153. Fighting

Fighting

I am not made to fight or to compete.    Fighting exhausts and depletes me, no matter, how justified my reasons for fighting were.    Even when winning, in the end, the emotional price of suffering the hostility is too high.   Unfortunately, fighting against hostile people cannot always be avoided, it is a part of survival.   

Therefore I need a relationship to be the safe haven, where I do not need to fight at all, where the exchange is based on giving and not on fighting to get, where the principle is caring.  A relationship should be a safe heaven to regain strength for the fighting with the rest of the world.   If I cannot feel safe, then a relationship has no value for me.

Therefore a partner, who uses pressure and coercion to get his own needs and whims out of me, destroys the value of the relationship and it is more stress than being alone. 

There are conflicts in every relationship.   But two egalitarian persons can cooperate to solve a conflict rationally, by communicating and finding a fair solution.   

Fighting is the attempt to gain power.    Fighting solves a conflict in favor of the more ruthless person, who is more brutal and less civilized in the choice of his methods and who has less of a conscience.    I could have the most logical reasons, the best evidence to find a fair solution, but if someone uses anger, aggression, rage, wrath to intimidate and dominate me, he can succeed to get away with anything, no matter how ludicrous and irrational it is. 

When a man converts a relationship into a power struggle, where the woman has only the choice to submit to his dominance and get harmed or to deplete herself by resisting and also get harmed, then such a man is a jerk and a moron.  
He is a jerk for harming her.   He is a moron, because he lacks the intelligence to solve conflicts by rational methods and is not able to do anything better than intimidate her.   

I can think of several explanations, why a man converts a relationship into a power struggle for his dominance.
1.   He could be so brainwashed as a macho, that he considers this as normal behavior.
2.   His ability of using logic and rationality in a discussion is insufficient for constructive communication.  
3.   He uses power to enforce his entitlement delusion, because there is no way to rationally convince anybody of really being entitled to privileges.  
4.   He trusts nobody and believes, that he cannot ever get a fair deal without usurping it by power.

My mindmate is someone, who is capable to use his brain to solve conflicts and does not fight for power.
Anybody, who fights to get power over me, is detrimental to me.    I can only protect myself by avoiding such people.  

152. Blaming and Grudges

Blaming and Grudges


When one partner disagrees with how s/he is impacted by the behavior of the other, then this is a conflict.   

When both partners are wise and mature, they perceive conflicts as tasks, they give each other feedback of how a conflict effects them, and they solve it together by constructive communication.    They know, that conflicts destroy the relationship, when they continue unresolved for too long.    They are aware, that if they value their relationship, they need to invest whatever time it needs, until they reach an agreement, that is convincing to both.  

Blaming and grudges indicate an unresolved conflict, which causes suffering or discomfort to at least one partner.  

There are two varieties:  
1.  The suffering or discontent person wants, suggests, attempts to embark in the conflict solving process, but the other refuses.    The person blames the other with justification for whatever is the conflict and for the refusal to solve it.   
2.   The suffering or discontent person has so little consideration and respect for the other, that s/he does not perceive the trouble as a conflict requiring to be solved.  S/he denies the possibility of any improvement.  Instead s/he devalues the other as flawed and defective, the person is not worth any effort or any effort is considered as futile.  

Obviously, if one partner considers the other as not worth to invest time in solving conflicts and improving the relationship, then they are not compatible.   Blaming instead of conflict solving is destroying the relationship.

My mindmate is someone, who is willing and able to solve all conflicts with constructive communication, until a consent is reached and both feel that harmony is restored.    For him harmony, agreement and consent in the relationship have a high priority, they are more important than his selfish interests and benefits for himself.  

A jerk, who does to me, whatever transgression he feels entitled to do, and who then refuses to solve the conflict, is not suitable for me.

151. Embarrassment

Embarrassment

Some time ago I went with someone to visit a museum.    Since he had a university degree, I thought, that he was an intelligent person.  
But when we handed our bags in to be stored, and got the luggage tag number 13, he refused it.   I was stunned, for a moment I could not believe my own ears and eyes.    He was such a moron, not only did he refuse the number, but he seemed not even to feel embarrassed about it.   
He rejected that number tag without any hesitation, just as others would reject a plate of soup with a fly in it in a restaurant.   

Some people get brainwashed as children to fear the number 13, but grow into adults knowing that it is nonsense and even if they feel uncomfortable, they are wise enough to hide it and to fight against it.  

He did not feel ashamed or embarrassed at all.   But I did, just for being in the company of such a moron.   I admit, that the person handing the tag was not of such importance, as I will not see her again.   But somehow I do not feel comfortable with people, who make a fool of themselves, while I want to respect them.

People, who feel embarrassed and ashamed of their own behavior, have a reason to improve it for the purpose of feeling better about themselves.    Some need the feedback of others to be even aware, that they have a reason to feel embarrassed.   But they can learn.     But a person, who does stupid or gross actions and does not feel embarrassed is doomed to make no improvement.   The whole world may consider him as weird wacko and a moron, only he himself has no clue.  

Later on I asked him, why he he rejected the number 13 and he came up with some lame excuse about being reminded of some unpleasant old woman.   Obviously, he did not want to talk about his real reasons.   He deprived himself of the chance to learn, how others perceive his behavior.

My mindmate is someone, who has enough perception for his own behavior so that he avoids making a fool of himself in public.    Therefore I do not have to feel ashamed to be with him.    Some women want a man to be proud of, I am much more modest, I just want someone, who does not embarrass me.

150. A Woo-Woo Experience

A Woo-Woo Experience

Many years ago, I was in the situation, that I was obliged to attend a Tai Chi lesson, and the circumstances were such, that I had to keep a straight face and control myself from laughing out loud.  
The instructor, or guru, stood in front of the group and made weird movements with his hands and arms, and we had to imitate him.   This by itself was just boring.   But with every of those movements, we were supposed to imagine something.   I have forgotten, what it was, but it was just absurd.   The whole thing was ludicrous, but it was also creepy to see, with how much earnest the others participated.  
I can hold my hands in some way in front of my belly, and I can imagine something.   But both have nothing to do with each other.    It made no sense.   Reality is much better than imagination.   It is much more joy to go on a hike, where is it beautiful.

I had forgotten about that woo-woo session, until I watched this show of Penn & Teller:
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=L4PVVNK3.
They show a woman presenting Tai Chi, and it brought my memories back.    She and her disciple were just as hilarious as what I had experienced.   Had I not known, that this is Tai Chi, I would have thought that someone had filmed two patients in a mental institute.  

It seems that once in a while the line between spirituality and mental illness gets blurred.   

In some dating-sites, people indicate to be 'spiritual but not religious'.    I just read the definition of spirituality in Wikipedia.   It sounds as absurd as religion, it seems to me to be a different label for the same wacko irrationality as religion, I cannot see the difference.  

It is important to know oneself and to be aware of one's own values, it is important to use a lot of introspection and then logically analyze it.   But this is based upon psychology and it needs no spirit, but brains and rationality.

All those weird claims of feeling connected with the cosmos and whatever else those spirituals report to experience, is beyond me.   I cannot even imagine, what that would feel like.   I feel what happens in my brain like joy or sadness, I feel bodily sensations like hunger or thirst, I feel sensation from the surroundings like the warm sun on my skin or a cool breeze on a hot day.    
But how would I feel the cosmos?   What strange feelings do those Tai Chi people have, when they make odd movements with their hands?  

Those same spiritual wackos attempt to stop thinking, and they call this meditation.   I prefer to enjoy thinking.   Thinking is fun, thinking makes me feel good.   Why on earth would people want to stop thinking?   

