluation from incompatible premises. 

1.2.2.   When people share basic values and they are mutually significant as equals, then flaws are experienced as disruptive for their relationship.  This goes both ways, because they want to respect and to be respected.  Apparent flaws are a problem to be solved.   Both partners communicate, until there is no more misunderstanding and misinterpretation leading to the allegation of non-existing flaws.  

1.2.3.   There is a difference between permanent irreversible and temporary flaws.  

A person's real but temporary flaws like irritating bad habits or states of stress can be overcome, when the flawed partner accepts support from the other.    This requires agreement concerning the detriments and disadvantages of the flawed behavior.  Based upon this agreement, the partners can cooperate towards reducing the flaw and restoring equality. 
Innate promiscuity is an example of an irreversible flaw.    Innate promiscuity is an incurable detriment to any person with the quality of innate monogamy.    

2.  The target's reaction to the allegation of a flaw depends on the social roles and the reciprocal personal significance.

2.1.  People are usually not bothered about flaws alleged by insignificant persons.   Not sharing basic values or the awareness of each other's disrespectful opinion impedes any attraction between people.  They do not become significant. 

2.2.  There are specific problems of disruptive entanglement in family constellations, where the significance precedes the allegation of flaws.  Examples are siblings, of whom one is a christian and the other an atheist or one is a soldier and the other a pacifist.

2.3.  Situations of asymmetrical significance can be very painful.   People wish to be reciprocally considered and treated as equals and as significant by those, who are significant for them.   A person's significance determines, how much his allegations of flaws are experienced as insults, humiliations, degradations and indignities.     It is a very disruptive situation, when a person does not reciprocate his significance to another, but instead claims his superiority by alleging flaws and expecting acquiescence.   
    

2.3.1.  Between men, such an insult often provokes aggression, fighting and even bloodshed. 

2.3.2.  When women are men's targets of the same insult, they are supposed and expected to react with acquiescence.  The implications of this upon women as partners in a relationship or when choosing a mate are the topic of the next entry.  

411. The Myth Of The Nice Guy Syndrome

The Myth Of The Nice Guy Syndrome

"A typical nice guy is perceived to put the needs of others before his own, avoids confrontations, does favors, gives emotional support, and generally acts nicely towards women." 

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

This description makes a guy attractive as a long-term monogamous partner.   In spite of this, there are countless web pages spreading the myth, that women prefer jerks and that there were something wrong with the nice guys.   

I disagree with this myth.  The problem is much more complex.

1.  Evolutionary biology.

Subconscious instincts for choosing a mate have most probably the same strength for men and women.  But they differ in which instinct is predominant.   The average man's predominant instinct is the recurrent need for sexual homeostasis.  The average woman's predominant instinct is the urge to procreate.   
As a consequence, man's instincts are indiscriminately focused upon a momentary use of any female body.    Woman's procreative instincts are selective and focused upon the genetic fitness and abilities as a long-term provider for their progeny.   
This causes the natural asymmetry of men as predators frequently approaching a variety of prey and getting rejected regularly.   Monogamy reduces the predator prey problem only for those, who are committed couples.    

2.  Attitude towards women.

  
Jerks and nice guys share the same instinctive automatic reaction of consciously or subconsciously drooling over women's bodies, especially when they are not in any relationship.    But their attitude, moral and value system are fundamentally different.

Nice guys respect women.   They take them for serious, they take a no for a no, they respect a woman's wishes and they are honest.  
 

Jerks do not respect women.   They consider them as existing to be used at their convenience.   Jerks feel entitled to use a woman's body by hook or crook.   If a woman rejects the undisguised attempts to be used as a one-night object, jerks lie and manipulate, until they have made the woman yield by the false belief to have found a long-term mate.  

3.  Female stupidity is one cause of the myth.  

Therefore nice guys' observation, that the jerks get the women and they themselves are left over, is not caused by female preference but by their stupidity.   The claim, that women prefer the jerks, is a myth.   This myth is based upon the combination of the jerks' emotional psychopathy of ruthlessly tricking women and the women's stupidity, immaturity and inability to avoid being tricked into a jerk's bed.  

