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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

  

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

531. Trust And Trustworthiness Without The Myth Of The Free Will

531.  Trust And Trustworthiness Without The Myth Of The Free Will

Rational trust depends on the other person's trustworthiness.    Blind trust is irrational and risky.   

Unfortunately, there is a logical problem concerning the assessment of who can be trusted and how much.   Only a person's untrustworthiness can be clearly proven by the evidence of at least one transgression.   One single act of betrayal and breaking the trust is enough to refute the transgressor's claim to be trustworthy and to deserve trust.   

But no such unambiguous evidence of trustworthiness is logically possible.  Trustworthiness cannot be assessed any better than as a probability of expecting trustworthy behavior in the future, whenever an available alternative option to transgress is not chosen.  Experiencing the absence of untrustworthy behavior justifies nothing more than the estimation of a high probability of trustworthiness.  Rational trust only grows according to experience.   

Experiencing no transgressions cannot be attributed with certainty to a personality trait of absolute trustworthiness.   It can equally be attributed to the mere absence of an occasion to transgress.   It is not possible to know, if a man not cheating does this by an innate preference for monogamy or because his animal instincts have not yet been tempted badly enough by any female body triggering him to transgress.  

The assessment of trustworthiness by only extrapolating previous behavior is a retrospective method without a chance to avoid being harmed.   People gamble with their own vulnerability, when due to lacking enough information they trust by trial and error, until they get wise only when hurt by a transgression.  

 

Consciously discarding the myth of the free will includes also discarding the concept of a person's absolute trustworthiness as a trait and being trustworthy by a free decision.   This leads to the alternative concept of the prospective assessment of a person's relative trustworthy behavior in the framework of the specific relationship between two persons.  

This concept does not expect anybody to be equally trustworthy to all people, independent of how much the person benefits from transgressions.   In this concept, the estimation of another person's possible relative trustworthiness is based upon two limitations:

1. Both persons agree on shared definitions of transgressions.  
   
   When two persons have promised monogamy and exclusivity to each other, cheating is clearly a transgression and proof of untrustworthiness.  
   But when two persons like for example Sartre and Beauvoir agree on the commodification of others, then their sleeping around like alley dogs is for both not a transgression.  They were trustworthy to each other but instead they did break the trust of all those, whom they hurt by the denial of exclusivity. 
   
   
2. The choice of preferring non-transgressing behavior over the transgression is ultimately beneficial for both.  This choice is determined (as outlined in more details in entry 512) by factors as these.  

2.1.  Direct impacts by the specific kind and strength of needs for homeostasis and the individual specific sensitivity of the pleasure center.    Nobody has a reason to indulge in a transgression, unless it either reduces dishomeostasis or causes pleasure.  

2.2.  Indirect cognitive impacts by the consideration and anticipation of long-term consequences of the tempting transgression, either by the calculation of comparing the immediate benefits with expected external punishments and rewards or by the awareness of the cognitive consequences of either preventing self-punishment by feeling guilty or enhancing self-rewarding by feeling good due to acting in accordance with the own value system and ideal self.

It is a frequent fallacy to expect another's trustworthiness as a consequence of an alleged free will to act according to the rules of a religion, social norm or other extrinsic motivations.  Relative trustworthiness can most reliably be expected, when the behavior expected by the trusting person is intrinsically motivated as being also most beneficial to the own needs.    

Therefore trial and error with haphazard partners is not a rational method for the goal of finding a trustworthy partner for commitment.  The rational method is choosing carefully a partner, for whom the trustworthy behavior is innately more beneficial than transgressions would be.   

It is many women's foolish mistake to get involved with a man, merely because he is attracted to their body and promises, whatever seems to lead to his homeostasis.  This does not justify women's irrational hope, that he will never again touch another woman.   This is trial and error and more often than not ends with the woman being hurt by a cheating jerk.    

A wise woman chooses the man, who succeeds to convince her, that monogamy and exclusivity are his own innate preference and needs, that being trustworthy to her expectations of commitment is also what is most beneficial for himself.  
Allowing herself to be convinced of a man's trustworthiness is of course also only a question of correctly estimating the probability.   A man afflicted with dishomeostasis may lie, he may be in denial of some of his tendencies, he may overestimate his self-control, he may mistake his ideal-self for his real self and there are more such hazards.   What a main claims as his attitudes, values, resolutions and aspirations towards a woman concerns mainly the cognitive indirect impacts.  But these alone do not suffice as a reliable basis for the assessment of his trustworthiness.    

The soundest assessment is derived from his predispositions concerning the direct impacts.   A man with high instinctive needs for those homeostations and stimulations of the pleasure center, which he can obtain best by transgressions, is a hazard, no matter, how convincing he appears to be otherwise.   
The less a man is determined by his instincts towards the objectification of women's bodies, the more he can be trusted to treat women without abuse and objectification, without hurting their dignity.

While a careful choice of a man, who shares the most benefits by reciprocally fulfilling each other's needs, is no guarantee against transgressions, it is at least a method to reduce the risk.  

530. The Detrimental Effects Of Breeding

530.  The Detrimental Effects Of Breeding

I am childfree.  I consider breeding as a self-detrimental effect due to being determined so much by irrational instincts, that the urge for the survival of the genes overrides the ability to make a cognitive choice for a good life as an individual.