So any man, who identifies with being spiritual, who wants to stop thinking in favor of any woo-woo and new-age wacko thing, no matter how he calls it, is not compatible with me.    I am looking for someone, who is skeptical, logical and rational, and who enjoys thinking, someone who finds religion as ludicrous and hilarious as meditation and Tai Chi or any other spiritual exercises.   

149. Penn & Teller

Penn & Teller

A few days ago I discovered a site, where I can watch all the Penn & Teller shows from their bullsh*t sessions.    This was the first time, that I watched anything from them.    At first I was very pleased by watching some of their debunking absurdities like ESP, astrology, Feng Shui, reflexology and Ouija Boards, even though their language is too nasty and vulgar for my personal taste.  

But after watching some more I got aware, that they are not educating people, but instead are doing a lot of damage to the reputation of skepticism and atheism.      In the spectators' minds, Penn & Teller associate their debunking of irrationality with the macho attitude, that women are bodies to be used.   They do it implicitly between the lines of what they say, and explicitly by having dozens of naked women with instinct eliciting body language decorating their show.   They propagate the message, that women are objects for men to use.   Some of their shows are repulsive and sexist.

They are doing a lot of psychological damage:
1.  It is one of the false christian accusations, that atheists have no morals.    Many atheists make a lot of effort to refute that claim.    Treating a woman as equal, being faithful and monogamous is an important part of morals, because cheating hurts the woman, and hurting it immoral.   Penn & Teller discard monogamy. 
2.  Penn & Teller are role models for men, who are skeptics and atheists.   They indirectly encourage those men to abuse women, to be promiscuous, to cheat, to become less suitable for decent women.  
3.   They have a basic flaw in what they do.   They meddle two distinct things, the debunking of unscientific claims and the propagation of their opinion as better than that of others, when this is a question of personal values, which cannot be decided by the scientific method.  
While rationality concerning the scientific validity of things it is a dichotomy:  Something like astrology can be either be backed up by scientific evidence, or the evidence is lacking.   When it comes to human behavior as to what is best for the individual, there is no right or wrong for everybody, but what makes some people happy, is detrimental for others.   It depends on the disposition of the individual and the amount of instinctivity or rationality in their brain.   It is a personal choice and not right or wrong.
Penn & Teller are as fanatic as christian fundamentalists in declaring as wrong and absurd, what does not correspond with their personal inclination. 
We in the western world live now, maybe for the first time in history, usually in circumstances to choose our personal way of life according to our personal wishes.   It is a good thing to propagate tolerance to all forms of flexible life styles, including gay couples raising children and people having promiscuous and polygamous life styles, as all minorities acting upon consent.   Those, who are lacking the ability to be happy in a monogamous relationship have the right to do, what they want.   But the monogamous person, who gets harmed and hurt by any non-monogamous partner needs to be respected, accepted and protected. 
In the show on family values, Penn & Teller are very intolerant.   Instead of advocating tolerance for alternative life forms, they declare the alternative life forms as the new norm and they make monogamy appear as if it were weird and not some people's natural inclination and what makes them most happy.   Like Dorine and André Gorz (entry 100)   Penn & Teller are obviously very much determined by strong instincts.  They are another indication, how the strength of animal instincts in people influences their own values and attitudes and makes them intolerant for those, who are different.  
As long as they would only personally deny the fact, that some people need monogamy as much as Penn & Teller themselves seem to need promiscuity, they would not do much damage.   But their public denial of the value of monogamy and their role model for men is irresponsible and dangerous for the victims of cheating.    It may be the one decisive bad influence, that makes men finally allow themselves to cheat, while they have struggled to stay faithful to their monogamous wives so far.  
4.  They are repulsive to those people, who are most in need of the debunking of their irrational believes. 
In entry 71, I have the example about the absurdity of having a lawn.   Penn & Teller have made one show about the absurdity of lawns, that makes some excellent points.   Except that the first 3 minutes of the show spoil it all.   They start by showing about a dozen naked bodies spread over a lawn.   When the middle class home owners, with a sense for decency, those people, who are the most prone to make a fuss about their lawn, see this introduction on tv, they zap and never see the rest, that is meant for them. 
Some of the New Age nonsense and woo-woo are especially attractive to women.   But the debunking of that stuff is so much blended with the degradation and devaluation of women as sex-objects, that many, if not most of them are getting disgusted and repulsed by Penn & Teller.  They either never see their debunking shows at all, or if they do, the general repulsion impedes, that they understand the skeptical message.    

148. Reciprocity and Mutuality

Reciprocity and Mutuality

This blog is about my personal search for a mindmate, focusing on what I want and what I do not want in a relationship.    I may appear as detached and factual as if writing advice for others, and I am sometimes generalising.   But I am writing from my subjective perspective.  Therefore I have written a lot about what makes men unsuitable, what behavior I require from a man and what I do not accept.   It may appear as if I were demanding more than I were willing to give.  

Therefore it is time to declare explicitly:   Whatever I want, it is based on my acceptance of reciprocity and mutuality.   This means, that every time I mention something that I require of someone, I check the reciprocal position.   I ask myself, if I am able to give and to do the same for the other.   

This is the core of the egalitarian principle, of a symmetrical relationship based upon reciprocity.   I expect in return, what I am able and willing to give.    What I cannot give, I do not expect.  

That principle can only work, when people share their basic values.   The values determine, what someone wants from a relationship and what someone is willing to give and to invest.  
If one expects and demands, what the other cannot give, these two person are not compatible and should not get involved.  
 
A relationship can work, when both take responsibility to do their fair share in the balance of giving and taking.    It is part of taking responsibility for the own actions as explained in entry 146.  

___________

Later Addition:   I gave this entry the title 'Reciprocity and Mutuality' and I omitted the reason, why I used both words.   Both are describing the symmetry of giving and receiving something.   But in my understanding, there is a difference.   Mutuality means doing the same thing to each other at about the same time.   Reciprocity is more generally returning a favor with a different favor, and there can be a long delay between.  
Exchanging gifts for christmas is mutuality, gifts to each other's birthday are reciprocity.   

147. A Good Question

A Good Question

This is someone's comment to the previous entry:

I'm wondering at your age are guys still immature or jerks? I would think by 50's 60's men AND women would have grown out of this younger phase and the problems in dating would be more about finding someone available (unattached, w/o kids, etc) rather than immaturity

This is a good question, and there is a logical answer to it.  

One enabling factor in the process of maturing are painful experiences, if people are capable to learn from them.   
When a woman gets involved with a jerk or any kind of an immature man, she suffers and learns to avoid a repetition of this experience by looking through a magnifying glass from then on for red flags.
But the immature man has coerced his onesided benefits out of the woman without suffering himself.   Due to his inability to bond and to be an equal partner he made the woman suffer instead.  Thus he has no instigation to learn and to grow mature.   His immaturity preserves itself, because he does not suffer from it.  
When he either has dumped a woman as not serving his needs or when he has driven her away with ruthless and cruel behavior, he feels not responsible at all, but blames it on the woman.  Such a man never learns, never improves and is still immature at the age of 60.   At that age, the proportion of available men of all men is smaller than at a younger age, so the proportion of jerks and immature men of all available men may be greater than at a younger age.  

146. The Difference Between Acting And Reacting

The Difference Between Acting And Reacting

A sequence of behavior starts with an action, that someone initiates, then someone else reacts, then follows a reaction to the reaction, and so forth.   Without the initiative of the first action, none of the later reactions would take place.   When someone's action or reaction is a transgression, and it was not provoked or triggered by any previous transgression, then the transgressor alone is responsible for everything, that follows.  