4.  Nice guys' stupidity is the second cause of the myth. 

Those nice guys, who experience being rejected too often, are also in a way stupid and/or immature.   They do not choose wisely, whom they approach.   They are not aware, that they are morally superior to the jerks and that they deserve a good woman, who can appreciate them.   They approach indiscriminately all the women, who subconsciously trigger their instincts, no matter if the women do deserve the nice guys or not.   They get rejected too often by unworthy women, and being sensitive, they get discouraged.   

The less someone is intelligent, mature and self-aware, the more he is a helpless and unaware victim of uncontrolled instincts.   This is true equally for men and for women.   

     
5.  Business

Markets for goods and services grow, where there is a demand and where there is money to buy the goods or services, that are not available for free.   

Men's instinctive needs for recurrent sexual homeostation, which are not met due to the asymmetry between male and female instincts, have created a market of sold services.     This is enhanced by the fact, that financial power has traditionally been controlled by men.   

For jerks, the market sells prostitution and pornography.  This is based upon the conscious acceptance of using women as commodities and merchandise.     

For nice guys, there is also a market, which has been created by PUA (pick-up-Animals) trainers, who are propagating the myth, which they describe as the nice-guy-syndrome.   They have created this market by deliberately blaming the failure of nice guys to find a mate on an alleged deficiency in their personality and behavior,
  
These trainers take advantage of the nice guys to make money, because nice guys have also an urge for sexual homeostation, but they are too decent to even consider buying the use of women's services as a commodity like jerks do.  
These trainers are a big fraud.   The methods to successfully lure a woman into bed for temporary abuse of her body and the methods to successfully get involved into long-term monogamous commitment are very different.    The temporary use is based upon disrespect for women, commitment is based upon respect for women.  
These fraudulent trainers are themselves successful jerks unable to even value or appreciate monogamy.   Instead they make the nice guys believe, that they can learn how to be successful to find a woman for the long-term monogamous relationship they really want by paying for the training of how to become a jerk and learn the tricks how to gain access to the use women's bodies.  
Just as a disrespecting jerk is unable to be committed in monogamy, also a respecting nice guy cannot apply disrespectful behaviors for the respectful goal of commitment.    

Therefore as long as a nice guy continues to respect women, jerk training does not do him any good.   While he may suffer less from outright rejections, he will instead suffer more from painful entanglement of failed relationship with incompatible women.  

6.  Tit-for-tat strategy:

True love and affection are reciprocally interdependent.    Perceived affection and care reinforce and strengthen affection.   Therefore a healthy mature relationship is based upon the proactive tit-for-tat strategy.   Each partner gives as much affection, care, benevolence as a first step, hoping to reinforce the other's genuine wish to give as much back.    This of course is based upon a careful choice of a compatible partner.   This means, that they reciprocally appreciate what they get, because it is congruent with their real needs, wishes, tastes, interests.  

When both partners are guided by this principle, they have a good chance to find committed long term happiness.   But if only one partner gives first, and the other is selfish and takes advantages, this leads to a lot of suffering for the nice partner.    

The constellation of the mismatch of selfish, abusive jerk and a giving woman is unfortunately so common, that nobody ever has called it a nice woman syndrome and nobody has ever offered a training to convert nice women into jerks.    Feminism teaches women to claim equality, not to become selfish jerks.  

But when the man is the perfect caring nice decent guy, who has the bad luck of being rejected by stupid immature women, then fraudulent jerks attempt to manipulate him to pay money to become like them.      

A nice guys is just right as he is.   All he needs to do is choose the right woman, who appreciates him and who gives him in return, what he gives her.  

I am such a woman.   I appreciate only nice guys.  

389. The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 2

The Pleasure Center In The Brain - 2

This continues entry 388.  

In previous entries, I have already been describing the difference between the instinctive and the intellectual relationship paradigm, between infatuation and caring love, between the bonding disability of emotional morons and the bonded commitment of mature men.   
I described the behavior, the impact upon the partner, the viability of such a relationship but without explaining its causes beyond the vague attribution to a difference in the wiring of the brain.

Looking now more closely at individual differences between the sensitivity, perceptivity and responsiveness of the pleasure center to different kinds of stimuli enables me to speculate more plausibly about the dynamics between the partners of compatible and of mismatched couples.   When comparing the pleasure centers of two different brains, one wired to be hedonistic, the other wired to be Epicurean, the different treatment of, the attitude towards and the kind of a relationship with a partner can be logically explained. 

