684. What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

684.  What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

In men's profiles, again and again I am reading statements, which express the preference for someone more different then alike.   Implicitly or explicitly expressed is the belief, that the attraction of opposites were the best strategy for finding a match and the apprehension of getting bored with a clone of the own person. 

But there is living evidence for the benefits of being like two birds of a feather:  

Monozygotic twins raised by the same people are as much alike as can be.   Do they get bored with each other?   I very much doubt it, based upon what I have been hearing and reading about the especially close and strong lifelong bond of such twins.  

This apprehension of getting bored is also not logical.
 

If one person enjoys something of personal interest like an art exhibition or a theater play alone, sharing such activities does not make them less interesting, to the contrary, the sharing enhances the joy.   And when both contribute initiatives for more such activities, it could even reduce the risk of boredom. 
Comparing notes, pointing out observations, sharing thoughts and agreeing can be at least as interesting, rewarding and fascinating as controversial debates.  But agreement enhances harmony, while controversy may lead to antagonism and disruption.

If anything leads to boredom, it is the consequence of those compromises, by which one partner reluctantly participates in the other's favorite activities.   If a man in this situation is content to pursue his interests instead with his buddies, not even missing the sharing with his mate, then this indicates the degrading attitude, that a woman is only a body to be used and not a significant companion.    
Thus, whenever a man puts emphasis on the attraction of opposites, this is a red flag,  It could indicate a man prone to objectify women.  

The ideal prerequisite for long term happiness is the combination of being mentally as similar as possible, but (in the case of straight couples) having complementary bodies.   If any attraction of opposites is acceptable, it has to be restricted to only concerning physical and visible aspects.   

649. Polyandry And Polygyny Are Not Mirror-Inverted

649.  Polyandry And Polygyny Are Not Mirror-Inverted

Superficially seen, polyandry by women and polygyny by men seem to be mirror-inverted but identical constellations.    When omitting the blurring factor of what makes a union a marriage, as this differs widely between countries and cultures, both forms of polygamy can be defined as: 

One person of one gender has at the same time more than one non-temporary intimate relationship with a person of the other gender.

But in spite of the superficial appearance, it is far from mirror-inverted.  The subconscious biological differences between male and female instincts cause decisive distinctions.  

Both varieties are in general biased in favor of male decision, male needs, male consent, male attitudes derived from their instinctive urges, while they are imposed upon women without an alternative and without the power to reject it.  Men do have the advantage of power by greater innate physical strength, and polygamy is not exempted from its effects.  

I am saying in general, as I am of course ignorant of the possible existence of exceptions.   

Polyandry: 

I just read in a newspaper about a society somewhere in Asia, where it is the custom, that several brothers marry one woman and they all live as one family.   This reminded me of once chatting with a man, who was looking for a woman to be shared with his buddy.   I already talked about them in entry 300.

Such behavior can be explained by evolutionary biologically and by the specific male instinctive predispositions.  

 

When men perceive women mainly as toilets for their body waste and not as companions for nonphysical intimacy, then it is not at all surprising, when they are emotionally and intellectually much closer and much more bonded to their brothers and to their buddies known since childhood.   

When they trust each other to share their assets and commodities as is a car, a machine or a home, then they perceive the body of an objectified woman just as one more commodity to be shared the same way.  
When men claim the right to and even fight over the exclusive control over the access to their mates' bodies, this does not automatically imply any emotional attachment.    Some men can be indifferent to the woman's affective preferences, but they just want to be sure, that they are only burdened with raising those children, who do carry their own genes and not those of someone else.  

But when men decide themselves, with whom to share a woman by the exclusion of all others, and they feel close enough, then this includes the willingness to also participate in the burden of raising children, who are genetically the descendants of one of them, but of nobody else.  