Today I read this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120705151417.htm

"According to a new study [...] women who believe in intensive parenting -- i.e., that women are better parents than men, that mothering should be child-centred, and that children should be considered sacred and are fulfilling to parents -- are more likely to have negative mental health outcomes. "

"However, some research suggests that parenting may be detrimental to mental health. For example, women have reported that taking care of their children is more stressful than being at work. "

529. Contact With Ex-Partners, Reliability And Trust

529.   Contact With Ex-Partners, Reliability And Trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intrinsic commitment includes the obligation to end a relationship only 

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

528. Commodification Logically Precludes Apologies

528.   Commodification Logically Precludes Apologies
 
The following article emphasizes the importance of apologies after transgressions:

http://www.canada.com/life/Love+means+occasionally+having+sorry+study/6837283/story.html

"One hundred and four of 120 participants reported one or more wrongdoings by their partner over seven days, for a total of 278 offences spanning everything from hurt feelings to failed obligations. Apologies were given for just 30.94 per cent of reported transgressions."

"When apologies were offered, they predicted forgiveness only for men and women who were highly satisfied with their relationships. Those individuals were more likely to judge contrition as being sincere, and perceived sincerity predicted forgiveness."

"Notably, when an apology was absent in the current study, people in highly satisfied relationships were no more forgiving of an offence than those in less satisfied pairings. Wrongdoers only benefitted from having a healthy relationship when they expressed remorse for their missteps."

The implicit and indirect message of all apologies is the appreciation and respect for the partner.   By an apology, the transgressor recognizes, that the victim deserves to be treated better than s/he really was.   This essence of being considered as worthy of better treatment makes apologies so vital for the improvement of relationships after conflicts and transgressions.   The logical basis for apologies is the awareness of interacting with another human individual having an independent subjective perception.   

Commodification makes apologies illogical.  Nobody ever apologizes to a machine for damaging it by faulty use or neglecting required maintenance.   When a person is mistaken for a utility or commodity, the attitude is the same.  There may be regret concerning the own stupidity or carelessness of forfeiting the use of the machine, and the same reaction is also caused, when a commodified person gets dysfunctional.    

Commodification of the partner, especially the objectification of women's bodies by men, is the contrary of appreciation and respect for a partner's person.    Commodification means the subjective alleged entitlement to use the other at the own convenience.    When the man experiences the disagreeing women's unintended reaction to using her as a dysfunction, he does not perceive this as a transgression of his due to mistreating her.  Instead he perceives this as a mistake damaging himself by not achieving the desired use from his commodity.
  
After having caused damage by hitting a fence with his car, a man may get angry at himself for carelessly causing damage to his property.   He would not apologize to his car or to the fence.  

After having hurt a woman's feelings, a man considering her as a commodity would not apologize or even consider her subjective experience at all.   Instead he only notices, what to him is a faulty reaction to his treatment, whenever she refuses or is unable to serve him as he expects.  
He only sees her correct or faulty functioning for himself, he is oblivious of any consideration of her needs and her worthiness.  In his mind, everything he does is right, when he succeeds to fulfill his own needs while not getting his needs fulfilled, is doing something wrong to himself.    Logically for him, there is never a reason to apologize. 

As the full owner of an inanimate item, a man is entitled to use and modify the item or to throw it into the garbage at his convenience, because this does not cause any suffering.   
The fallacy of the commodification of another human being is the role ascribed to a commodity as if owing the acquiescence with everything done, no matter the harm.  Thus considering any behavior towards a commodity as a transgression appears subjectively illogical.  When a man commodifies a woman, he is oblivious of the difference between throwing an inanimate item into the garbage and the unacceptable harm done by abusing, mistreating, hurting and dumping a woman.     

For a man, who commodifies a woman, nothing he ever does can make him feel guilty of a transgression.   The only reason ever to change his behavior is the recognition of having caused the dysfunction of the commodity by stupid handling and the attempt to be improve the benefits.  


Attitudes are not visible.  To assess a man's genuine attitude towards her, a woman needs to infer it from his behavior, and apologies are a significant indicator.   
Sincere apologies followed by unmistakable efforts to change the behavior show a man's probable suitability as an egalitarian, responsible and considerate partner. 
The absence of apologies and of sufficient reactions to a woman's feedback of being hurt is a big red flag indicating commodification.

527. Objectification And The Empathy Gap

527.  Objectification And The Empathy Gap

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

"A hot-cold empathy gap is a cognitive bias in which a person underestimates the influences of visceral drives, and instead attributes behavior primarily to other, nonvisceral factors."

"The crux of this idea is that human understanding is "state dependent"."

"Implications of the empathy gap were explored in the realm of sexual decision-making, where young men in an unaroused "cold state" failed to predict that in an aroused "hot state" they will be more likely to make risky sexual decisions,"

But this works also in the inverted situation, when they make risky sexual decision, which are risky not for themselves as predators, but for their unfortunate victims.
 
Men, who are driven by a high physiological urge of sexual dishomeostasis are often void of all empathy for those women, who are free of such an urge, but who crave instead for attachment and bonding.   Due to this empathy gap, some such men even have the delusion of their implicating women as instruments for their homeostation as being equally beneficial for the women.   These men are clueless, that in reality the women experience this implication as objectification and abuse.   They are unable to realistically evaluate the amount of pain, harm and even trauma, which they force upon the objectified women deprived of the reciprocity of commitment.

Outright jerks are dangerous beyond remedy, when they objectify women's bodies ruthlessly and with no consideration or responsibility.

As a consequence of the empathy gap, it is possible, that some men commodify women even though they do wish to be responsible and considerate.   They are so much caught in the biological trap of their instinctive urges, that when they use a woman's body without getting attached, this is due to their fallacy of not only assuming, but taking for granted the alleged reciprocity of the objectification by consent.  
Being tragically afflicted with their deficit of the emotional response of getting automatically attached by physical intimacy, their lack of empathy causes them to remain completely unaware of the devastation done to those women led on to onesided attachment before being dumped. 
Their objectification and commodification of women as a fallacy due to the empathy gap is a deficit in these men's education and maturation.   This fallacy is perpetuated by the fatality, that the afflicted men do not suffer themselves, instead imposing the suffering upon the women.    This fallacy is additionally enhanced by the social norm of the oversexation of society and the empathy is further damaged by the desensitization following the oversexation.  