The following does not include survival homeostation by very basic needs of air, water, food under starvation, it is restricted to analysing the dishomeostasis and pleasure center stimulation under the circumstances of every day life.

Based upon the differences between which stimuli are perceived with predominant sensitivity by their pleasure centers, hedonists and Epicureans experience their social and material environment, including a partner in a relationship, very differently.

1.  Hedonists

• The hedonistic pleasure center is very perceptive, sensitive and responsive to any physical stimulation, while non-physical stimulation is either not perceived at all or if, then only by rough and primitive emotions like the pleasure of having power and be able to dominate.   
• Auditory, olfactory and visual stimuli only serve as the information of the presence of agents, which can be used for physical stimulation of the pleasure center.
• Dishomeostasis is a strong force and it is nearly always physical.   Any emotional dishomeostasis like frustration or anger are a reaction to not being able to restore physical homeostasis. 
• Physical dishomeostasis is usually a recurrent cycle.   The perception of the dishomeostasis triggers behavior of homeostation, followed by a latency period of saturation until the next perception of dishomeostasis restart the cycle.   
• Physical dishomeostasis is usually endogenous, its cause is independent of the social and material environment, while homeostation depends on the availability of resources in the environment.

The hedonistic brain experiences both the social and material components of the environment as sources, tools, utilities or commodities existing for the hedonist's convenience to fulfill physical needs, when he perceives dishomeostasis and or discovers something, of which he expects stimulation of the pleasure center.    Whatever causes high pleasure stimulation is experienced as something, that the hedonist loves.    There is no reciprocity between a hedonist and his commodity.    It is the control of the user over the availability of the commodity.

• Due to the cyclic dishomeostasis, in the moment of perceiving the dishomeostasis of being hungry, the hedonist loves cheese.   In the moment of feeling pleasure by riding a bicycle, the hedonist loves his bicycle.    In the moment of sexual dishomeostasis, the hedonist loves the woman's body, with whom he is infatuated.   
• In the moment of saturation, all the commodities, the cheese, the bicycle and the woman become temporarily insignificant and he has no reason to focus his attention upon them.    He wants to have them available in storage for the next use.    When in the state of saturation, any focus of attention on the commodities causes no pleasure or only the pleasure of being in control and of having the power to repeat the use in the future.
• Sometimes the hedonist values the pleasure of using those commodities enough to pay high prices for cheese and for a bicycle and he pampers the woman with expensive gifts to ascertain her availability.   
• The hedonist is aware, that taking care of good maintenance prolongs the usability of his commodities.   The cheese needs to be stored in the fridge, the bicycle needs greasing, and the woman needs food, shelter and health care.    The hedonist considers it as his option, how much maintenance he invests in expectation of how long he wants to keep the utility ready to serve him.  
• Neither a bicycle nor cheese have any feelings and own needs, and the hedonist assumes the same also to be the case with a woman as a commodity.   
• A dysfunctional commodity can make the hedonist angry, but a commodity does not hurt the feelings of a human.   The hedonist feels no personal or emotional connection with the commodities as entities.   His love for the commodities is the love for the benefits.    He feels no affection for a commodity.
• The magnitude of the stimulation of the pleasure center of a hedonist depends only on his needs and his perceptivity and the quality of the stimulus, but not on other commodities.   The piece of cheese does not taste any better, when eaten on the bicycle or in presence of the woman.  
• When a hedonist feels the dishomeostasis of being hungry, then a woman is experienced as either functional, when she contributes to his getting food, or dysfunctional, when she impedes him from getting food. 

2. Epicureans

• The Epicurean pleasure center is very perceptive, sensitive and responsive to any intellectual, emotional, auditory, olfactory and visual stimulation, which overrides physical stimulation in its impact.   
• Emotional dishomeostasis is a stronger force than physical dishomeostasis.  
• Emotional dishomeostasis is usually a persistent state of unpleasant feelings, that lasts, until the reason has been removed.   
• Emotional dishomeostasis is often exogenous, it is triggered, caused or modified by the interaction with the social and material environment.   