Polygyny:

Polygyny is much more widespread than polyandry.   It reflects the biological discrepancy between the frequency of male dishomeostasis and the reluctance of many women to cooperate to restore the homeostasis of those men, who do not fulfill the women's emotional needs in return.   Instead of learning to give women, what they need emotionally and intellectually, these instinct driven animals attempt to solve their biological problem by the concurrent use of more than one female body.  

So far, I have not yet heard of any two women doing the same as the men in the cases of polyandry, which means to decide to share one man.  Nor have I heard of any man entering such a constellation by passive compliance with two women's decision.   

Polygyny is a man's decision for his benefits only, and it is rarely welcome by the women.  Where it is a legal option, the second marriage is usually imposed upon the first wife, no matter what she really wishes.   The second and further wives are usually pressed into such a marriage by the family.   

Whenever an additional wife is indeed welcomed as someone to share the burden of household chores with, this is no evidence of the acceptance of polygyny as sharing a man, it really is an expression of the extreme plight and despair of women in dire poverty, who are deprived of the relief of machines or paid help.

But a form of polygyny exists even in modern western societies, but it is usually not considered nor recognized as such.   Whenever a man starts a non-ephemeral extramarital affair with a woman, he creates for himself the benefits of a polygynous constellation.   But the two women involved do not agree.   The first one is either kept ignorant or she is tied by circumstances as having children.  She wants her husband to fulfill his promise of being monogamous, she does not consent to share him.   The second woman is foolish enough to compete with the first wife attempting to take her place and then have him to herself.   Both women suffer, only the polygynous man is motivated to prolong this situations, as long as he gets enough benefits for a low price.

Thus, in the case of the polyandry by the men's decision, the men can often be content and satisfied.   in the case of polygyny, which is installed by a men over more or less disagreeing women, it is also the man, who benefits, while the women suffer.  

Only the balanced monogamy gives women a fair chance of getting as much advantages and benefits as do men.         

640. Interesting Research Results

640.   Interesting Research Results

I have been mentioning before, that in my understanding people's conscious attitudes are influenced or determined by their instinctive urges and that as a result of evolution, men and women differ in what is predominant as their strongest instinctive urge.  
If men are driven by strong urges, then towards using a female body to restore sexual homeostasis.   If women are driven by strong urges, then towards breeding and getting attached to children.

The following source seems to supply some evidence:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130213214620.htm

"Mothers are more negative about relationship quality, relationship with partner, relationship maintenance and happiness with relationship/partner than childless women. However, mothers are significantly happier with life that any other group, indicating that children could perhaps be the primary source of happiness for women.

Mothers are also almost twice more likely than fathers to say that their child/ren are the most important person in their life. Fathers are much more likely than mothers to value their partners as the most important person."

The study also backs up my own notion of the importance of sharing and of the preference for the match criteria of being likeminded and similar.

"The survey also revealed how sharing values, a faith, beliefs or interests with a partner is very highly regarded and participants expressed disappointment when the everyday experiences of life could not be shared.

"Holding things in common was seen by participants as a key "connector" in the couple relationship,""

597. Commodification And Wanting

597.   Commodification And Wanting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

541. The Distinction Between Utilitarianism And Commodification

541.  The Distinction Between Utilitarianism And Commodification

I am not very learned about the standard philosophical theories.   My paradigm of a rationally based commitment of two egalitarians as presented in this blog is the result of extensive pondering over my own relationship needs.   
I just discovered, that my own commitment paradigm coincides a lot with the philosophical theory called Utilitarianism.        

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

"Utilitarianism is a theory in philosophy about right and wrong actions. It says that the morally best action is the one that makes the most overall happiness or "utility" (usefulness). This is not limited to the happiness caused by a single action but also includes the happiness of all people involved and all future consequences."

"Bentham wrote about this idea with the words "The greatest good for the greatest number", but did not use the word utilitarianism. It was Mill, a follower of Bentham's ideas, who named the idea."

There are two ways of calculating the total costs and benefits.