526. The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

526.  The Difference Between Genuine-Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals

This is my personal, subjective opinion:

The difference between genuine and pseudo intellectuals is their subjective identity.    Those cognitive capacities, which are generally attributed as to be those needed for intellectuality only exist in human brains, not in any animal.   

The genuine intellectuals identify with these cognitive capacities as the essence of their person, they identify with what is only typically human, they identify with the cognitive distinction as not being animals.  

The pseudo-intellectuals identify as animals with special additional cognitive abilities.  

In both cases, the subjective identity includes the actual self and the ideal self.    

I define an intellectual man as someone, who experiences and considers sexual activities as a dull, but unavoidable banality not worth wasting time and effort on it.   His cognitive needs for intellectual, cultural and creative pursuits and activities are so predominant, that in comparison he considers physical stimulation by food and sex as unattractive and unimportant.  

He is aware and in peace with the body's needs to be healthy and to keep the brain in the best possible functional state to ascertain the joy of intellectual pleasures.   

Such an intellectual copes with his physical needs for homeostasis in a way, that does not hurt women's dignity.  The cognitive basis of his way of life includes all aspects and thus also his attitude towards women and his awareness and interest concerning how women experience his behavior.  

He never commodifies or objectifies a woman.    He restricts his needs for homeostasis to non-damaging and non-abusive interactions.   He accepts a fair exchange, where he fulfills a woman's needs for being an exclusive companion for shared intellectuality in a monogamous arrangement.

An intellectual man focuses his reaction to the perception of his dishomeostasis on finding such a companion and on treating her with dignity, appreciation and respect.    The homeostation inside the relationship enables him to be not effected by any sexual stimuli from any third party.   

Instead of being triggered by pornography or by any other stranger's sexual intrusion into his perception, he just gets annoyed or he does not even notice it.   

He is not or little susceptible to such triggers to animal instincts, instead he is very perceptive to the attraction of a woman's mind and personality. 

Genuine intellectual men identify as their cognition, while they are aware of the necessity of some instincts to enable the survival of their brain.   But they do not see themselves as animals, they identify with all those cognitive capacities, which only humans have, but animals do not.

Genuine intellectual men are not driven by urges to commodify women by a blurred brain oblivious of what they are doing.    Their clear brain enables them to be free to use their cognition to be considerate and responsible. 

By the definition above I am describing a rare minority of men, because I am looking for a man as a partner.   If I would define women in an analogous way, the definition would be different.   While women lack the biological urge for proactive sexual homeostasis, they are more prone to be driven by the biological urge to procreate, which then lures them to comply with being abused by men's urges.   So genuinely intellectual women are childfree, because they experience raising children as dull, boring and unappealing.     

Pseudo-intellectuals share with genuine intellectuals the cognitive capacity to enjoy intellectual pursuits.   But they are afflicted with so much animal instinctive urges, that these urges partially deactivate or blur their cognition in their treatment of women.    Whenever their instincts are triggered, this effect is stronger then their cognition. 

When pseudo intellectual jerks objectify women, they are not any better than moronic jerks.   For the suffering of an abused woman, it makes no difference, if the jerk is always a moronic animal. or if he is a brilliant man all the time in all other aspects of life, but turns into a moronic animal only whenever interacting with a woman.    Their cognition is dysfunctional, whenever they fail to recognize the damage done by the objectification of women.  

Pseudo-intellectuals accept to be animals, they are comfortable when identifying with their instinctive urges and their entitlement to follow them.   They even consider their most primitive instincts as something valuable, because they subjectively experience it as pleasure, independent of the cost for the victims.   They do not value cognition by itself, only as a tool to serve their instincts.

Prototype 1 is Sartre.   While he wrote philosophical texts of high value, which were mostly independent of his primitive instincts, in his personal behavior, he was nothing more than a jerk and a pseudo-intellectual.    He and Beauvoir could have been the model of a monogamous companionship of two caring and exclusively bonded partners.   They could have been the ideal intellectual couple.   

Instead they both left behind them an insensitively cruel trail of hurt, abused and objectified women and men.    He was a jerk, because he was ruled by his most primitive instincts feeling entitled to abuse any woman, whom he could manipulate into compliance.   Beauvoir imitated him.   She was at least his equal as a jerk, because she most probably had not the same biological proactive urge for homeostasis, as men have due to their biology, but she was as abusive as a man.  

Prototype 2 is Casanova.    Sartre wrote intellectual texts, which were not under the influence of his affliction, he became an animal only when abusing women.    Casanova was even worse.   His intellectual capacities were never free to be used for their own sake and benefit, they were reduced to be only a tool dominated by his instincts.    He used all his cognitive abilities to serve his instinctive goals of acquiring supply for his never ending urge to abuse.    And his cognition was so blurred, that he misinterpreted his abuse as beneficial to women.    Some pseudo-intellectuals are very dangerous. 

My mindmate to be found is a genuine intellectual according to my definition and he agrees with this definition.     

525. My Wish For A Jerkoscanner

525.  My Wish For A Jerkoscanner

Along with the myth of the free will, I have given up all illusions, that the difference between drooling over a woman's body and appreciating a woman's personality as a companion were men's conscious free decisions.   This difference is determined by the man's innate needs and instinctive urges and his individual sensitivity to what stimulates the pleasure center of his brain.   

When men drool over women's objectified bodies, their cognition is deactivated and they are not any better than animals, they are just instinct driven robots.   
When men love a woman's personality, they are on an evolutionary level above being animals, because to love a person requires enough cognition to be able to appreciate this person's non-physical qualities.  