For an Epicurean in a bonded commitment, reciprocal caring love and affection has very strong effects upon the pleasure center.   The Epicurean feels bliss, joy and happiness by nothing more than being together with or near the beloved person, while there is no emotional dishomeostasis.     The perception and knowledge of being loved, respected, appreciated, cherished, significant, cared for stimulates the pleasure center.   Reciprocal proactive expressions of caring and loving behavior as described in entry 385 enhances this perception.    Being together is experienced as triggering affection and is a permanent stimulation of the epicurean pleasure center.    

• If there is emotional dishomeostasis, it is very disruptive and a very serious problem.   
• The Epicurean joy and happiness depends on reciprocity, it depends on triggering the same emotions and attitudes from the other as one feels oneself.    Getting the contrary of what one gives and expects causes pain and feeling hurt and this leads to a state of dishomeostasis.    The more one partner has and expresses respect, appreciation and significance for the other, the more s/he feels hurt, when experiencing disrespect, depreciation and insignificance in return
• Emotional dishomeostasis is a serious problem needing to be dealt with, no matter if the trigger of it is real or only perceived as the result of a misunderstanding and misinterpretation.   
• As soon as one partner feels emotional dishomeostasis, this impedes feeling affection, joy and happiness in the presence of the other and as a consequence it also impedes further expressions of love.   
• Emotional dishomeostasis of one Epicurean partner leads to emotional dishomeostasis of both.   Communicating about all conflicts, until mutual respect, appreciation and significance are restored, is a task of paramount importance for an Epicurean couple's bonding and closeness.  
• The Epicurean pleasure center gets stimulated by the intellectual joy of visiting an interesting museum or watching a fascinating theater play and by being together with a beloved partner.   The pleasure stimulation by both sources not only adds its magnitudes, but multiplies it.   
• The Epicurean joy of being together often compensates for discomfort of any kind.    Bonded committed Epicureans are sometimes oblivious of physical discomfort when they are absorbed in the joy of being together.    

3.  Epicureans and hedonists are mismatches.

Both relationship principles are as incompatible as the differences in the responsiveness of the pleasure centers.   

A hedonistic man and an Epicurean woman are a tragic mismatch.   

Being Epicurean does not preclude the occasional indulgence in physical pleasures like delicious food, it is a known experience of little importance.    But the hedonist is ignorant and oblivious of the intellectual and emotional stimulation of the Epicurean's pleasure center, which he has never experienced due to his lacking the perceptivity and sensitivity.    When the hedonist keeps a woman in good maintenance, allowing her the same amount of physical stimulation of the pleasure center as he wants for himself, he firmly believes to be doing the right thing for having her as a long term commodity.    He is void of feeling affection.

Hedonists cannot be blamed for lacking affection due to lacking the perception of emotional and intellectual joy in their pleasure center, just as deaf persons cannot be blamed for not hearing music.    A deaf and a hearing person cannot share the joy of listening to music and the deaf person cannot be motivated to go to a concert, that he cannot hear.  
The hedonist cannot imagine the joy of bonded togetherness just as a stone age man could not imagine to hear the high quality sound of an entire orchestra played from a tiny box into his ears.  
A hedonist and an Epicurean cannot share the joy of being together and of sharing intellectual and emotional stimuli, because this does not stimulate the hedonist's pleasure center.  There is nothing to motivate him to participate in behaviors that contribute to kindling love (entry 385).   He does not feel affection and he does not recognize affection for him.  The hedonist has no reason to be together with the Epicurean woman, except when he needs her for his homeostation or any other purpose.  
Therefore the hedonist is clueless, that she perceives her restricted role as a commodity for his physical stimulation as humiliation, indignation and devaluation.   He is often completely oblivious, that he is causing her emotional dishomeostasis in growing magnitude, until the relationship has become toxic.   If he notices at all, that she has reached the limit of her endurance, he cannot comprehend, why and interprets this as her defect and flaw.

387. A Scientist's Dating Advice

A Scientist's Dating Advice

I am an independent thinker, but being too original enhances intellectual loneliness.   Therefore I appreciate sometimes to find reinforcement for some of my ideas and I just did.

Source:
http://www.howaboutwe.com/date-report/1735-dating-with-your-brain-5-tips-from-a-neurophysiologist

The following are quotes from Dr. Jason Shepherd, Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at M.I.T., which are backing up some of my basic ideas in this blog.  