• Pleasures and pains are all put together in one overall calculation. 
  This principle is accepted and lived by those people, who consider exposing oneself deliberately to serious hardships for the purpose of earning pleasures as an option.   Extreme sports are an example.
   
• Based upon the reasons, why the impact of suffering is comparatively much stronger than that of missed and renounced pleasures, both are considered separately and independently. 
  This calculation accommodates my own inclinations, which I consider as important to be shared with a mindmate.

1.  Limitations of the application of the utilitarian principle

Applying the utilitarian principle to maximize the happiness of a couple has limitations.   If these limitations are ignored, the possible benefits of the utilitarian principle are reversed into a situation even worse than that of two persons basing their interactions upon bartering and bargaining.  

1.1.  Every utilitarian decision how to behave requires the correct knowledge of the other's subjective perception and experience of this behavior depending upon individual differences of sensitivity, endurance, resilience and needs.   

The utilitarian principle only works for both partners, when

• shared decisions are based upon a correct assessment of the impact of every decision upon both.
• each partner's independent decisions are as valid as if shared, because the assumptions about the impact upon the partner are correct.  
• people are a match concerning their evaluation of the meaning and magnitude of the impact of specific behaviors.  

1.2. Haphazard people with very different individual needs and situations applying the utilitarian principle upon their shared decisions cannot expect this to lead to a fair balance of giving and receiving.
But the subjective experience of justice due to a fair balance is one important factor in what makes a relationship stable and durable.   

Therefore only two persons being a match in their needs, priorities and sensitivities are prone and able to have the combination of both, the benefits added by the utilitarian method of shared decisions and the overall long-term balance of giving and receiving.

This requires to focus upon the careful choice of a suitable and compatible partner as a matching criterion of paramount importance.    The attempt to enhance happiness by utilitarian behavior fails with a mismatch. 

To sum it up:  
The more two partners are compatible and a good match, the more the utilitarian principle can enhance happiness for both of them.   Otherwise the relationship is doomed as either a never ending battle over unresolvable conflicts or as an asymmetrical situation, where one has the power to benefit and the other has the disadvantages.   
The more there is for example a discrepancy between a man's instinctive urge to use a female body and the woman's emotional needs for a committed safe haven, the more the utilitarian principle is a onesided hazard for the woman.  


2.   The baseline of wellbeing

The neutral feeling of the absence of both pan and pleasure is the logical baseline, the state of homeostasis, of being at ease.    People can experience this baseline as sufficient wellbeing without missing anything, as long as they are not aware of its existence.   

The difference between suffering pain or displeasure and the baseline is much more drastic and significant than the difference between the baseline of homeostasis and pleasure.  

Example 1:   When air does not contain any olfactory stimulating content, this is neutral.  People would feel perfectly fine, if there were never anything to smell.    

Being exposed to stink is worse than to be deprived of fragrance.   Someone exposed to an equal mixture of stink and fragrance would most probably prefer to have none rather than both.
Without knowledge and previous experience of the fragrance of any specific flower like a rose, nobody would be attracted to walk over to a bush of roses for the pleasure of smelling them.

Example 2:   Silence is the neutral base line, suffering from noise is worse than only lacking the pleasure of hearing the favorite music.  
Someone exposed simultaneously to the same loudness of an electrical drill and of his favorite music would most probably prefer both to end.  

Someone can only actively choose a specific music for the pleasure of listening, if one has discovered the pleasure by having heard it at least once before.   

Habituation effects the prolonged exposure to pleasure and to pain or discomfort, but with different long-term consequences.  While habituation just reduces the perceived stimulation by what initially was a strong pleasure, the habituation to lasting or repeated pain, displeasure and discomfort often results in harmed health.  

 

I personally include the neutral experience of neither suffering nor enjoying as the baseline in my definition of human rights.  

• It cannot be justified to impose harm, displeasure or discomfort upon others.   If there is a purpose considered worth to be earned by suffering, it is only justifiable as a personal choice.      
  
• Nobody is entitled to have pleasures, if the price is paid by another's sufferings.  