As either drooling or appreciating is outside the realm of men's decision, it is even more outside the realm of women's influence.    It is a dangerous illusion, when women hope to gain a drooling man's appreciation as persons by compliance with being used.    

Wise women valuing their dignity reject being objectified by the drooling animals.   Instead they choose those men, by whom they are needed and wanted as companions.   

Unfortunately for these women, it is often difficult or impossible to distinguish by his observable behavior between a man's true level of what attracts him.  Mistaking men's animal drooling for love and commitment is one of the biggest hazards for women.  

There are good news:  While the behavior may be misleading, the brain tells the truth.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120620101011.htm

"Love and sexual desire activate different areas of the striatum. The area activated by sexual desire is usually activated by things that are inherently pleasurable, such as sex or food. The area activated by love is involved in the process of conditioning by which things paired with reward or pleasure are given inherent value. That is, as feelings of sexual desire develop into love, they are processed in a different place in the striatum."

In an ideal world, a woman could send a man to get a brain scan before she allows him to touch her.    This way he could prove to her, that he deserves her by dignified love, in contrast to being merely an unworthy animal attempting to abuse her objectified body.   

But we do not live in an ideal world, but in one, where women too often only find out, that a man is unworthy of her, when it is too late, when she already has made the mistake of getting involved, due to confounding his objectification of her body with apparent but lacking commitment. 

Sending a man to get a brain scan is theoretically and technically possible.   But if I were to have a science fiction fantasy about the perfect world, a woman would invent an instrument called the 'Jerkoscanner'.  This would be a portable and affordable brain scanner, which women could use on men's heads before getting involved.   

The Jerkoscanner would warn her, if a man's apparent interest in her person is nothing better than his strategy of manipulation and seduction caused by his drooling for the body.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

523. Advertising As Evidence Of The Growing Desensitization To The Social Norm Of Oversexation

523.  Advertising As Evidence Of The Growing Desensitization To The Social Norm Of Oversexation

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120605113725.htm

"A recent study from the University of Georgia looked at sexual ads appearing in magazines over 30 years and found that the numbers are up."
"Using sex to sell everything from alcohol to banking services has increased over the years: 15 percent of ads used sex to sell in 1983; that percentage grew to 27 percent in 2003."

"Reichert said this upward trend in erotic ads is a reflection of society."

""Sex sells because it attracts attention. People are hard wired to notice sexually relevant information so ads with sexual content get noticed.""

""It takes more explicitness to grab our attention and arouse us than before," he said. "In the early 1900s, exposed arms and ankles of female models generated the same level of arousal as partially nude models do today. We can see during our lifetimes the changes in sexually explicit content on television, movies, books and other forms of media beyond just advertising.""

Generally, the spiral of habituation and desensitization followed by increasing the strength of the stimulation followed by more habituation and desensitization is well known from addictive agents, which are used for the purpose of stimulating the brain's pleasure center.   This is the case, no matter if the agent is physical like alcohol and drugs or non-physical like gambling.   Most addictions are predominantly detrimental for the addicted person himself.

The spiral of habituation and desensitization to the oversexation of everyday life followed by more drastic oversexation included into the social norm followed by more desensitization and so on is especially fatal, because it externalizes the suffering and damage to women as victims, while the afflicted men themselves succeed to avoid any conscious experience of harming themselves.  
Many men get habituated and desensitized to feeling entitled to the objectification and commodification of women and too often they unfortunately also have the power to impose this upon the victims. 
The women suffer, while too many desensitized men are so much addicted to the primitive physical pleasures of being animals, that they are completely oblivious of paying a very high price for this compensation by having lost and forfeited the true joy of bonded commitment. 

522. Luddites

522.   Luddites
 
Someone described himself in his profile as a Luddite, so I got curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
"The Luddites were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, that replaced them with less-skilled, low-wage labour, and which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life."

This reminds me very much of a German proverb:
Man schlägt den Sack und meint den Esel.

Translation: Hitting the bag, aiming at the donkey.

Meaning: To punish someone for someone else's mistake.
Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:German_proverbs

Every invention reducing the work, time or effort needed to produce the same amount and quality is progress and is principally beneficial. 

There is but one huge problem:  Who benefits from such progress?  

When for example someone using a mechanized loom can produce as much fabric in one hour as he can produce using a traditional loom in a day, then this progress does not predetermine the distribution of the benefits between the workers and the owners of the mechanized looms.    Without even considering the utopia of the benefits going only to the workers, there are two possible principles, depending on the availability of the power to implement it. 

1.  The principle of a fair share.   By this principle, the workers' hours for the same pay are reduced.    The worker would work one hour to produce as much as he did before during an entire day, and he would put in a few more hours to repay the owner's investment in the mechanized looms including some interest for the owner.    It is a fair deal, because the worker works less and the owner has a bit more profit.

2.  The capitalistic principle.   The ruthless owner of the mechanized looms uses his economic power and usurps all the benefits.   The workers work as many hours as before, and some are even made redundant.   Only the capitalistic owner reaps all the benefits of progress.   Instead of improving the workers' life, their plight remains the same or gets even worse.    It is an outrage, but it is the predominant principle, wherever there is the power.   

Luddites fight a real grievance but they fight the wrong enemy.   Progressive inventions improving productivity are not an enemy, the real enemy are those, who abuse their power to usurp all the benefits.     

    
I have no solution, how the exploited could force capitalists to share the benefits of progress.   But destroying progressive inventions as the Luddites did seems not to be one either.  