1. Know that you don't know what you're doing

"Many of our most important decisions are made in our brains unconsciously. We are constantly bombarded with sensory input from the world and our conscious experience only captures a small percentage of this information,"
"So much of our 'chemistry' and attraction to others occurs without us really knowing. We often can't tell why we are drawn to certain people and sometime that's just because our brain has worked out something we are not directly aware of."

Not knowing this is a hazard.   I consider it as of paramount important to be aware of how subconscious instincts determining behavior and choices are very detrimental to long term happiness.   Self-monitoring based upon the knowledge, which impulses, urges and inclinations can be explained by animal instincts is very important as a method of prevention, which is a part of the strategy to reduce this hazard.    This strategy includes also the conscious decision, what traits in a partner are essential for a long-term bonded commitment. 

2. For the guys: Appeal to a woman's brain

"There are key differences in the way sexes choose partners, obviously, and this is because the female and male brains are just wired differently...although this isn't always black and white but rather a continuum. In general men are mostly visual, whereas women are 'cerebral' for a better way of putting it. They require more than just visual stimulation to be attracted to someone."

I am looking for a mindmate.  Who disregards my brain, is not suitable.

3. Love is the result of "feedback loops"

"Everything in the brain has feedback loops, so if you do something that activates the reward system (i.e you went on a good date) that is noted by the brain and cellular/molecular changes occur in the reward system that reinforces that good experience. These feedback loops usually work well and 'love' is the end result of positive reinforcement of these reward circuits.

As an aside, I'm personally a romantic, and even though I'm fascinated by the biological basis of human behavior, I don't think trying to understand love at a molecular/cellular level takes ANYTHING away from the emotion or the way I view love."

This is behind what I described in entry 385 as the reciprocal reinforcement of expressing caring love by proactive behavior enhancing the other's subjective wellbeing.

4. Know what your dealbreakers are

"I don't think it's a requirement for me to date another scientist, but what is key is someone who curious about the world. And someone who thinks evolution is real. I once went on a date where I was lampooned for believing in evolution, even though I had clearly stated on my profile that I was a biologist."

I have stated my dealbreakers clearly in this blog.   

5.  You've got to respect them

"I'm no expert on relationships but respect is key. The chemistry needs to be there of course but if you don't respect your partner for their intellect, drive, etc. then it's not going to work. I think this is really important for people who are ambitious and set high goals for themselves."

I have put emphasis in several entries, that a bonded and committed relationship is only possible with mutual respect.  

386. Criticizing - Love - Respect

Criticizing - Love - Respect
This continues entries 385 and 382.  

Beneficial criticizing by giving and accepting feedback concerning specific behaviors and habits is an important part of the process of a couple's adaption to each other.   
As long as a couple's mutual respect is due to shared basic values and attitudes, they have no reason to criticize anything, that is part of the core personality of the other.   All criticizing is supportive concerning habits.    Beneficial criticizing implies the respect, that the other is able and motivated to improve some peripheral imperfections.  

When infatuation is experienced as the selfish love for the benefits of using another person's body for instinctive homeostasis, this does not require respect.   Bonded, committed and caring love between adult and mature partners is not possible without mutual respect.  

Bonded love is expressed by behavior aiming to enhance the subjective wellbeing of the partner.    The beloved partner perceives proactive acts of caring as deliberate and voluntary favors, not as duties, dues or something to be taken for granted.   

This has a strong impact upon the perception of being criticized.  The difference between experiencing the other's beneficial behavior as either an expression of caring love or of fulfilling a duty and serving a purpose is also the difference between perceiving criticizing as supportive and beneficial or disrespecting, devaluing and rejecting.   

When someone feels securely loved and respected by consciously perceiving the other's behavior as expressing care and affection, this enables him to interpret being criticized as supportive.    The expression of caring love is an expression of respect and nevertheless interpreting criticizing as disrespect would be a contradiction.   
Caring includes also the Epicurean imperative of not doing harm.    A person, who cares enough to have the wish to protect the partner from harm needs to be receptive to feedback.   To avoid harm to the other requires to know, what the other experiences as harm, and this is not always noticeable.   Sometimes only feedback can convey this information.  