3.   My understanding of utilitarian commitment

For me, utilitarian commitment includes the Epicurean principle of the priority of not harming and not to be harmed.  I perceive suffering by being harmed and hurt, both physically and emotionally, as much more drastic than pleasures missed, renounced or deprived of.

Based upon the reciprocity with a mindmate being a match, I am willing to be guided by the following utilitarian behavior:

• Renouncing and abstaining from a small pleasure, whenever this results in the partner's much bigger benefits.
• Suffering small pain or displeasure, whenever this results is sparing the partner a much bigger harm, pain or displeasure.  

When a man is guided by these two principles, this is an indication of his being an egalitarian partner.


4.  The distinction between utilitarianism and commodification

But I refuse to accept the sacrifice of suffering any pain, displeasure or discomfort, as long as this only serves to give or enhance the partner's mere pleasure.   This is out of proportion.   Maintaining the baseline of neither pain nor pleasure is more justified.   

When a man expects and demands a disagreeing woman to suffer for his pleasures, this indicates his attitude to commodify women.

When a man uses any power and advantage to coerce and force a resisting woman to suffer for his pleasures, this is active commodification and abuse.  

536. Peripherisation And The Lack Of Intellectual Intimacy

536.    Peripherisation And The Lack Of Intellectual Intimacy

Commodification and objectification are blatantly painful for many women, and the resulting deterioration and destruction of the relationship is usually a fast and unavoidable process. 

But there is another detrimental asymmetrical attitude, which is more subtly painful while less blatant and obvious.   It is the peripherisation of a woman's place and role in a man's life.  
In the best case, this is quite different from the full degradation by commodification.  
Peripherisation does not exclude a man to be considerate and responsible by exclusive monogamous commitment enabling physical and emotional intimacy with her as a person.   But she is not allowed the mental closeness of the bond of intellectual intimacy.   Her place is restricted to the periphery of his inner self and his cognitive life.   Therefore I call this peripherisation.   


Intellectual intimacy means to me:

• Experiencing the joy of consent and agreement. 
  This joy is not someone's agreement with what I have been saying.   It is also not the agreement after me influencing someone to change his mind and thereafter to agree with me.    It is the joy of someone saying, what I agree with, before he even knows, what I think, while he is still ignorant of my agreement.    It is the expression of him and me innately and independently thinking alike.  
  Once I can be reasonably certain, that what someone says or does is a genuine and sincere expression of his personality, and there is consent, then I experience every repetition as an intellectual hug.  
  Such intellectual hugs are to me as important and as enjoyable as are physical hugs.  
  
  
• Psychological bonding.
  Psychological bonding means that the shared discovering, exploring, reflecting and revealing concerning the innermost personality of both partners is experienced as a source of joy and of fascination.   Spending time communicating about the dynamics of the relationship, the interactions, the reasons for behaving and for reacting in a specific way is experienced by both partners as rewarding. 
  The benefit of such communication is the reduction of misunderstanding, wrong assumptions, ambiguities, suspicions, insecurities.  This contributes to the growth of reliability, trust and predictability.  Therefore it is an important activity towards making the relationship a safe haven. 
  I experience the partner's interest in the dynamics and quality of the relationship and his motivation to communicate as a very important intellectual expression of affection. 
• Intellectual pleasures.
  Passive participation in and exposure to events and sources of intellectual quality are not much more than high level consumption, if this does not lead to someone also experiencing active reflecting and pondering about the intellectual stimulation as a pleasure. 
  Sharing activities like watching movies and theater plays or visiting museums and exhibitions together does not enhance intellectual intimacy, unless it is followed by the exchange of thoughts and impressions as a shared pleasure, which enhances the experience of such events for both partners. 
  Not only can another person point out additional unnoticed aspects and creative thoughts.   As a side effect, it also provides additional occasions to experience the joy of consent, whenever the partner expressed the same reaction as is the own. 
   