521. The Difference Between Companionship And Commodification

521.  The Difference Between Companionship And Commodification

In the entries 519 and 520 I mentioned the objectification of women.  But after further pondering I got aware, that objectification in the literal sense is only a part of the bigger problem of the commodification of women.  Women are not only used as bodies, they are often also degraded to the function of rendering other services.  

Literally, objectification is degrading women to be used as passive objects, mainly by rape, prostitution and pornography.   

Commodification degrades women also to the role of objects.  But they are considered as more advanced objects, which are not just passive but have functions like appliances.   

An appliance like for example a toaster or a vacuum cleaner is perceived as an object to fulfill a specific function, whenever a button is pressed.   

1. Without functioning, the object has no value.   
2. The object is maintained according to a manual or common knowledge.  
3. The object is not an individual, but one specimen from mass production and thus interchangeable with any other object supplying the same function. 
4. Only the user decides, when and how to use the appliance.   
5. He expects to retrieve it from where and how he has left it, no matter for how long he stores it in a locker.   
6. The purpose of the existence of the appliance is serving the user by functioning at his convenience.    
7. Once he has gained control over an appliance, he considers it his property to be used at his convenience ever after.    
8. He feels entitled to benefit from the function as long as it pleases him and to discard of the appliance also at his convenience.

When a man commodifies women, he perceives and treats them as if women were appliances.   This is derived from an attitude of the asymmetrical entitlement to selfishly living his live entirely at his own convenience, no matter what this does to the women.

1. A woman is not appreciated or valued independently of the benefits, which the man subjectively derives from her according to his needs.    The man is maximizing the quality of life for himself by adding whatever benefits he can usurp by using a woman.   This is not limited to using her body, it includes also using her skills and knowledge, which are perceived as isolated benefits, not as indications of her having any other competence.   
2. The man decides to treat the woman according to what he considers as her due and expects her to respond by functioning and not failing.    His assumption as to what is her due comes from many sources, be it hearsay, prejudice, projection, previous experience, even trial and error.    This can be any source except asking her.    He does not consider to ask her as he does not consider to ask the vacuum cleaner how to be handled.
   When he believes to keep her under good maintenance, any dysfunction is believed to be her flaw.   
3. The woman is not perceived as an individual with a personality, but as one specimen from the multitude of standard women, easily interchangeable with any other woman to get the same benefits. 
4. The man makes solitary decisions the same way as a single man does, including the one when to demand and receive the benefits from the woman and the modalities of how.  
5. The man comes and goes at his convenience, he decides when to be together and when to be separated without her consent. But he expects the woman to always be there waiting and ready for him.  
6. The man believes the woman to exist for the purpose of serving his benefits at his convenience. He is oblivious of the commodified woman's own needs and personality.  
7. Once he has gained control over a woman, he considers her as his property to be used at his convenience ever after, no matter how he treats her.    
   His control causes her insecurity.  Being commodified by a man, whose decisions come for her out of the blue, while she is helpless to influence or prevent, what he does to her, means to have no security, no reliability, no predictability.   Anything can be done to her at any moment, she cannot even prepare herself for what she cannot foresee.    
8. The man feels entitled to dump a woman, when she does not function any more due to his expectations. 

Commoditification and domination are two sides of the same coin.   The attitude of commodifcation serves to justify domination, and only domination enables someone with an outrageous attitude like commodification to have an impact upon victims.   

The situation of asymmetrical distribution of power in a relationship facilitates the domination over an commodified woman. 

A man's superior power can be caused

• by his physical strength
• by his economic strength
• by the discrepancy between the biological differences.      A man, who is attracted to a body, which he perceives as easy to replace, is less attached than a woman attracted and attached to a man's unique and individual personality.   Attachment creates vulnerability, while lacking attachment gives power.

There is a vicious circle:   Commodification impedes emotional attachment.   Lacking emotional attachment adds to the power needed to maintain domination and commodification.    Thus, commodification tends to perpetuate itself, once it is established.   

Commodification precludes companionship, which is defined by sharing decisions, sharing resources, cooperation, the identity as a part of a couple being a team, a fair exchange of giving and receiving, communication, consideration, responsibility.   

Examples:

1.  By the traditional gender roles, a house wife is commodifed, if the man only wants her for the purpose to find dinner ready every evening, have a clean home and share the bed, while he is not interested in spending any leisure time or sharing any activity with her.   Spending his free time instead with his hobbies and his buddies denies her to be a companion.

2.  Commodification is not limited to manual services as a housekeeper.  It can be more subtle.  Even a woman's mental skills can be used as a mere commodity without appreciation for her person.    

When a couple travels in a country, where only the woman speaks the language, and the man has health problems, there are two scenarios:

2.1.  As companions, they discuss and decide together, how to handle the situation.   Then she communicates on his behalf with whoever is consulted.   They perceive themselves as a teamed couple and they trust each other as being able and motivated to act in the best interest of both.

2.2.  When the man considers the woman as a commodity, the situation is very different.   He decides alone and without consulting her, what he wants to do, and he demands her to execute his unquestioned decisions.  She is to him nothing better than a translation machine, who is not recognized as having any more competence except the isolated skill of translating.   He demands her to translate every word as authentically as possible. She is not considered as apt to interfere at all with any of his decisions.   

3.  A couple has unresolved conflicts and their time together is limited.  

3.1.  As companions, both suffer from unresolved issues and solving conflicts has priority in their shared decision, how to use their time.

3.2.  For a man, who has commodified a woman, there are no unresolved issues.   He considers it his task to handle the commodity for his benefits.   When he gets, what he wants, nothing is wrong, no matter, how the woman experiences the situation.  Whenever he does not get, what he wants, he considers it his right and his job alone to enforce his will and impose his decisions upon her.   Getting, what he wants, is success, again no matter what she experiences..    