Only the person, who commits the first transgression, has a choice, what to do and how to act.   The transgressee has no choice.   She may be aware, that her reactions to a transgression are inappropriate, out of proportion or even foolish.   But she cannot prevent her reaction, if she cannot prevent to be the target of the preceding transgression, which comes as an unexpected and unwarranted surprise.    Therefore she cannot be blamed for her reaction.  
After she has learned, from whom to expect transgressions, she has also a choice:  She can avoid to expose herself to the transgressor by leaving him.         

I take responsibility for my behavior, as long as I am treated correctly.    I am determined not to commit transgressions myself.  

That means, that when someone gives me feedback, that something I have done or am doing causes him to feel hurt, disturbed, annoyed, harmed, I am motivated to do something about it.  I am willing to listen and I am willing to talk about it.   I am willing to change my behavior, after having found out, what exactly is the problem and after having been rationally convinced, that there is an alternative way of behaving to solve the problem and to alleviate the other's feelings.  
I am willing to do this, when I am made aware, that my behavior needs improving, I am also willing to do this to accommodate someone's special sensitivities.
Whatever I expect or require as correct from someone else, is the same as what I consider myself obliged to do or to refrain from.  

But I refuse to take responsibility for my REactions, whenever I am treated in an inappropriate way.    

Example 2.2. in entry 129:   If somebody would not react to a civilized attempt to talk about a serious issue, and it escalates, until I call him an idiot, then I do not take responsibility for this.   It is first his own job to correct his behavior and start constructive communication like a mature partner.   As soon as he does and stops appearing like a moron, I will gladly tell him that I have changed my opinion and that I no longer consider him and idiot.  

Example 1.2. in entry 130:  If someone would intimidate and threaten me, until I am a bundle of nerves, I do not take responsibility for my loosing countenance and control.      First the situation would have to change drastically to give me relief, before I can normalise my own behavior.

If someone dislikes my reaction, it is his task to stop ongoing transgressions and avoid a repetition of the transgression.  If he does not repeat his transgression, he will automatically not experience my reaction again.  
I do not take blame for my reactions and I do not accept, that my reaction is used as an excuse for further transgressions by someone, who did the first transgression.

Of course, all this is based on the precondition, that there is consent, what is a transgression by agreement before getting involved.   If there has been a misunderstanding, or if someone has lured me into involvement by pretending to share my values, but does not, then I restrict to take responsibility based upon my own value system.   If a jerk considers my refusal to accept the role of inferiority as a transgression, then blaming me for it is his mistake and not justified.  

If a jerk does not like the reactions, that he triggers in me, then he better dejerkifies himself.

145. Caring Man or Jerk - 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

144. Attempting to Comprehend How Jerks Tick

Attempting to Comprehend How Jerks Tick

The jerk's lack of a conscience has been puzzling to me, because I cannot put myself into his shoes.   But after a lot of thinking, I finally have come up with an analogy.  
A meateater is for a vegetarian what a jerk is for a (non-jerkish) woman.     

1.  Subjectively, from my personal point of view, I despise and loathe jerks, while there is nothing wrong with being a meateater.  

I am a meateater and not a vegetarian.   I see a fundamental difference between animals and humans, as I already explained in the entries 22 and 58.   Humans know, that they will die, animals do not.  
I buy free range eggs, and I would also gladly pay a higher price for meat, if this would be for sparing sufferings to the livestock.    An animal, that is kept with enough comfortable space, well fed and painlessly killed, has a better life than many animals in the wild, and it suffers less than many people living in miserable circumstances. 
 
That means, in my personal value system, causing suffering to any living being, human or animal, is wrong.   Eating an animal, that has not suffered, is not wrong.
The ethical vegetarian, whom I mean in this context, has animal rights as a part of his value system.   He considers killing an animal as equally unacceptable as killing a human.    Killing an animal is a serious moral transgression for the vegetarian, that would make him feel guilty.    

2.  Seen from a neutral point of view, the vegetarian experiences the meateater in a very similar way as the woman experiences the jerk.  

2.1.  An animal is to a meateater, what a woman is to a jerk.    The meateater feel superior to the animal.   The jerk feels superior to the woman.   
2.2.  The meateater's perceived superiority allows him to eat the animal, the jerk's perceived superiority allows him to dominate and use the woman.  
2.3.  The feeling of superiority justifies the behavior as morally acceptable.    The meateater feels no guilt eating meat, the jerk feels no guilt hurting a woman.  
2.4.  For the vegetarian, eating an animal is a moral transgression, because he identifies with the animal as having equal rights.   For the woman, being dominated and used is a moral transgression, because she identifies herself as having equal rights.   
2.5.  The meateater and the vegetarian have incompatible basic values concerning animals, just as the jerk and the woman have incompatible basic values about the meaning of commitment.
2.6.  If a meateater refrains from eating meat, it is by extrinsic motivation as part of the deal in return for the benefits of being in a relationship.    If a jerk refrains from doing hurtful things to a woman, it is by extrinsic motivation as part of the deal in return for the benefits of being in a relationship.  

3.  In several previous entries I have already explained my suspicion, that the individual's basic values and attitudes are a conscious representation of the innate relative strength of some instincts compared with others and with rationality. 
Thus people do not to decide consciously, what to choose as basic values.    This seems to include also the evaluation, who is equal, and who is inferior.    The jerk could be driven especially by a strong hierarchy instinct.   The vegetarian could be driven especially by sharing the procreation instinct with animals.  
If this were reality, then ethical vegetarians would have more children then meateaters, and jerks would be mostly meateaters.   Hypoanimalistic people would be driven by neither instinct, but mainly by rationality, and therefore they feel superior to animals, but equal with all humans.   Unfortunately, these will stay speculations forever, as I have no way of finding any evidence.  

4.  I know, that as a meateater, I would not be suitable for the moral requirements of an ethical vegetarian.   As much as I would be willing to please him by not eating meat in his presence, I would just not feel any intrinsic inhibitions to eat meat in his absence and without his knowledge.  This would be a transgression in regard to his morals.  

I usually know, what are transgressions in other people's attitude, even when they are not in my own.  But a jerk does not even know, what are transgressions and that he is not suitable for a woman like me.  
I have the double task to be aware of who is not suitable for me, and for whom I am not suitable.   Jerks do not care, if they hurt a woman, so it is obvious that it is my own task to avoid them.   But many men, who are no jerks, overlook incompatibility or have the concept, that when they are infatuated, then tolerance can cope with incompatibility.   So I have to avoid them too.

143. Caring Man or Jerk - 6

Caring Man or Jerk - 6

This concerns the difference in basic morals.   Dumping is a very good example for this.

In entry 3 I already put emphasis upon the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation guiding the behavior as a partner.   This is also another difference between the caring man and the jerk.  


Dumping means here, that one partner ends the relationship by a onesided decision and declaration, without any discussion, without allowing the other to influence this decision.    The dumped partner has not committed any transgression, that justifies this drastic action.  
That means, that ending the relationship immediately as a consequence of being cheated on is an appropriate reaction and not dumping.  
Having spent good times together and having agreed upon plans for meeting again, and then one disposes of the other by an email, that is dumping.  


1.   The caring mature man is guided by a value system of moral attitudes.  He has the intrinsic motivation for correct and decent behavior.    He considers dumping as an act of betrayal and a serious transgression.    If he would dump anybody, he would loose his self-respect, he would feel guilty.   He cannot allow himself such a transgression, else he would suffer.  His behavior is ethically determined.  Such a man is reliable, the woman can feel safe and relaxed with him, she can trust him.    She can dare to be herself without worries.   She knows, that in the case of misunderstandings and unexpected events, he will not disappear into thin air.   She can trust, that in any case he will first talk with her to remove all doubts, before he would suggest to end the relationship.   The have got involved by agreement, if they separate, this also requires agreement.  
      