I consider and experience any relationship without intellectual intimacy as worthless.  

Intellectual intimacy makes the difference between being used and being appreciated.  


When a woman needs and wishes intellectual intimacy, but a man does not provide or offer it, this can have many reasons:

1. It is just one facet of commodification and objectification.
2. He is not a match for her, because he lacks sufficient intelligence and/or education.
3. He is not a match for her, because while there is the potential of his having the cognitive qualities and abilities, he experiences the behaviors for creating and maintaining intellectual intimacy as stress, burdensome, unpleasant.   He is not motivated to do, what he perceives as the contrary of joy.       
4. One of several varieties of peripherisation impedes intellectual intimacy.   Each different aspect or facet of what in combination could constitute the intellectual intimacy in a relationship is felt as a need or motivation to share it.   But what should be an important ingredient of a relationship is shared instead with others as substitutes.   They can be coworkers, friends, buddies, family of origin.
   
   

   Peripherisation 1:
   
   Intellectual intimacy with a woman is impeded by the fallacy of the man's ignorance or unawareness of its existence as an option and of its importance for women.   The man deprives himself of the benefits of intellectual intimacy by not pursuing it as it is beyond his imagination,
   
   This can be due to men's general underestimation and prejudices concerning women's cognitive capacities or to the man's definition of the purpose of a relationship as an interaction restricted to the realm of his need of homeostasis and his pursuit of easy pleasures.   
   
   Usually both fallacies, the underestimation of women and their limited role in a man's life are reinforcing each other.
   
   Peripherisation 2:
   
   A man has chosen a woman too much by the instinctive attraction of her body.   For reasons in himself, for example ignorance, misinterpretation, misunderstandings, overreaction to bad experience, distorted perception, he is not able to trust her or to appreciate her qualities.  
   
   Even when they have both the wish and the potential for intellectual intimacy, he is the obstacle.   (There are also many female obstacles, for examples breeders pursuing a man only as a provider.  But this is outside the scope of this topic.) 

Finding a mindmate for shared intellectual intimacy is difficult, because it requires someone, 

• who is cognitive able
• who enjoys it
• for whom the mate in a relationship is his first choice of the person to seek intellectual intimacy with, while anybody else can never be more than an insufficient substitute.  

This is rare and hard to find.   When I am reading men's profiles on matchmaking sites, I am looking for clues for the probability of intellectual intimacy.    

This will be the topic of another entry.  

533. Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

533.  Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

Some days ago, I exchanged a few emails with someone, who appeared as a good match by the first superficial impression.   But the futility of pursuing this contact became evident, when he explained his situation:   By marrying or cohabiting, he would loose his rather high widower's pension.  

I personally consider a happy relationship being a safe haven as worth much more than money.   I would not hesitate to accept a man, who is suitable and compatible, no matter his poverty.  I would reject an unsuitable and incompatible man, no matter his affluence.  Generally I think this widower's priority of his money is a mistake.   
But when it comes to considering my own person, I do not even expect, let alone demand from someone to value living with me as preferable over his money or any other priorities.  A man has his priorities and choices, and whenever they are incongruent with mine, I do not consider myself as a sufficient reason to modify them.   Any decision in my favor would only be valid, if it is based upon a man's need, independent of any influence from my side. A man's incongruent priorities are a reason to keep away from him, not a justification for stupid and futile attempts to influence him   

The essence of a bonded and committed relationship is for me the safe haven, which it cannot be without cohabitation.    Only a cohabiting couple really sits in the same boat, for better or for worse.  Only when sharing the home and applying the shared survival resources, both financial and skills, then all troubles, inclemencies and problems of everyday life really concern both partners equally without a back door. Whenever something breaks or goes wrong, the partner in a LAT-relationship can feel relaxed as he is not under the same pressure to solve the problem.  Having still his own home to retreat to, he has the back door to abandon the partner in need.   