When he prefers to spend the time without her, he just does it.   When he wants to leave, he just leaves.   Her needs do not matter and do not exist for him.    When her ignored and denied needs make her too dysfunctional to what he feels entitled to get from her, this justifies his dumping her.

My mindmate to be found is a man, whose innate intrinsic needs are to be a companion, and for whom commodification of a woman is alien to his personality.  

520. An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

520.   An Irrational, Unjustified And Outrageous Distinction

Under German law, being caught having child pornography on his computer usually suffices to send a man to jail.    But any man is legally free to consume as much pornography as pleases him, as long as the abused objects in the pictures are above a minimal age.  

The prohibition of child pornography is justified by its goal to prevent abuse.   Pornography has been produced by the abuse of real life children and there is the probability that consuming pornography is the first step of lowering the threshold towards subsequent real life abuse.      

This makes perfect sense.   But it makes just as much sense concerning grown up women.    Restricting this form of prevention to the protection of children cannot be rationally justified.   It is an absurd outrage to deny to women the same entitlement to be spared abuse by all possible methods of prevention, which are recognized as necessary for children.    

1.  Abuse is as bad for women as it is for children.

Any man of average physical strength has sufficient physical power to force the same amount of harm upon a woman of average strength as he has to force it upon children.    Women have no better chances to defend themselves against physical violence than have children.   Women are as much at the mercy of men's civilized self-control as are children.       

Any variety of real life abuse, no matter if rape, manipulation, taking advantages of someone's helpless and dependent situation or apparent self-objectification, is enabled by the abuser's mental process towards replacing inhibitions, self-control and restrictions by subjective justifications and excuses.  

The first step in this mental process is objectification.   (More about the perceptive objectification in entry 519.)    Objectification is an attitude concerning the essence and quality of other humans, which usually follows desensitization until the abuser's perception is distorted.   The abuser is void of the ability to perceive other humans as persons with human dignity, instead they are only perceived as objects, utilities, commodities.  

While some people objectify others due to some mental defect in their brain, like psychopathy, objectification is also the unavoidable result of desensitization and habituation.  This can happen both by the passive observation of role models abusing other human beings and by actively participating in and practicing abuse.    When women and children are objectified as existing for the purpose to be used sexually, pornography is one major source of this effect.  

There is always the hazard of objectification, because a body is perceived as a visible object, while the personality, the qualities of the mind are not directly visible.  Their discovery is only accessible indirectly by communication.    Therefore there is an unfortunate vicious circle.   Any attempt to communicate requires at least a minimal expectation of the other's ability to communicate as a person.   Nobody expects to communicate with an object.   Objectification precludes communication, while communication can reduce objectification.   Thus, once there is objectification, it reinforces itself further by the loss of any chance to rediscover the person hidden inside of what is perceived as an object.   

2.  No differences justify abusing women more than children.

Objectification includes the general fallacy of believing in and accepting, that the alleged purpose of the objectified person's existence is being used.   Whenever abuse of women becomes normal, common and regular behavior, some men are not even aware of the alternative of appreciating, noticing and recognizing women's mind and personality.  

This fatal process, that pornography leads first to desensitization and objectification and then to lowering the threshold towards real life abuse is the same, no matter if the degraded human being is a woman or a child.   Any distinction cannot be rationally justified.   Whenever men justify such a distinction, it is based upon a fallacy.

Male fallacy 1:  

When the victim is a woman, biologically her body is apt for male homeostation, while a child's is not.  This difference leads to the fatal fallacy, that abusing a woman's body as an object for sexual homeostation is often considered as less evil, less harmful and less traumatizing.    

The implicit implication of this fallacy is an outrage.   Those men, who objectify women by perceiving and believing, that women's ultimate purpose is to serve men's needs for homeostation, often also see nothing as really wrong in getting the fulfillment of this purpose by hook or by crook from reluctant and resistant women.    It is a monstrous fallacy to believe, that forcing women into their alleged natural purpose is more acceptable than forcing something upon a child, who is not considered to exist for the same purpose.      

Male fallacy 2. 

There is one difference between children and women:  Only women can be made to appear preempting male objectification by self-objectification, while children are usually accepted as being too young for consent.

The general male fallacy, that women exist for their homeostation is reinforced by the subsequent fallacy of believing in some women's apparent free choice of self-objectification.   Men often succeed to usurp control over resources for survival and they use this control to coerce women by dire necessity into submission to the objectification.   When hopelessness and resignation cause women to refrain from resistance to their fate, this is often mistaken as agreement.   This alleged choice of self-objectification facilitates the abuse and it allows men to condone and justify the objectification of women.    Manipulating women to comply by self-objectification is in reality a part of men's strategy and method to succeed in achieving the benefits of objectification with the least effort.

Male fallacy 3.

Some women are as much the unhappy victims of their instincts as are men, they too are feeling the urges of dishomeostasis.  This female dishomeostasis is the unfulfilled breeding instinct.    These women only appear superficially to cooperate with men's objectification by self-objectification.   It is men's fallacy to misinterpreted it as women's acceptance of existing to serve men.  In reality, these women's self-objectification is their method to restore homeostasis by becoming pregnant.   

Once they have reached their breeder's homeostation, they have no longer any reason to continue the self-objectification to men.   These men are dissatisfied when the women's breeding homeostation ends the men's recurrent sexual homeostation.  The women continue the self-objectification, but they shift the target away from the men and towards the slavery of raising the children. 

Objectification of people is not restricted to sexual abuse.   Whenever someone reduces his evaluation of a human being to the benefits and advantages to be derived from a utility, this is a form of objectification.    Whenever self-objectification blurs the awareness of both the abusers and of the victims for the true outrage, this perpetuates the abuse.  

