471. Communication By Correspondence

Communication By Correspondence

This continues entry 470.   

When I am corresponding with someone, who could be a possible mindmate, I do this for several purposes

1. It is important to discover mutually, how much there is in common and if there are dealbreakers.   Superficially, this means mainly to check for common or incompatible attitudes, and for shared interests and hobbies as declared by direct statements.   
2. I like to find out the role and purpose of a woman in the man's life but not only from his own declarations.   Men can theoretically claim to value and respect women and to agree about women's equality.   They can be very convincing, when they believe themselves, what they say.  People can use the same words like equality and sharing and still not mean the same.
   Jerks do not hide, who they are.    But someone can seem to be a potential mindmates just by misunderstanding.   I need to find out, if it is real, when someone believes himself to be an egalitarian.   Therefore I am paying a lot of attention to all indications, whether someone is capable to be a genuine companion, or if there is a risk of domination.   
3. I like to find out, how much intellectual intimacy is possible.  This means, how much he is interested and motivated to communicate on a deep and complex level, how important it is for him to find agreement and mutual comprehension, how much he is also sensitive to be attracted to feel the joy of consent.  

The following is an example, how a correspondence can be disrupted, even though I did attempt to be the least possible antagonistic in my emphasis on what is important for me. 

Recently I thought to be on the way of discovering some common ground with a correspondent, until he called an expression of a personal taste and inclination of mine explicitly a flaw, even though it was something, which was of no detriment to nobody.    Had he called it a peculiarity, I would have accepted it.   Calling me flawed is an insult.  
He ended the correspondence instead of giving me a chance to influence his opinion about me. 


Calling me flawed implies defining my partial inferiority.  It is a big red flag, when someone calls me flawed without being bothered.    Obviously pursuing a woman does for him not depend on her mental qualities.   If a man is not influenced by a woman's mental qualities, he logically perceives a woman mainly as a body.   Calling me flawed was the first devaluation.  I wondered, how many more flaws he would ascribe to me, devaluing me more, and yet continuing to be interested in my body.   That scared me.    Being rejected for a reason, which I can logically comprehend as a man's dealbreaker would scare me less, because this would indicate, that he is not prone to want only my body.  

An insult does not have to be carved in stone.   Any person can be mistaken, gain an insight, and apologize.   Conflicts can be solved, as long as someone is open to be influenced.   But when I lack the influence on what someone thinks of me, then I am also lacking the influence on what he does to me.   Insulting by alleging flaws can be the first step to domination.   
Therefore it scares me, when someone decides to consider me as flawed, and I cannot influence him.   Therefore in the situation of an alleged flaw, it is important to solve the issue and correct the wrong impression.  

This man was obviously mistaken, that alleging a flaw were acceptable behavior to a woman.   He had no clue, that I felt insulted and disrespected. 
I want to avoid antagonism.   Had I suggested to him to apologize for the insult, things would have escalated.   Instead of blaming him for insulting me, I attempted to gain comprehension by rationally explaining my reasons.   I did not need an apology, just a corrected and more appreciative opinion of me.    But my rational communication did not work this way.   The harder I tried to make him understand me, the less he seemed to understand, neither my reasons nor the importance of correcting his opinion of me.  

Constructive communication only works, when both persons concerned not only cooperate, but are also convinced of the necessity of cooperation.   I am motivated to communicate about any discrepancy until there is agreement.  I do not feel at ease with unresolved disagreements pending.    Even when the agreement is only the shared conclusion of insurmountable differences, it is still preferable to end the contact by agreement.  
My correspondent was oblivious of the necessity and importance of reconsidering his judgment.  An allegation of a flaw is similar to an accusation of some wrong doing.   It warrants a chance for self-defence.   This man denied me the defence, he did not give me a chance to influence his opinion of me.  
I experienced his insult as a serious disruption of our communication, he experienced my refusal of acquiescence with his allegation as the disruption.