2.   The jerk is a potential dumping monster.   He is not guided by morals.   He has no clue, what ethical behavior would be, for him the word betrayal is some abstract word, that he does not understand.   He may seriously believe to never betray a woman, because when he does it, he is not aware of it.  
For the jerk, dumping is normal behavior, he has no more inhibitions to dispose of a woman than he has to dispose of yesterday's newspaper.   A jerk has only one reason not to dump a woman, and that is the advantages he is still getting from being with her.    He can agree or promise not to dump a woman, and even mean it, while she is useful for him.  He promises, what pleases the woman, so he can get benefits from her in return.   His promise is the price in a deal.  The deal is like a subscription to a recurrent service.  When the service is cancelled, payment is cancelled too.  When he wants to get rid of her, for him the deal is over and his promise is no more valid, so he dumps her anyway.   No moral restrictions, no conscience can restrict him from dumping her.    

There is some fatal logic in the jerk's dumping.   In the entries 140 and 141, I explained, that mature, bonded, egalitarian partners improve their relationship by solving conflicts together with the method of constructive communication, but that a jerk jeopardizes his role of superiority by improving the relationship.  
When there is a conflict, that deprives him from getting benefits out of the relationship, and improving the relationship is no option for him, then dumping is the only logical procedure for him, in the case that the woman has not left him already.  


The dumping monster is not reliable and not trustworthy.   This has consequences.  
A close relationship of two equal partners is impossible with a jerk.    If she trusts him and insists on being an equal partner, not a servant or utility, he gets soon tired of her and dumps her.   If she is lucky, he does this already before getting physically involved, and she is stunned.   If he had already lured her into bed before dumping her, she is shocked as this is damaging her dignity.   
Preceding the actual dumping, being aware of his readiness to dump her at any moment is a threat, that intimidates and stresses her.  She is walking on eggshells.  He has power over her, as long as she is with him.  I explained it already in entry 130.   His power ends, when he drives her away or when he dumps her.   

Sometimes a jerk has the delusion that dumping a woman is not final.   At the moment of dumping, the woman may appear as if she were wanting him very much, because she is very motivated to work on improving and repairing the relationship.   He has the delusion, that she will be waiting patiently, until he may condescend to allow her back, and that she would compare all other men with him and no other could interest her in comparison with him.  
Such a jerk has no clue, that a transgression as serious as dumping can drastically change a woman's attitude and kill her love.    While she felt bound ethically to make efforts to improve the relationship instead or before freeing herself from the jerk, his dumping has just set her free and now she considers it as final.  

Sometimes a jerk dumps a woman, who has resisted and protested with too much verve against his domination and inappropriate behavior, for the purpose to break her will, believing that when he allows her back, she would then gladly submit in obedience to her inferior position.  But the taming of the shrew is a centuries old theater play and no realistic model to imitate.  But he may well have the delusion of her waiting to be allowed back as docile, while the woman instead considers him as good riddance.  

But having no conscience, not being inhibited by any moral restraints from being a unconcerned jerk is a general basic trait, dumping is just one expression of it.   So if a woman is aware of the risk, she can be alert.    Someone, who has no conscience to commit major transgressions, also commits less serious transgressions.    It is the same absence of a moral imperative in guiding the behavior, when someone betrays the trust by dumping his partner, and when someone continues to annoy another person in defiance of being repeatedly asked to stop. 
The example of the inconsiderate guy sending gibberish in entry 133 illustrates this.   When someone is unconcerned and inconsiderate to afflict minor pains and annoyances on others, it is to be expected that he also does not hesitate to commit major transgressions like betrayals.   He has no reason to restrain himself.   He does not perceive his transgressions as transgressions, and as long as he is in denial of any feedback about others people's feelings, he may not even be aware, when and how much he is harming others.   So the red flags are there, and a woman can look for them and run before getting involved with a dumping monster.

I am looking for a partner with some emotional intelligence.    Jerks with emotional moronity are not suitable for me.

142. The Sufferings of the Jerk

The Sufferings of the Jerk

Jerks make their victims suffer.  But they also suffer themselves.   They feel entitled to get everything for free and they take for granted, whatever they get, without any gratitude.    This works fine for them, as long as they are lucky to be in a situation of having power.  
Otherwise they get nothing.   No matter, how much they themselves feel entitled, this is of no consequence. Those, who disagree with their entitlement delusion, just give them nothing.   When they have shown no gratitude nor appreciation in the past, people stop giving them anything.  

When jerks get nothing, they have no clue, why.   Mature people know, that beyond basic human rights, they are entitled to nothing, except they earn it and they refrain from forfeiting it.   They are aware of the connection between what the do and what they get. 

When a mature man wants something, for example the advantages of being in a relationship with a woman, he knows, that he has to earn it by doing, what in the perception of the woman makes him someone deserving and worthwile to be with.  

When a jerk wants something, for example the advantages of being in a relationship with a woman, he feels entitled to get it, as if the woman owes him a relationship, just because he wants it.   When she rejects him or leaves him, he feels the victim of an outrage.   He is helpless and has no clue.   In his mind, what he does and what he gets, are independent events.

Many jerks often do not get, what they want.  The spot in the brain, where mature people have the option to earn something, is void in the jerk's brain.    Then jerks get depressed, angry, bitter, frustrated at an allegedly hostile world denying them their entitlements.   Jerks do suffer, but as long as they blame it on others, they are doomed to continue.  

It is possible to have compassion and pity with a jerk while staying at a safe distance out of his reach.   Any attempt to help or support is dangerous and futile, because getting near him triggers automatically his vampire nature.   He does not appreciate support as voluntary but as finally someone giving him, what he feels entitled to.  

A jerk is like an animal with a splinter in its paw.   The pet bites the person, who touches the splinter, because this causes additional pain.  The pet has no insight, that the person wants to help by removing the splinter. 
The jerk harms the person, who attempts to teach him, how to earn, what he wants.   The person touches his entitlement delusion.    The jerk has no insight, that the attempt to remove his entitlement delusion is the support to get fulfilment for his more vital human needs.  

141. Learning Theory Explaining the Behavior of Jerks

Learning Theory Explaining the Behavior of Jerks
Jerks lack a conscience, that guides their behavior by the intrinsic motivation to live in accordance with their ethical values.   As far as the behavior of a jerk is influenced by anything except his own selfish needs, wishes and whims, it is influenced by rewards and punishments.

A jerk does not get any reward from treating a woman well.   He coerces all advantages, that he is interested in getting from a woman, out of her.    He is oblivious of the additional benefits, that a mature caring man could get by treating her the way, she wishes to be treated.  
As explained in 2.3. of entry 140, he needs to perceive her alleged or real flaws to proof his own superiority to himself and to her.   Therefore treating her badly gains him the reward of further evidence of her alleged inferiority.   

But he never gets any punishment for treating a woman badly, as long as she is with him.   He gets no reward for treating her well, he gets rewarded for treating her badly.    Therefore treating her as he does is perfectly logical based on the attitudes that are the premises of a jerk.  

The only punishment, that he ever gets, is when she leaves him.    Even then, he may explain it with any reason except his own behavior.    

But even if he is capable to have the full insight, that she left, because of his inappropriate treatment, even then she has no chance for any improvement.    She cannot take him back with the illusion, that he has learned his lesson and will treat her better in the future.   
Because if she would, she would annihilate the punishment.   He would interpret it as if his behavior had not been that bad, and he would continue to mistreat her as before.  

A jerk is not guided by morals, and a woman with no influence on him by either rewarding or punishing for how he treats her, has no way to improve her fate while with him.     A woman, who takes a jerk back, is a fool.  

Scientists has developed brain implants for Parkinson's and for some other problems.   Maybe one day they can also develop a brain implant of a conscience for jerks.  