When a person is forced by slavery to labor for the owner's profit, the objectification of slaves cannot be denied.    Therefore when and where slavery was abolished, it was done based upon the acceptance of the principle, that no human being exists for the purpose to be used for another person's economic benefits.   

It is time to abolish all sexual abuse too by this principle:

No human being, no matter if child or grown up woman, exists for the purpose to be used for men's homeostation. 

Apparent self-objectification is no ethical justification for the objectification of human beings.

 

A man, whose self-worth and self-esteem depends on his own correct and decent behavior only, refuses to participate in any objectification of women, even in spite of alleged and apparent female self-objectification.    Unfortunately, such men are a minority of men, they are the ethical quality elite.  

The majority of men are gullible and self-deceiving by willingly mistaking any appearance of women's self-objectification as sufficient justification for abusing women.   As long as they can maintain their false belief in female self-objectification, they allow themselves to feel decent and no jerks.  

They are oblivious of being jerks and abusers, when they objectify women directly as users of prostitute's bodies or indirectly by consuming the actors' images in pornography.  They really believe the absurd myth, that women prefer this form of earning an income over a decent job, where they could use their brain instead of their body.   It needs a lot of moronity in men to really believe such a myth.       

519. The Effects Of Desensitization On Perception

519.   The Effects Of Desensitization On Perception

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515131719.htm

"everywhere you look, women's sexualized bodies are on display. A new study  [....] finds that both men and women see images of sexy women's bodies as objects, while they see sexy-looking men as people.

Psychological research has worked out that our brains see people and objects in different ways.

Pictures of people present a recognition problem when they're turned upside down, but pictures of objects don't have that problem.

People recognized right-side-up men better than upside-down men, suggesting that they were seeing the sexualized men as people. But the women in underwear weren't any harder to recognize when they were upside down -- which is consistent with the idea that people see sexy women as objects. There was no difference between male and female participants."

This study shows the real devastating harm caused by the social norm of the oversexation of society together with the media exposing everybody to its impact, even those, who do not wish to be desensitized.  

The results are scary.   Not only is the objectification limited to female bodies, but even worse, this perception is shared by the women.   

Taking into account men's physiological need for recurrent sexual homeostation as a biological reality supplies an explanation for the impact of the overwhelming influence of the ubiquitous desensitization by the media as far as it concerns men.   

Theoretically, men have different options of how to cope with this necessity.  There is the choice of either being a companion in committed monogamy or physical and virtual promiscuity.  This choice is determined by the emotional and intellectual influences of education and culture.  (In entry 101 -  Promiscuity is a Scourge of Humanity - I considered the existence of a promiscuity inhibition that predisposes people to pair bonding, until it is destroyed by desensitization.)   

But the desensitization by the oversexation of the media has deprived many men of a real choice, it leaves them only the two varieties of abuse by objectification of women's bodies, which is virtual promiscuity by the exposition to pornographic pictures and real promiscuity by copulating like dogs from the gutter.   They are desensitized to the state of complete oblivion of the fact, that women's objectified bodies contain a personality inside.    

Unfortunately for the women, the objectification of female bodies gives a huge benefit for their most primitive instincts to all those men, who are unaware of what they are losing by depriving themselves of the higher quality human benefits of emotional pair bonding.     

It is much more difficult to explain, why the women share the effect as is shown in the study.  Being degraded and abused as objects can certainly not be declared as beneficial to women by any person aware of the fact, that women have a personality, a mind, a cognition inside the body.    

Men's control over the media not only favors their own desensitization motivated by the urges of their instincts, obviously it also enables men to manipulate stupid and even average women into self-harming compliance with being used and degraded.   

It cannot rationally be denied, that many women today present their exterior in public in a way, that functions as a very strong appeal to elicit male instincts.  Many women are radiating the unequivocal message of being available as objects.   

This description of facts does not imply, that these women are consciously wanting, accepting or tolerating to be abused or to be the intended target of abuse.   They are the victims of the same devastating desensitization by the media as are the men.  But these women are double victims.  In addition to being the victims of male abuse, they are also the victims of themselves by enabling and contributing to the male abuse.  

The oversexation and objectification by the media has several effects upon women.  These effects are reinforcing each other:

Men have economic power and under extreme circumstances even physical power enabling them to supply for or withhold from women the means for survival and for a higher and more comfortable standard of life.  These men often use their power to coerce and manipulate women to serve their needs for homeostation.   

Whenever women subjectively experience the scarcity of men offering attractive resources,  they are prone to compete by deliberately sending triggers to men's instincts.  The strongest signals are considered as the best strategy to gain access to their resources.  It is a competition by self-objectification.    

People are at the risk of being oblivious of those effects, which never elicit any reactive behavior.   This is also the case for women, who do not usually experience male instinctive reactions to existing triggers, only because there is the contrast of other, even stronger triggers.    A woman in decent shorts and a t-shirt is the probable prey, when the alternative is a woman under a shador.   But the same woman has a good chance to be spared annoyance, when the alternative is a woman in a tiny bikini.  

Some women's competition for triggering men's instincts has led to a dangerous and dysfunctional extent of the self-sexualization of nearly all women, no matter if this helps or hinders their real intentions.  Fashion for average women has currently reached a generally accepted and tolerated amount of lascivity, that is biased to accommodate only the competition of the self-objectified women.  

For those other women, who do neither want to trigger instincts, nor to sell themselves nor to be abused, it hides men's true hazardous extent of susceptibility to triggers.  These women are only spared to experience themselves as triggering instincts as long as they are compared with those doing worse on purpose.  

Being a bit less lascivious does not protect them from being abused by desensitized men, whenever there is nobody else to serve as a stronger trigger.  By the general desensitization, these women are made unaware of how contra-productive this is to their real goals.     Being less lascivious than the extreme desensitized average is still too much, when a woman wants to attract a man with her brain and her personality. 