Practical problems like when a needed household appliance or installation breaks cause situational pressure.  The less there is the alternative of affording the easiest and most comfortable solution, the stronger is the pressure upon me.  My resources are more skills than money.  Being alone under the pressure of needing to cope with situational problems of any kind drains and exhausts me, no matter how successful I am in solving it.   Even when I find a solution making me feel clever and adding to my confidence, the coping process nevertheless leaves me drained.    

The safe haven of a cohabiting relationship, in which the partner is equally concerned by situational pressures of any kind, is the relief I need to not get drained.   Being alone when problems require coping is what drains me.
Of course, being equally concerned does by itself not suffice as a relief.  A safe haven requires not only to be equally concerned as a team by all problems, but also to share basic agreements about rational coping strategies derived from the same evaluation of the shared situation and resources.   Only this enables a couple to be a team in problem solving and a source of relief to each other. 

Someone adding more pressure upon me than the problem itself can instead make the situation even worse. 

I cannot accept a man's putting pressure upon me to waste my own money.   If a man is as poor as I am, I expect him to support me in solving problems by the principle of compensating for expenses by efforts.  He can give me the best relief by sharing the efforts.  

Only if a man can afford himself the comfortable expensive solutions preferred by him, it is his choice.   

But the poor man putting pressure upon me to waste my own limited money on the comfortable solution sparing him efforts drains me even more, having to cope with the combined pressure of the technical problem and from him.     

A safe haven can bring reciprocally many protecting and relieving benefits, no matter if the problems are practical, social, psychological, physical.  The emphasis is on the reciprocity.     The more a man also needs a safe haven, the more I can expect to be given one in return.    This is very significant. 

A man's refusal to cohabit tells me, that his goal is not the same kind of a safe haven as is mine and logically then a safe haven is also not available for me.   

A LAT arrangement enables a man to get all the benefits of using a woman's body at his convenience, as this can be achieved without cohabitation.   But a LAT arrangement also enables a man to limit, what he decides to give to the woman.     

A man's refusing to cohabit indicates and implies the presence of some or all of the following good reasons justifying suspicion.  While his superficial reasons may appear as convincing as is the example of the widower's pension of my contact, but the following reasons are probably hidden behind:
1.  A man does not expect a safe haven available from any woman, because he commodifies her and he is blind to even notice any other option besides using her.   A man can experience a safe haven only, if he is aware and appreciative of women being persons with cognitive qualities sufficient as providers of a safe haven.    
2.   A man has already a fragmented supportive system consisting of any combination including his family of origin, friends and even exes and children.  He does not feel a need for a safe haven, which would motivate him to provide one for a woman.   Having sufficient supply for all other social and psychological needs, a woman is only a body.   Only homeostasis is not available from his supportive system.   

3.   A man is so powerful and affluent, that he solves all problems by paying services, no matter if it is the craftsman or the therapist.    If he is decent, he prefers a monogamous relationship for his homeostasis over paying prostitutes.      


As I mentioned already before, the decision to get involved with someone has to be a very careful rational decision, which certainly cannot be rushed into without a high risk of failure.   What matters is is the shared goal of cohabitation and the shared need of a safe haven.  Sharing the goal of cohabitation is very different from making the mistake to rush into cohabitation with a haphazard person.

The refusal of cohabitation is a good reason not to pursue a contact, but the shared goal alone is only one of many necessary but not sufficient criteria for compatibility.    

355. The Mind Messenger - Pooling Premises Mediation

The Mind Messenger - Pooling Premises Mediation

I am convinced, that when two partners in a relationship are mature, rational and sane and when they share

• the same relationship paradigm
• the same basic values and attitudes
• all information about the needs and feelings of the other

then it is possible to solve conflicts rationally by using logic upon the above information as premises.  

Solving a conflict is a two step process.   

• Step 1 is information collecting and pooling, until both share the same premises and both agree that no significant information is omitted.  
• Step 2 is using logic until either agreeing on a fair compromise or ending the relationship by consent as the result of incompatibility.