140. Caring Man or Jerk - 5

Caring Man or Jerk - 5

This is about the difference in the purpose of communication

1.  In entry 20, I already described, what I consider constructive communication.    It is an efficient method to improve a relationship, when both are mature, intrinsically committed partners and they are capable and motivated to enhance the closeness and harmony.   Constructive communication is symmetrical between two egalitarian partners.

When such a couple experiences a conflict, it is mainly about some behavior or action and the consequences thereof.   The behavior is based upon values and attitudes.   As a bonded couple, they share the same basic values like equality.   Therefore a conflict can be solved by constructive communication.   The focus is upon the sequences of behavior, that can be analyzed and changed.    When one partner feels hurt, he tells the other, which behavior was the cause.  Then they can discuss it until they reach an agreement about the required change of this behavior.   This improves the relationship.  

2.  Conflicts between a jerk and a non-jerk are very different.  From my subjective point of view as a woman, I am talking about a male jerk and a woman.   Theoretically, this could also be between a jerkish woman and a non-jerkish man.   But most jerks are men.   Male jerks dominate in accordance to what they perceive as their natural role and what society defines as manly, while women dominate in defiance of the role given to them.

Those conflicts are caused by incompatible basic values, one of which is their disagreement between her right to be an equal partner and his entitlement delusion to dominate.   On the behavioral level, he attempts to coerce her to submit to his domination, while she resists.    Since their basic values of equality or of a hierarchy are mutually exclusive, their conflict cannot be solved, not even if he would participate in constructive communication.  

Therefore for him, communication serves an entirely different purpose, it is a part of his general power struggle to acquire and maintain his position above her in the hierarchy.    He uses his words as weapons to weaken the woman, so that he can feel strong, as a consequence of his need to feel superior.  The effect of the weapon of his words is enhanced by anger, aggression and intimidating tones.    Repeating statements, that are derogatory, demeaning, devaluing, insulting about his partner are a way of reassuring himself, that she is indeed inferior.  Repeating these claims seems to make them more true for him, and they serve as a justification to treat her as inferior.   He also believes that by repeating devaluing claims about her often enough, she would finally agree to his superiority.  

2.1.   The unfavorable claims are so vague and general, that they cannot be rationally refuted by evidence, precise information or logic.    They are claims, that the woman is flawed, defective, has blind spots and so on.   But she is not told, exactly which of her behavior is supposed to indicate her inferiority.  She has not chance to rationally defend herself against such claims.    Counter claims, that she is not flawed are futile, they have no effect.  
2.2.   For the jerk, it makes no difference, if her alleged flaws are only his delusion, or if she really has any flaws and weaknesses, and what they are.   He wants her to appear to have flaws, he wants to believe in her flaws being real, because this way he can justify his domination.   He does not want her to improve, because her improvement would diminish his superiority.   The only pseudo-improvement, that he wants, would be her acquiescence to be treated as inferior and give up all resistance.  
2.3.   If he does not find enough flaws to ascribe to her, he treats her badly and drives her into loosing her countenance.  Sometimes this provokes behavior from her, that she has to acknowledge herself as not her best.   In his perception this adds a few more flaws to those, that he has already ascribed to her.   He uses this as evidence to point out her flaws to her. 
2.4.   He does not see any need to work on conflicts by communicating about problematic behaviors.   He considers his own behavior as correct and not in need to be worked upon, and he considers her in need to submit in obedience to his guidance.    He believes that if she would, there were no conflicts.   He believes, that she creates all the conflicts by resisting his dominance and his superiority.
2.5.   For the jerk, communication is asymmetrical.   From his usurped higher position, he commands, demands, and instructs downwards.   Those below have nothing to say, so he is not bothered to listen.  


Such a jerk is not suitable for me.

139. A Jerk is Spitting With Rage

A Jerk is Spitting With Rage

So far I have got some positive feedback from people, who find this blog impressive and interesting.  

The following is a comment to entry 138, which was about men, who use a partner as a scapegoat for their displaced aggression and rage.    That was obviously so much a mirror to this commentator, that it has pushed his button to out himself as a case of evidence.   Thanks to him for backing up my point.          

This feedback is so far the best compliment for my writing.   His wrath shows me, that I am describing jerks and emotional morons so well, that they recognize themselves immediately.  

This comment is hilarious.   Enjoy the laughter.   

dear what's your name?

what makes you think that after you go on and on and on about what jerks men are... how every aspect of a man repulses you, how there are 5 kinds of jerks with 4 subtypes of problems each? what makes you think you shall ever find a man who possesses the kind of capacity and self esteem you seem to call for in your online blog advertisement thingie here to get your dream mate?

And when it comes to taking out a person's shortcomings on their mindmate, what makes you think you are any less likely to do that than all the men you seem to blame for STRAPPING your energy as a woman. Could it be that like in the quote you lack such interpersonal skills that you are incapable of having a social life AND a professional or personal life within the norms of human behavior without continually henpecking a man to death?

Or do you suppose that you will only find men who would allow you to beat them up psychologically before they ever arrive at your front door. And if any man should decide to give you a whirl, could you suspend all judgement and live in the moment, forgiving and forgetting minor indiscretion as mature adults do, or should you or would you be forever picking his eyes out, measuring him against your ideal concept of what your dear Philemon should be?

these are important questions you should ask. they may determine whether you ever find your mind mate or get a former one back if you indeed have any former boyfriends. i seriously doubt it. you sound possibly like a 61 year old virgin with no imagination for an enjoyable sex life, social life nor anything but simply sitting in front of your computer writing rules for fools to live in your world by. could this be the case?

i do not pity you but wonder if you yourself have the capacity to live a happy life even if Philemon should arrive from half way round the world committed to stay with you for a lifetime. Or if he should walk through your door from down the street. Either way you will have to show maturity and self control yourself and with a sense of humor strive to get along with your mind mate and i hate to suggest this to such an opinionated woman, you may actually have to make concessions yourself!

I know that it is not very kind to make fun of a pathetic creature like this commentator.  I should pity him for being such a moron.  Further comments from him will be deleted unpublished.  

138. Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 3

Interpersonal Courage and Interpersonal Cowardice 3

This is another variety of interpersonal cowardice, when a jerk uses a woman as an outlet for his own personal problems.

A man can feel pain, depression, helplessness, anxieties and such because of emotional baggage, that he has brought along into the relationship.  

1.  A mature, trusting, bonded man reveals this truthfully to his partner and gets her support.   Supporting the other is a part of the role of an intrinsically committed partner, it is for better or for worse, for joy and for sorrow.  

2.  The interpersonal coward hides these feelings.  But those feelings build up pressure in him like inside a pressure cooker.   They find a valve, but in a form, that he can allow himself as consistent with his idea, how he is supposed to behave as a man.  
He converts all those feelings into anger, aggression, wrath, fury and rage.   He relieves himself of the pressure by terrorizing, intimidating and stressing his partner.  
 
A man, who would use me as a scapegoat for his bad temper, is not suitable for me. 

137. A Book and Movie Recommendation for Women

A Book and Movie Recommendation for Women

I am writing this blog to find my mindmate.   But I know from her comment on entry 113, that there is at least one woman reading this blog, whose aversion to jerks seems to match mine.

For her and other likeminded women, I recommend two very good books:   

Kathy Krajco:  What Makes Narcissists Tick?

Martha Stout:  The Sociopath Next Door

Sandy Hotchkiss:  Why Is It Always About You?

These three books are a very good training program in recognizing jerks before getting involved with them.   

And as a special treat, I recommend also the movie SWITCH. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103016/
In that movie a jerk gets, what he has deserved.