But when a man considers and perceives a woman as a commodity and utility, whose purpose is to serve his needs, then he is unable to ever perceive anything of what she does for him as an expression of love.    He is deprived of the experience of being loved by his own entitlement delusion.   This makes him perceive criticizing as expressing disrespect and this makes him feel even less loved.    As a consequence, he is inclined to use control and coercion to get his needs met, because he projects and believes, that otherwise she would also use him selfishly for her needs.    As long as he feels entitled to the priority of his needs, wishes and whims over hers, he is realistic in his evaluation, that he cannot get this by any other means except control and coercion.    

If her baseline is getting as much as giving, then giving more than she receives is from her point of view an expression of love.    

If his baseline is getting all his needs met before bothering about hers, then he experiences even all her expressions of love only as deficient compared with his baseline, and he feels justified to use pressure and coercion to get, what he cannot get otherwise.  

The result is a very unfortunate vicious circle of deterioration.    A woman, who feels loved, cared for, cherished and appreciated has few reasons for peripheral beneficial and supportive criticizing, and he can appreciate it and do his share in improving the relationship.   
But the man, who uses her as commodity, dominates and coerces her to ascertain his selfish benefits gives the woman real and serious reasons to criticize him and even to lose respect.    He needs much more improvement and he needs much more feedback.  But instead of accepting her support, he blames her for daring to criticize him at all.    His denial and defiance to accept feedback and learn how to treat her destroys the relationship.  

Feeling loved, respected and supported by criticizing is a congruent experience in a bonded couple.   

Without the reciprocal perception of expressions of caring love by the other, there is no respect and no trust, that criticizing is benevolent and beneficial.   This effect is independent of the reason of not feeling loved, either by not being loved by a man confounding infatuation with love and domination or by being oblivious of being loved due to confounding expressions of love with fulfilling a purpose and a duty.   

382. Disrespect And Criticizing

Disrespect And Criticizing


Expressed conscious disagreement with any attribute in another person can be either hostile, neutral or benevolent criticizing.  

1. Hostile criticizing is a part of the rat race of people, who are driven by the hierarchy instinct to fight for higher positions for the purpose of gaining power and control over resources.   But this is not my topic, because this blog is mainly about how a relationship can be made a safe haven against the outside world of hostility.   

2. Neutral distance: In entry 377 I suggested that it is possible to disrespect someone for being either morally or intellectually not suitable for close contact, but that by avoiding close contact, people can be civil and courteous with disrespected persons. 

3. In entry 164 I explained, that a couple can only get close and bonded, if they share the same basic values.   If the behavior of each partner is logical, but based upon different values, then criticizing is futile and cannot solve the conflict between incompatible values.   In entry 379 I looked at the difference between disrespect in a couple due to being a mismatch, and feeling disrespect or feeling disrespected by mistake.

Disrespect kills every relationship, except if its purpose is consciously restricted by mutual consent to using or abusing each other.  While discovering incompatible values and losing respect after having got involved by mistake with a mismatch cannot be remedied, it is very important to prevent both, feeling disrespect and feeling disrespected, due to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, misperception.

Only in fairy tales, a couple lives happily ever after having conquered the obstacles of getting together.   Every real life couple has disagreements and conflicts at least once in a while, and the older people are, when they get together, the more they have become individual personalities, the more initial conflicts they have to overcome.  

A person, who wants to improve his behavior in general and as a partner in a relationship, needs the other's sincere feedback.   Feedback includes both the spontaneous non-verbal expressions of how behavior is experienced, and the verbal feedback of either criticizing or approving the behavior.  
Non-verbal feedback is for example the expression of pain in the face.   Criticizing is verbally telling someone, that a specific behavior is hurting.  
As a part of adapting to each other, a person has the choice to focus the attention on observing the non-verbal expressions, to listen to criticizing and to ask for criticizing.   The partner has the choice to give feedback by not censoring his non-verbal expressions and by offering verbal feedback, whenever it is either asked for or when there is a behavior to be modified by feedback.  This concerns both, behavior perceived as disruptive, disturbing and hurting or pleasing behavior, of which more is welcome.   There is the choice to receive or to ignore feedback and to give or to deny feedback.  

Constructive conflict solving to prevent disrespect means, that both partners cooperate as both, the motivated recipient and the sincere giver of feedback, they apply the method of beneficial criticizing.    