If by these two steps the conflict cannot be solved, then at least one of them either have some interfering personal psychological troubles or does not value the relationship enough to continue.   


The most common cause of a conflict is lacking information and the use different insufficient premises leads to conflicting conclusions.    Only someone aware of lacking information can ask and acquire it.    But if at leat one is using wrong information or is oblivious of lacking important information, then the conflict can become an impasse.     

This is often the consequence of the choice of a partner by physical infatuation in ignorance of compatibility or incompatibility.   
 
Reasons for using wrong or lacking information as insufficient premises of can for example be

• jumping to conclusions
• misunderstanding
• misinterpretations
• projecting
• previous experiences
• lack of introspection
• prejudice
• denial
• emotional reactions to the conflict

In the situation of such an impasse, people usually either fight over the same issues again and again, break up without being able to solve the problem or go to couple's counselling, which is aiming at far more drastic changes than filling the deficit of shared information.    

Help for only the first step of conflict solving does not exist.   This help could be called 'pooling premises mediation' and the mediator could be called a mind messenger.   I have experienced myself, how it is to talk to a wall, and in this situation I had wished I had a mind messenger to help me send the bouncing information to the other side of the wall.   

It is probable best to have one such mind messenger for each of the partners A and B.  That makes is easier to transfer the information unaltered.   Keeping two conflicting versions apart and remain impartial is difficult.   
The role of partner A's mind messenger is to decry all information from A, that needs to be added to the shared premises pool.

• General information like A's relationship paradigm, values, needs 
• A's unfulfilled needs and wishes 
• A's feedback, experience, perception, introspection, emotions in reaction to B's behavior
• A's rational evaluation of B's behavior 
• All other information, which A considers important to be known by B. 

The mind messenger checks carefully to have understood the information correctly, before he then explains it to B.  He also checks carefully, if B has really understood everything.    It has to be very clear for B, that the mind messenger reports impartial information about A, without any own opinion or attempt to influence B.   The information has to be accepted by B as valid to be integrated into the premises pool.       

A mind messenger to help pooling premises does not need as much qualifications as a counsellor.  His job is to impartially collect and correctly transfer information and nothing else.  Any person, who is able to listen and understand, think logically and explain in patience, can fulfill this role.    

If this form of mediation does not lead to an agreed upon premises pool, which is good enough for the second step of agreeing how to solve the conflict, then it is time for either counselling or for ending the relationship.   
In addidtion to rationality and maturity, the only requirements from both partners are motivation, cooperation, compliance with the procedure and recognition of the underlying principle of the premises pool.    

310. Women's Insignificance

Women's Insignificance

Some days ago I read a young guy's complaints about how disappointed he was by his girl friend.  He had so much appreciated her independence, but after getting involved, now she wants togetherness, sharing, commitment.   I have read similar complaints before, from both sides, also from women disappointed because they did not get enough commitment.  

It is an unfortunate pattern for women.    Simplified, when a man wants an independent woman, he wants her not to find out, how insignificant she is for him outside the bed.  

Most women want a relationship providing closeness, affection, sharing and commitment.   There are many men, who in theory agree to want this too.  But in their behavior, they are the victims of their own innate animal affliction.    Their need for sexual homeostasis blurs their reason and their ability for sound judgement.   Their instincts determine, that they make the wrong choices.

Such a man gets infatuated with a body, but as soon as he reaches temporary homeostasis, he gets aware, that he is not attracted to spend any time with the woman.   He perceives the woman's body as a commodity with an insignificant personality added as an unwanted extra in the package.    If the man could, he would deposit her in a storage room and only retrieve her, whenever his need for homeostasis reawakens.   When the woman wants more than what he offers her, the relationship fails, and he attributes the failure to the women wanting more than her due, not to his own wrong choice determined by his instincts.
If this happens a few times to a man, he could gain the maturity and learn how to make a better choice.    An immature man concludes instead, that a woman is just not someone worth to spend time with.   He reduces a woman's place in his life to only serving his needs in bed.   From then on he consciously chooses a woman for being or appearing independent.   He assumes that an independent woman would not be interested in spending much time with him, thus she would never find out, that she is too insignificant for him to spend time with her.   With this woman, he is not only unable to get bonded and not expecting to get bonded himself, but also that she herself would not wish to bond.   Instead he intends to keep her as a convenience as long as possible.  