136. Unsuitable Men 6: The Willpower Deficit

Unsuitable Men 6:  The Willpower Deficit

In entry 133, I wrote:  Not hurting requires two components.    The one, who hurts, needs to know, that he is hurting, and he needs to be motivated not to do so.  
After reading and thinking about willpower and depletion, it seems, that I omitted the third factor, willpower and self-control.  

There are the men, who may well be theoretically motivated not to hurt a woman.   But their individual general supply of willpower is so low and their selfish impulses are so strong, that they cannot help it but hurt the woman against their own wish or attitude.   They have developed psychological mechanisms to successfully trick themselves into not feeling bad about it.  

http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/msh/pdfs/Hagger%20et%20al.%20%282010%29%20PB.pdf
"numerous capacity-based theories of self-control also conceptualize selfcontrol as a dispositional, traitlike construct that differs across individuals"
"This implies that people high in dispositional self-control will have more resources at their disposal.  Such individuals will have more resources remaining after engaging in a self-control task of a given duration and resource demand than will individuals lower in trait self-control. Trait self-control may therefore serve to insulate a person from the depleting effects of self-control tasks and moderate the ego-depletion effect"

In entry 134 I described how the coercion to get advantages from her can deplete the willpower of a woman.
When a man has a personal disposition of only a low amount of willpower, and he attempts to control his selfish impulses, he also depletes himself by doing this.   In reality, he may be only slightly or intermittently successful, in his own perception, he feels as if making huge efforts, while his partner experiences him nevertheless as a hurting and selfish person.   
She needs from him the ability not to hurt her, and subjectively, he struggles to do so.   For her it is not enough, while he perceives his attempts and efforts as not appreciated.  

It is the old dilemma of what is fair compromising and what is giving up basic human rights and reasonable requirements concerning a relationship.   Between one, who prefers hiking, and the other, who wants to visit a museum, an arrangement can be a fair compromise.    When a woman gets hurt less, she is still getting hurt.   Any amount of hurting is no correct treatment.   Therefore any compromise between hurting a lot and not hurting, that results only in hurting less, is not fair and not acceptable.

A man, who receives a woman's feedback, that she feels hurt by his behavior, and who consciously would not want to hurt her, would feel shame and guilt.  He certainly does not like to feel the loser and wimp, who hurts someone, whom he would prefer not to hurt.  

Therefore he uses some psychological strategies to cope with this.  
1.  He prevents himself from consciously knowing, that he indeed is hurting her.     He uses denial to avoid her feedback ever reaching his mind.    He defines her feeling hurt as her defect and flaw.   He blames her to fail her duties to him so he believes his behavior to be justified.
2.  He does the same as the penitents in Sevilla, described in entry 135.   Subjectively he buys himself the license for all the transgressions, that he feels too weak to avoid by self-control.   
He attempts to compensate by doing things for her, that he subjectively considers as caring.   Valuing the fulfillment of his own needs as something of a paramount importance, he projects his own needs upon her and does for her, what he enjoys himself, or what he assumes, that she wants.  Then he expects a lot of appreciation from her for what he does.    
But he is oblivious of what she would consider as caring, of what she really needs and wants.   It does not even occur to him to ask the woman, what is really important for her.   The efforts, that he invests in his compensating activities, are only enough for his own having the illusion of doing more for her than he gets from her, she does not perceive it this way.   Because he is not making any progress towards ending his transgressions, his compensations are not a personal sacrifice for him, and she continues to experience him as using her for his own selfish advantages.  

This leads to an insurmountable impasse, if they differ in a basic attitude.    If in her value system moral transgressions cannot be compensated for, while he considers compensation a reasonable procedure, then they are not compatible and there is no rational compromise to solve the conflict.     
If the woman is like me, she considers moral transgressions like hurting as absolutely not acceptable.   The man is not suitable, because he is hurting her, she may consider him a jerk, a wimp, a moron, depending on his reasons.   There is no way to compensate for hurting.    Nothing he does, has any value, as long as he continues his hurting transgressions.   
When the man in his own perception has not only compensated, but even overcompensated for his transgressions, when he feels to have already paid a high price for his license to continue hurting her, then he starts to think, that he is entitled to get this license and that she owes him to forgive the transgressions of the past and to tolerate his future transgressions.   When the woman refuses this deal, he feels rejected, even outraged.   

It really is an impasse.   She is as convinced of her right to not be the target of transgressions as he is convinced that he has the right to be allowed the transgressions in return for the imposed compensations.

A man, who would hurt me, is not suitable for me, no matter, how much he is willing to compensate for hurting.   If he wants to be suitable, he has to refrain from hurting me.

135. How Jerks Buy Licenses For Transgressions

How Jerks Buy Licenses For Transgressions

In Sevilla and some places nearby in southern Spain, every year in the spring, the Semana Santa is celebrated.   There are fraternities affiliated with every church.  During that week, every fraternity performs a procession, that can last up to 14 hours.   On a heavy float, the main figure from the church is carried by men underneath.   Other men march, with a costume and a hood covering their faces, barefoot, carrying one or several heavy wooden crosses over their shoulders and very expensive huge candles.

They pretend to do penance for their sins.    In reality, they buy the license for more transgressions in the future.   During the previous year, they may have cheated on their wives or beaten them, they may have gambled or spent money on alcohol, while the family was lacking the funds for a decent life, they may have indulged in other serious moral transgressions.   
They experience their 14 hours of marching through the city as an act of undoing all the harm and hurting, they have done during an entire year.   Afterwards they feel free with a clean slate to restart doing the same or other transgressions again.   They feel free to do so, because they know, that a year later, they will annihilate their transgressions again.  
They also consider it a duty of the victims of the transgressions to forgive them as if they had never been illtreated and wronged, and many of the victims themselves are brainwashed by their religion to comply.  

It is a weird thinking.   Nobody of them would expect to be released by marching in a procession from financial debts when owing money to the bank.   But they take it for granted, that the victims release them from all moral debts. 

This is an extreme version of this kind of thinking.   But it is not very different from the jerk, who cheats on his wife, and then buys her a diamond ring or a fur coat and believes, that this way he has compensated for the transgression, as if he had bought the right to be forgiven.

In my opinion, these men are jerks and wimps.   They buy themselves the easy way out.   Learning better self-control, learning how to resist temptations to hurt others would cost them much more effort, strain and unpleasant time than a procession once a year or an expensive gift.  

134. The Jerk's Paradox

134.  The Jerk's Paradox

In entry 130 I explained the difference between a caring partner, who appreciates, whatever a caring woman voluntarily does for him, while a cruel jerk coerces her to serve his selfish advantages.   This can be further looked at with the view upon how it depletes or replenishes her willpower. 

Willpower is something that can get depleted, according to some research.  
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006569.html

Unpleasant tasks use up the willpower, and the daily routine of doing chores is a drain of it for many people.   But a happy life with a caring partner is probably a very efficient way to replenish the willpower and preserve some kind of a homeostasis.
Therefore the caring, trusting, appreciating man can get easily, what he needs and wishes from a woman, who cares as much as she is cared for, because he maintains her capacity to care.    

But for the jerk, who uses intimidation and coercion to press his selfish needs out of a partner, this is very different.  The woman uses up all her willpower to resist the outrage, to protect herself, to survive without breaking down, to cope with the stress of being helplessly under the pressure of the jerk.   She needs a lot of willpower not to loose her own countenance and deteriorate her own situation by yelling and calling the jerk a jerk.  
That depletes her so much, that she looses any capability to comply with his coercion.    To do something, that she wishes not to do, but is resigned to do to avoid a threatened consequence, needs a lot of willpower.   When she has none left, she cannot do it.  