Beneficial criticizing is a vital part of the process of getting bonded.    Beneficial criticizing means to name, describe or define a specific attribute of the other, either a behavior or an expressed thought, and to offer support in improving it.   Beneficial criticizing means the full respect for the other based upon the assumption of sharing the same basic values and attitudes.   It is based upon the premise, that the criticized attribute is either something independent of the basic values or something, that is a contradiction to the basic values and the other is either unaware of this or is struggling with it. 

Beneficial criticizing can concern:

1. Disturbing habits, like for example burping and cursing
2. Self-damaging habits like eating too much.  Example: The supportive partner distracts and interferes with getting fat. 
3. Behavior damaging the welfare of the couple:  Examples:  Criticizing for wasting money by buying household items without asking first, if it is needed or already on stock.    Criticizing for spending money on himself with priority over spending it on shared benefits. 
4. Helping someone to correct errors of contradiction with the own value system.   Example:  Informing someone, who is a skeptic and atheist, that NLP is not a branch of psychology, but pseudoscience and a cult.  
5. Correcting morally wrong behavior.   Example:  A man with the basic value of equality has grown up with the role model of a macho father.   Or he has been mislead by reading and following the detrimental advice of PUAs (pick-up-animals)   He is not aware, that when he makes a solitary decision and forces the decision upon the partner, he is acting in contradiction to his value system.   He needs to be informed, what a woman expects from him as being included in the process of sharing decisions.     

All the above are examples, where beneficial criticizing is not an act of disrespect, but an attempt to improve the bonding by measuring the behavior by its being in accordance with the shared values.  

If the criticized partner resists, refuses and reproaches the other, each of my examples indicates, that something is dysfunctional in the relationship.  

1. Disregard and lack of care for how the partner feels.  
2. Not valuing the other enough to want to be attractive and healthy.
3. Selfishness and devaluation.
4. Probable incompatibility either because he is not a real skeptic or because he is unable to comprehend.
5. Probable incompatibility because there may be psychological troubles impeding the man to treat a woman as an equal. 

Beneficial criticizing is not an expression of disrespect, to the contrary it is an attempt to remove reasons for potential disrespect.    But if there is refusal to react to beneficial criticizing, this destroys the respect of the supportive partner.  Feeling disrespected leads to the reaction of also losing respect.  

Beneficial criticizing can also be a method to avoid misinterpretations and misperceptions and of giving someone the benefit of the doubt before jumping to unfavorable conclusions. 

An example:  A man spends money on buying something, what the woman perceives as very selfish and as an act of disregard for her equal valid needs.  Only be criticizing him, she can find out, if he really is as selfish, as she assumes.  

• In the case, that he was so convinced, that she would also enjoy his purchase, that he omitted consulting her first, maybe meaning to surprise her, he is not selfish.   This misunderstanding is a step of learning to be more cautious about his assumptions about her.      
• If he insists, that it is his right to buy, whatever he wants without consulting her, even though they share expenses and he spends indirectly half her money, then he is disrespecting her and his selfishness gets her disrespect in return.

By criticizing him, she makes a step of progress towards either improving their relationship or learning that he is not suitable for her.   Would she keep silent, she would continue to doubt him for being selfish, and he would not even know.   This would undermine the relationship.   The more often someone does not express experienced criticism, the worse it gets.      

Beneficial criticizing is a vital part of creating a bonded and committed relationship.   

379. Thoughts About Disrespect

Thoughts About Disrespect

In entry 377, I mentioned that when there is disrespect, the best way to handle it is mutual avoidance.  

But disrespect should be looked at a bit more closely.  

There is disrespect due to a specific, defined reason and there is diffuse disrespect.  
In the case of a specific reason, the disrespectee knows, why he is disrespected, no matter, if he agrees with it or not.  

Some criminals have the insight to have earned to be disrespected.
When an atheist disrespects a religious person due to stupidity, the religious person knows why but disagrees.

When disrespect is diffuse, there are several constellations.

• The disrespectee perceives to be treated with disrespect, but without any acceptable reason.
  Example:  A narcissist disrespects a person and attempts to press that person into the role of a narcissistic extension.
• The disrespectee does not perceive the hidden disrespect.  
  Examples:  A manipulator uses a gullible person for his purposes.  A man promises a woman a long term relationship by pretending commitment, but only wants to use her.  

Both cases are reasons for the disrespectees to avoid the disrespector, because they have no chance to ever be respected.

But there is a different situation, when the disrespectee perceives non-existent disrespect.      