I am not even claiming, that wanting an insignificant independent woman is a conscious deceit.   It is more that the instinctive infatuation with a body disables most men's awareness for what they really want or what would really be the best for their own long term happiness.  They may even be disappointed themselves by their lack of interest in the woman, when homeostasis restores their reasoning ability.   The man's instincts lead him and the woman into a trap of incompatible needs.  
Many men are so convinced of being always rationally in self-control, that they are usually in denial of being misguided by their instincts to get involved with women, whom they then do not respect and appreciate.    Due to this denial, due to their full acceptance and even pride of being studs, they never learn to think very carefully, if they want a woman as a body or as a personality.   

It is pattern with detrimental consequences also for the men themselves.   It seems to be a bad trick of evolution.   The man makes the mistake to get involved with the wrong woman, and ends up with a subscription for homeostasis, while he does not give the woman closeness and sharing.   That subscription means, he may even marry her.   So if the woman is a breeder, she reacts to being treated as insignificant by having children.   She get bonded with the children, and the man is excluded.   Now he is insignificant but he is obliged to work hard to provide for them all.    Had he been wise and careful in his choice, he could be a bonded partner and live happily as a childfree couple.    In the end, he is also punished for using the body of a woman, who is insignificant as a person.   


Men choosing apparently independent women have a very wrong concept of the meaning of independence for a woman.    Independence does not mean bonding-disability or low interest in him or in any man.   Independence does not mean the consent to be friends with benefits instead of commitment.  

Independence is both, it is a survival skill and it is an attitude to acquire survival skills.   Being able to be independent can be an accomplishment, that can contribute to a woman's self-esteem.    There is no joy in being independent, nor is it emotionally rewarding.    It is an acquired skill and it often is compensatory, when someone develops this skill by having no other choice.  

Independence is the best way to cope with life while being alone.   But the interdependence of a couple is a much better form of coping together with the troubles and inclemencies of life.  
An independent woman can find ways to transport things at the edge of her physical strengths instead of moaning about being helpless, an independent man can learn to sew buttons even though he is clumsy, instead of throwing the garment without a button in the garbage.   Two interdependent people can pool their skills and make life easier for each other.  
An independent woman and an independent man can each go alone to a lecture and ponder about it.  But as a couple communicating they may supply a lot of additional food for thought to each other.
Independence is only a bad substitute for the benefits of interdependence.  
Interdependence means: A problem shared is a problem halved, but a joy shared is a joy doubled.  

I am capable to be independent. But I do not want to be independent, I want to find a mindmate and live in interdependence.   
Any man, who wants my body as that of an independent and insignificant person, should just move on and find his victim elsewhere.      

300. Shared Commodities

300.   Shared Commodities

Once I chatted with a man, who told me, how he had such a good buddy, and how they were very close ever since they went to school together.   They were now sharing an apartment, because it is practical and economical for people to share commodities, no matter if it is a bathroom, a coffee maker or a washing machine.   But those two guys did not stop here, they decided, they wanted to add one more very special commodity to their sharing.  

They wanted to share a woman.  
 

For a moment I thought he was pulling my leg, but they were serious about it.   As a woman, it took me a moment to let this preposterous outrage sink in.   But in their mind, it was logical.    They wanted a housekeeper for only one apartment, therefore in their mind sharing her was the most economical solutions.   They obviously figured that there was not enough space and chores to maintain two women, and sharing her body too seemed to be just a minor detail in the arrangement.