"Coping with stress, regulating negative affect, and resisting temptations require self-control, and after such self-control efforts, subsequent attempts at self-control are more likely to fail. Continuous self-control efforts, such as vigilance, also degrade over time. ......  These decrements appear to be specific to behaviors that involve self-control;"

http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/672%20Muraven%20&%20Baumeister%202000.pdf

This has a paradoxical consequence.   The jerk believes, that domination and coercion are powerful instruments to achieve his goals.   In reality, these very instruments do the contrary, they impede him from getting anything.   The jerk applies all his outrageous hurtful treatment to get advantages from the woman, but he drives the woman away and in the end, he has nothing.   

A jerk, who would deplete me of my energies, is not suitable for me. 

133. Caring Man or Jerk - 4

Caring Man or Jerk - 4

This is a consideration test.

In entry 132, I put emphasis on Epicure's principle to neither harm nor be harmed, and how it is very important for me to find a partner, who would consciously attempt to refrain from hurting me. 

Not hurting requires two components.    The one, who hurts, needs to know, that he is hurting, and he needs to be motivated not to do so.   I am using the word hurting here as a placeholder for all behavior, that is unpleasant above a threshold, no matter, it it is precisely hurting, or disturbing, annoying, intimidating, threatening, embarrassing, mocking in some other way.  

In entry 129 I described the importance of taking responsibility after a completed singular act of hurting, and the necessity to prevent a repetition in the future.   This entry is about the consideration of changing a recurrent behavior, before it is repeated, as a consequence of feedback.

1.  A caring man is generally interested to know, how his partner feels as a reaction to how he treats her.   He asks her, and he listens with interest, when she gives him feedback.  When he does not understand her feedback, he asks further questions.   When she tells him, that she feels hurt by his behavior, then he is motivated to do something about it.  
Even if he does not understand her complaint yet, he has the consideration to suspend the behavior, that she perceives as hurting, until they have discussed the issue.   He does not continue with any behavior, as soon, as he is told, that it hurts.   He reacts the first time, when she gives him feedback about his behavior.  He takes her for serious.   He has enough appreciation and respect for her, therefore he acknowledges, that she deserves to be treated without being hurt.

2.  The following is a true example of the behavior of a jerk.   A while ago I was corresponding with someone, who was interested to learn German.   He wrote an email, used a translation program that distorted it into something, that appeared like German text only to him, and he sent this to me.  
He was not aware, that translator programs do not produce correct text, but gibberish, that is hard to understand and very unpleasant to read.  I explained this to him, and I asked him politely but unequivocally, not to send me any more of that repulsive gibberish, because it was too unpleasant to read.

I expected from him the consideration and courtesy to take this for serious and not to repeat his mistake.  But I was completely wrong in my expectation.   I received at least a dozen more emails of the same kind of gibberish.   I asked him a dozen times not to send me any more.  
He did not stop until I had told him several times, that I was not reading those emails.    It was futile to tell him, that for me they were unpleasant to read.  My experience of something as unpleasant was of no consequence.   He was clueless, that sending them was an act of impertinence.   The only reason, why he did stop, was getting aware, that he was wasting his own time, when I refused to read the gibberish.

I was and I am still puzzled, what goes in someone's brain, who does not react to feedback in plain English, that his behavior is unpleasant, who seems oblivious to the fact, that he is very impolite and impertinent.    Sending gibberish is not as drastic as hurting by serious transgressions, but it is at least as impolite as farting, because it is as bad for the mind as is farting for the nose.  
He could be minddeaf and not consciously hear or read the feedback, he could feel entitled to do, what he does, and consider it the victim's duty to allow herself to be annoyed, or he may consider those feelings as her defect and flaw and not his fault.   It would be curious to know.    

But no matter his reasons.  That guy is more than weird, he is dangerous.  He does not react to feedback, he cannot be stopped, no matter, what he does.   If he continues to do impolite, disturbing or annoying things to other people, in spite of being asked a dozen times to stop, there is no reason to expect, that he would hesitate to continue any seriously harmful activity in the same unconcerned way.  
It is a creepy imagination, that he would stand on my toe, and I would have to ask him a dozen times, until he finally removes his foot from my squeezed toe.   It is even more creepy to imagine, what serious damage he would do and cannot be stopped, before he has done it. 

Someone may overhear something, or he may agree to stop and then forget it a few times, that is not a problem.  
But someone, who just does not react and more than just once but several times, when he is asked to stop hurting behavior, is a jerk and not suitable for me.

132. The Dinner Question

The Dinner Question

On some dating sites, they ask the question, with whom, alive or dead, one would like to have dinner.    I just made my choice: Epicure.   I already explained in entry 131, why I agree with his philosophy and that I see him as a hypoanimalistic man.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus, Epicure was in his way of life  unconcerned by any gods, and that is at least as good as an agnostic of today.  He had no children.   He was an egalitarian in his attitude to women and slaves.  He was a skeptic and in favor of scientific methods.   He was in favor of a fair deal of giving and receiving and of avoiding to harm others.  

Unfortunately, he lived about 2300 years too early.   He would be my kind of guy.   He was never married.  Maybe because I was not around then....    And he was a very attractive man, as his statue shows: 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Epicurus_bust2.jpg/220px-Epicurus_bust2.jpg

I put his core quote here again:  "....agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed' ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
 

'neither to harm nor be harmed'

This sums up one of my own most important goals.    It is very important also in my choice of a partner.   What someone refrains and abstains from doing to me is more important than what someone does for me.   I am looking for a partner, who is determined not to harm me, and that means especially, not to hurt me.   Nothing a man could ever promise, intent or attempt to do for me has any value, as long as not hurting me is not his primary goal.  

If someone is a jerk, a brute, a fool, immature, bonding-disabled, not matter what reason, and he is unable to avoid hurting me, he is unsuitable.   To protect myself, I keep away from persons, who would harm me.  

When someone is unable to refrain from hurting me, I cannot blame him for doing so, I am responsible myself to keep out of his reach, not to expose myself, where I would get hurt or where I have already been hurt in the past.     

When I do not know someone, I am motivated to give him the benefit of the doubt, to find out, if he will harm me or be beneficial for me.  But once I have experienced someone's hurting me, I have learned my lesson and I will not expose myself to more harm from the same person.  

131. Epicurean or Hedonist - 1

131.  Epicurean or Hedonist - 1

I am an Epicurean, but I am not a hedonist, and I am looking for a man, who sees himself the same way. 

Many people think, that both are the same.   But there is a very fundamental difference. 

Hedonists see the goal in life in primitive physical pleasures, eating, getting high on alcohol or other substances, partying.   They are promiscuous, using another person's body, with or without consent.    They are consciously wanting to be animals.

Epicureans also see the goal of life not in sacrifices or serving any purpose like particles do, but they seek predominantly the joy, bliss, fulfillment of emotional and intellectual pursuits.   They are not adverse to a moderate dose of physical pleasures, but those are of secondary importance.    Epicureans are hypoanimalistic.

If a hedonist even is willing to have a relationship with one woman, he chooses her for her qualities as a bedmate, the rest of her is of little importance. 

An epicurean wants a mindmate, a companion, with whom there is emotional and intellectual intimacy.    For sealing the bond of physical intimacy, passion is not important.   They can choose each other as a self-selected arranged commitment, and it works, as long as they do not feel repulsion of each other.    

Therefore for a hedonist, the qualities and requirement for a woman for a relationship and for a friend are very different.    For an epicurean, the requirement for a partner and companion in a relationship and for a platonic best friend are the same.  

A hedonist ends a relationship, when he considers the woman no more fit as a bedmate, and replaces her body with the body of another bedmate.   That is independent of his evaluation of her qualities as a friend for him.   Hedonists sometimes stay friends with their ex-partners.