The more a woman is intelligent, educated and cultured, the more she is aware of the potential for the emotional benefits of a deep and dignified bonding with an intellectual companion and the more she suffers when degraded and objectified.   The ubiquitous oversexation is predominant in those media, which are catering mostly for the low and medium education level of the majority and not for the critical minority holding an elevated education.   
Thus the majority of women is encouraged to attempt selling their bodies as an acceptable way of getting advantages.   They are manipulated to not feel bad about selling themselves.  This attitude is enhanced in the media by omitting entirely the alternative of the true non-physical benefits of the monogamous companionship from women's awareness.   

The majority of women are not only kept ignorant and unaware, but they are manipulated to feel good about themselves as they are.   
They are the majority, and they have a detrimental impact on what is considered standard, normal and thus justifiable for all women.

I was wondering about the women participating in the study.  Do they really perceive all women as objects whenever presented visually as sexualized or do they distinguish between themselves as different from whom they would consider self-objectified and self-sexualized?  

Which led me to find the published original study, which suggests the female students could indeed be lacking to identify with the sexualized targets of the study:

https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream/2013/107553/1/Bernard%20et%20al.%20%282012%29.%20The%20sexualized%20body-inversion%20hypothesis.pdf

"Seventy-eight university students (41 men, 37 women; mean age = 20.5 years, SD = 2.7 years)

This suggests that, at a basic cognitive level, sexualized men were perceived as persons, whereas sexualized women were perceived as objects. Future research should examine why people perceive sexualized women as objects. One may expect that object-like recognition of women could be explained by a lack of identification with sexualized women among female participants and by sexual attraction among male participants

our findings showed no differences related to participant gender, which suggests that cultural beliefs that women are sex objects are shared by both men and women at a basic cognitive level."

518. Women May Be Getting Wiser By An Ongoing Evolution Of Their Cognition

518.   Women May Be Getting Wiser By An Ongoing Evolution Of Their Cognition

The following are speculations in continuation to entry 487 (Wide-Faced Or Narrow-Faced Men), where I quoted two sources:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/120107_facialstructure
http://www.livescience.com/14909-wide-faces-predict-unethical-behavior.html

According to these sources, some studies allow the cautious conclusion, that narrow faced may be less of a risk to a woman's wish to be treated well, while wide faced men may be more of a hazard.  

The first of the two sources also mentions one plausible objection to this conclusion:

"A major objection to the idea that facial fea­tures could predict bad be­ha­vior, they said, has been that men with such fea­tures would swiftly drop out of the gene pool. Pre­sum­ably, no one would trust them so they would have trouble mat­ing. "

Today I found another source, which is highly interesting in this context.  It could indicate, that such men's traits and women's susceptibility to become the victims are indeed dwindling away from the gene pool: 

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/120508_crania

"In a trend that can be iden­ti­fied go­ing back to the mid-1800s, U.S. skulls have got­ten big­ger, taller and nar­rower as seen from the front,"

"Over 1,500 skulls were in­clud­ed in the re­search"

"The av­er­age height from the base to the top of the skull in males has in­creased by 8 mil­lime­ters (0.3 inch­es), the Jantzes found; skull size has grown by 200 cu­bic mil­lime­ters, a space equiv­a­lent to a cou­ple of small peas. In fe­males, the cor­res­pond­ing increases are 7 mil­lime­ters and 180 cu­bic mil­lime­ters."

The authors are considering different possible reasons for this change without preferring one thereof.
 

  
I am wondering and speculating, if the reason could not be a real impact upon the gene pool of both genders, because of the combination of two factors upon women's procreative behavior:   

• Women's growing cognitive awareness and intelligence, enhanced by better education, enables them to make wiser choices. 
• The availability of appropriate methods enables them to successfully live in accordance with these choices.

1.  Wise choices.  
Women, who are less prone to blindly follow instinctive urges, but who are instead more careful in their rational and cognitive choice of a man, tend to prefer the caring and decent men over the physically powerful and ruthless studs.   If the most agreeable and least hazardous men happen to be predominantly narrow faced, then the measured changes of the skull proportions over the relatively short period of less than two centuries could indicate evolution by sexual selection.   It would be the evolution of a more cognitive and less instinctive control of the mating behavior.  
Under the presumption, that narrow faced men really are more agreeable and less detrimental to the emotional wellbeing of women, while the wide faced men are greedy and selfish by usurping resources as the better providers for their offspring, the shift in women's choice is a cognitive shift.    

It is their shift towards more awareness for being an individual person entitled to correct treatment, therefore refusing to be exposed to bad treatment.   

It is a shift away from the acceptance of and submission to being only a womb and to making sacrifices in the favor of procreation, as is the goal of the instincts.  

2.  Availability of methods.
As long as inconsiderate jerks were able to manipulate and coerce women to have offspring against their wish, they contributed more to the gene pool than did the more considerate men.      

The modern medical possibilities are allowing women the option to only have wanted children and only with the partner of their choice.   This has certainly an impact upon the gene pool.     It not only explains a shift in the gene pool of male traits, it also explains the shift in the inherited female trait of the mate preferences.    

A woman with the power to decide, with whom she has how many children, is only prone to have as many children as she wishes, when she is satisfied with how she is treated by her wisely chosen mate.   Unhappy women, whose instincts have caused their wrong choice of a jerk, are prone to restrict the number of children.    Therefore by having more children the women with the genetic predisposition to choose the caring and decent men contribute more daughters with this predisposition to the gene pool.

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

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

This is the reply to a comment on entry 515.   

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

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

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

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

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

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