• There is misunderstanding, misinterpretations, misperception.
• The person feeling disrespected has personal problems.  
• The person perceived as disrespectful is not aware of how his behavior is received by others.  

In these cases, people have a chance to overcome the difficulties by communicating, until they reach an agreement of reestablished mutual respect.  


If couples are at all concerned about the importance of respect and not just driven by instincts, they get involved by reciprocally respecting and feeling respected.    They have the impression of sharing all the values and attitudes, that are the fundament of disrespect and therefore for a committed relationship.
Disrespect is the result of either getting aware, that the respect had never been justified but had been an error all along, or of losing respect due to experiencing behavior indicating it as an error.  

An example is the pseudo-non-believer described in entry 305.   When I got in contact with him on an atheist dating site, I wrongly interpreted this as him being an atheist worthy to be respected.    When I discovered on his website his praise of the bible as a book of wisdom, and when he admitted to be a cultist of tai-chi and to chant to a Japaneses scroll, I rapidly lost respect.   He did not pretend to be an atheist, he was convinced to really be one in spite of all his irrational religious behaviors.           

377. Respect And Disrespect

Respect And Disrespect

Mutual respect is the basis of an egalitarian bonded committed relationship.  

I am not talking about the pseudo respect of being indiscriminately polite and courteous in everyday life.   I am talking about the respect, that is felt and perceived for the personality of someone.    

Before entering a relationship, an instinct driven man or an emotional moron asks himself (consciously or subconsciously) only questions like these:  Do I want that person?   What benefits can I get from that person?

Tolerance cannot replace lacking respect, even though many people attempt to do so.   When a man wants a woman, whom he does not respect but only tolerates instead, he is using her.    Many men are so much driven by their need of homeostasis, that they are not even aware of their lack of respect.  


A mature and wise man asks himself different questions:  Do I respect that person and does that person also respect me?   
These are not always easy questions to answer, but it needs a lot of introspection, self-monitoring and honesty with oneself.    But these are very important questions.   Lacking respect dooms a relationship to become toxic for the not respected partner.  

Respect has two major aspects, intellectual respect and moral respect.   Respecting a person enough to enter a relationship requires both respects.   
Respect is a very subjective and individual perception of another person.    It depends upon how one perceives oneself, what one values as important, and how close someone else has to be if he can be enclosed in a kind of mental ingroup.  
Respect is both a rational evaluation of the other and the emotion of feeling close or feeling separated by a ditch. 

Respect and feeling respected enhance and reinforce each other.    The opinion and judgment of a respected person has much more impact than that of a disrespected person, that is often completely irrelevant.     

Being disrespected hurts and it hurts the more, when the disrespecting person is respected onesidedly.   To disrespect cannot be avoided, but showing it can.   Nobody can force himself to feel respect for a person, who is inferior by any kind of objective measurement or even when only perceived subjectively.    But maturity and decency require to stay away from disrespected persons instead of treating them as inferior.     

A jerk pursues a woman's body, while he disrespects her mind.    A decent man keeps away from such a woman's body, if he cannot respect her person.   
I attempt to follow this, I do not approach for example christians to call them idiots because of their belief, no matter that I sincerely think this.   I prefer to avoid christians.   Only if a christian annoys me like somebody insisting to pray for my lost soul, then he warrants to be called an idiot.  

Once there is disrespect on one or on both sides, there is no rational reason to continue the contact, if there are no external circumstances enforcing it as is in a job.  Both the person feeling the disrespect and the person after having become or being made aware of being disrespected, have reasons to avoid further contact.
The disrespecting person avoids contact by consideration.   For the disrespected person avoidance is the easiest way of disagreement with the disrespect without being further bothered about it.   If a disrespected person continues to expose himself to the expressions of disrespect, this can be interpreted as implicit acquiescence indicating lack of dignity, pride and self-esteem.   

I admit, I am not in the least motivated to deal with disrespect.    I do not want to be hurt by it, I do not want to fight against it, I do not want to be annoyed by or bothered about it.     Whoever disrespects me is welcome to do so as long and as much as it suits him, but I do not even want to know it.   It is his problem, not mine.    Whoever is reading this blog and and respects me for my thoughts, is welcome to contact me with his feedback and comments.    But whoever disrespects me, is asked to move on without bothering me.