For an epicurean, the only reasons for ending a relationship are defects in the personal qualities of the partner.  These are automatically also qualities required in a friend, since they are the same qualities.   A person either qualifies to be both, a partner and the best friend, or that person is not suitable to be neither a companion to share the life with nor be a true friend.    An epicurean does therefore not stay in contact with an ex.   If the contact with an ex would be as good as a real friendship, they would have never ended the relationship. 

I defined hypoanimality in entry 67 as the low magnitude of several instincts.   I also suspected that some attitudes and beliefs are conscious representations of the urges those instincts.   The belief in an immortal soul and reincarnation could be the consequence of the urge to make the own genes immortal by procreation.  

I think, that epicureanism is the mental representation of hypoanimality. 


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

It propounded an ethic of individual pleasure as the sole or chief good in life. Hence, Epicurus advocated living in such a way as to derive the greatest amount of pleasure possible during one’s lifetime, yet doing so moderately in order to avoid the suffering incurred by overindulgence in such pleasure. The emphasis was placed on pleasures of the mind rather than on physical pleasures. Therefore, according to Epicurus, with whom a person eats is of greater importance than what is eaten.

And Epicure himself:  "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed', and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life."

130. Caring Man or Jerk - 3

Caring Man or Jerk - 3

This is the selfish or caring test:

Scenario:
A man feels a need or a wish.   Fulfilling it has an impact upon his partner.   Either by using common resources or by the requirement of her doing something.  

1.  The jerk decides in a solitary decision, what he wants to do and to be done and how he want his wish or need fulfilled.   He has the entitlement delusion, that it is her function or duty to serve all his needs and wishes.   

1.1.  The dominant jerk enforces his solitary decision with all the detrimental consequences as described in entry 126.   As far as he has the power, he just does, what he wants.   When he wants her to do something, he demands her to do it as a boss, who demands a service from his underling.   If she hesitates, protests or resists, he intimidates her with anger and outbursts of rage, and uses this as a pressure to coerce her.  

1.2.  The cruel dominant jerk ruthlessly uses the power, that he has.   In a relationship, the one, who loves less, cares less and is less morally bound by commitment, has automatically power over the other.   The cruel jerk dumps her once out of the blue, or if she is stupid enough to take him back, he repeats it, until she finally perceives his dumping as good riddance.    Dumping her creates a mighty weapon for him.    His intimidating anger is backed up by the implicit threat of being dumped again, if she does not submit to his demands.   He has no need to explicitly threaten her with redumping.   The experience of the first time is enough to make her never forget, what he is capable of doing.  

1.3.  The stupid jerk tries a different method to get, what he feels entitled to, when she disagrees.   He annoys her with nagging and even begging, hoping that she would finally do it just to get her peace from being nerved.  

2.  The caring and trusting man who feels bonded in an intrinsic commitment tells his partner, what need and wish he feels.    But he does not consider himself entitled to get anything from her.  

2.1.  If the circumstances allow it, if there is not time pressure, then he does nothing more.   A caring partner feels joy in doing something for her partner by her own decision, as an expression of love.   Caring is voluntarily doing, what is not demanded or coerced.  Caring for the other is doing, what is not a duty or an obligation, that has been agreed on by entering commitment. A bonded partner in a mutually devoted couple feels not entitled to get anything from her, he takes nothing of what she does for granted.   Instead he appreciates every voluntary act for him as an expression of care.   He gives her a chance to care for him.   He pleases her by allowing her to care for him.   He enjoys caring for her, so he knows, how important it is to have the option to care by a free decision.

2.2.  In all other cases, he suggests a way to handle his need or wish, and he asks, what she suggests.  With the combined skills and information, together they find the best solution.   That means a solution, that is rationally convincing to both as being the best solution.    He takes nothing for granted, but appreciates, that he gets his needs or wishes fulfilled, and she appreciates that she can contribute to it as a cooperating partner.   As he approaches her with an open mind as to how the issue is handled, he allows her to supply creative ideas and skills, that he might not even have thought of.  


It is obvious, that a jerk, who threatens her with rages and with dumping for selfish advantages, kills her love and drives her away.   The annoying jerks drives her away too.  Making demands without even honoring her with a rational discussion of how to handle the problem adds to the nuisance of his entitlement delusion.  
Such jerks are just not suitable for me. 

I am looking for a mindmate, who is able to live in a balance of giving and receiving based on caring for each other without any feeling of entitlement, without taking anything for granted, without making demands, but in the trust of the other's caring.  

129. Caring Man or Jerk - 2

Caring Man or Jerk - 2

This is a responsibility test: 

Scenario:  A woman tells a man, that she feels hurt by his behavior.   She attempts to explain to him, what she has experienced.

1.  The dominating jerk refuses to listen.   He interrupts her after the first sentence, finishes, what he thinks she would say, but what is completely off reality, and then starts to monologue about a different topic.   If she makes the next attempt to be heard, he declares, that if she feels hurt, there is something wrong with her, that she has a flaw.  Logically, his behavior will never improve. 
2.  The unconcerned jerk stares at her with a blank expression on his face and with no reaction, while she explains her complaint in a monologue.   His behavior never changes, even if this futile session is repeated several times.   She feels as if talking to a statue, where the ears are only decoration, because there in no connection between the ears and the brain. 
2.1.  She withdraws in silence.  
2.2.  She starts very politely giving feedback about her own feelings.   With every experience of no reaction, her language gets more and more drastic, until in the end she looses her countenance and calls him and idiot, a jerk and such.   Then he has something to blame her for.   Also her use of talking changes.   Talking without a reaction makes her doubt, if she has expressed herself well enough.   She tries it with redundancy, she tells everything several times in several different ways, hoping that one way would get through.    In the end, she has reached the impression, that she is talking to a moron, and there are things, that he is unable to understand, no matter how hard she tries to phrase it in a way fit for his limited comprehension.  

Both jerks certainly do not care about her, and their lack of taking responsible may be only interpersonal cowardice or any additional problem.  They are not suitable.   If the woman makes that test, before getting involved, she better gets away as fast as she can run.   If she already is involved, the relationship is doomed, because it makes not much difference, if she looses respect for him as for a moral jerk or as for a moron.  

3.  The caring mature man, during the phase of growing attachment, while creating emotional and intellectual intimacy, communicates with her about the problem and is eager to learn, how not to hurt her again, as described in entry 128 as the procedure to repair a relationship.    Every conflict about something, that she perceives as a transgression, is not only solved by constructive communication, thus restoring equality by earning forgiveness and forgiving.   They also agree upon general guidelines of acceptable behavior.   This helps to prevent not only a repetition of the exact same transgression, but also to prevent similar conflicts.

4.   The caring benevolent, maybe still immature man, may sometimes not understand immediately, why she is hurt, and therefore he may feel irritated and insecure, how to behave.   But caring for her wellbeing is his main goal.   Therefore he accepts, that whenever he does not know, what to do, he temporarily allows her to guide him and tell him, how she wants and needs to be treated and what she expects from him.   He is motivated to follow her advice.   This buys them time without disruptive and destructive transgressions.   While she feels treated well, they have time to learn and grow, until he understands her better and does not need her guidance anymore, having learned to guide himself.  Someone, who makes even the sacrifice to accept guidance for the more important purpose of not hurting the woman, has great moral qualities.   

 
The mature man, for whom caring means being responsible, is the best choice for a woman, who wants to be bonded with intrinsic commitment.  
The caring benevolent man may need a lot of patience, and he may do unpleasant things once in a while, but he is worth the patience.   
There is a fundamental difference between someone, who hurts in spite of his ardent wish not to hurt, and someone, who hurts, because he just does not care.