657. An Example Of An Emotionally Hazardous Man
In entry 650 I compared the asymmetry in how male and female singles are coping with their needs and instincts. Singles of both genders can successfully established a network of sources for their intellectual and emotional needs. By this network of family, colleagues, friends, buddies, all cognitive needs are fulfilled. What remains unfulfilled, are only the instinctive urges.
Under such circumstances, men continue to be driven by dishomeostasis towards the use of female bodies. But women are in the fortunate situation of not being afflicted with the same recurrent urge to get rid of procreative body waste. Therefore women in the same situation either feel no additional needs of a kind, which requires a man's body. When women are driven by instincts, it is towards breeding and towards a man as a provider. Only very few women are ever driven towards a man for the mere purpose of copulating with a body. Women who want nothing better are very rare, while there are many men preferring them.
In entry 650 I compared the asymmetry in how male and female singles are coping with their needs and instincts. Singles of both genders can successfully established a network of sources for their intellectual and emotional needs. By this network of family, colleagues, friends, buddies, all cognitive needs are fulfilled. What remains unfulfilled, are only the instinctive urges.
Under such circumstances, men continue to be driven by dishomeostasis towards the use of female bodies. But women are in the fortunate situation of not being afflicted with the same recurrent urge to get rid of procreative body waste. Therefore women in the same situation either feel no additional needs of a kind, which requires a man's body. When women are driven by instincts, it is towards breeding and towards a man as a provider. Only very few women are ever driven towards a man for the mere purpose of copulating with a body. Women who want nothing better are very rare, while there are many men preferring them.
The consequence is a very unfortunate imbalance. There are many men with no other relationship needs except for a female body, but whose basic decency causes them to refrain from paid abuse. They search in vain for women, who also have no needs or demands for anything better than a male body. When they get instead in contact with those women, who need a bonding companion, a safe haven based upon emotional and intellectual intimacy, these women are at a very high risk of being hurt.
This risk is aggravated by some men's insufficient theory of mind. Being unaware of the implications, that women are not afflicted by the same body waste dishomeostasis as men are, they have instead the delusion, that women share the same instinctive needs. Only those men, who know, when they hurt and abuse women, have a choice to refrain from doing so.
A woman needs to be very perceptive for red flags indicating the hazard of being hurt, the earlier and the better she notices them, the more she can protect herself.
The following is a good example.
I have been contacted by a man, who has listed some search criteria in his profile.
Unfortunately he did not reply to my asking permission to quote him literally, so I try to paraphrase him with the least distortion. And of course, the following are conjectures from limited information.
Two of his criteria are red flags, and his replies to my reservations about these issues made the red flags grew even bigger.
1. By his criteria, a woman should not require to be his only female friend. In his reply he claims that jealousy is poisonous and a consequence of a weak relationship.
2. By his criteria, a woman should not hold him responsible for her emotional wellness. In his reply he claims that a whole person cannot be hurt by anybody, that being vulnerable means a need to work on oneself and that people are only accountable to themselves for what they feel.
This man is a nightmare for any woman, who wants a bonded companion, an exclusive confidante, a safe haven, a mindmate. With him, there is nothing better available than a body in bed. When his denial of a woman's non-physical needs and his emotional cheating with other women hurt her, he does not take responsibility but blames it upon her flaw and weakness. Oversimplified, the gist is that if a woman disagrees with how he treats her, it is the woman's defect, while nothing he does, can be wrong.
1. For simple minded and immature people, the simple definition of cheating is not getting physically involved with any other person. Anything else is not understood as cheating and is considered as permissible. Any objection is rejected as unjustified jealousy.
People without a mature theory of mind are unaware of the harm done as a consequence of this oversimplified definition.
When such a man's entire non-physical needs are met by his network, he can be misled to firmly believe to be a trophy husband, as long as he spends every night in the bed shared with his partner and does not touch other women.
When he shares his innermost feelings and troubles with female confidantes other than his bed partner, whom he emotionally and intellectually excludes from being a companion, he feels justified and entitled to do so.
When he knows in advance his strong permanent and persistent need for multiple important female friends, this clearly indicates, that no woman has ever any chance to become exclusively significant as his one and only bonded companion and confidante. The exclusivity of only one significant partner is beyond his imagination.
A different man, mature and with a good theory of mind, is able to draw a clear line between female acquaintances, who are kept at a sufficient and safe emotional distance. He is able to understand the importance of having close friends as common friends.
2. Healthy people do not get hurt by insignificant persons, and they are capable to choose, who is significant. People with a healthy emotionality are vulnerable to what significant people do to them. Entering a meaningful personal relationship with a significant other implies to make oneself vulnerable. It implies to give the significant other the power to have an impact upon the emotional wellbeing and it is based upon the trust, that this power is not abused.
People, whom nobody can hurt, are either robots, monsters or psychopaths, or they are unable to perceive someone as significant and to allow anybody to become significant. One method to interpret this man's normative statement is to imply, that he avoids being vulnerable by not allowing any person to get close, not even a woman in a relationship.
If this man does, what he claims, he would not hesitate to return every night to the bed of a woman, who lies, cheats and betrays him, and the lacking emotional impact of her behavior upon him clearly indicates, that to him, she is not a person of significance, but only a body and an object. As long as the availability of her body serves his physiological needs, nothing else of what she does matters. And if he considers this as normal, then he obviously has never in his life experienced a woman as significant.
Enhancing the shared happiness is a common goal of a bonded couple, while it is an illusion to passively expect to be made happy by the other's proactive actions. A partner has no obligation to add to the other's emotional wellbeing. But the trust of making oneself vulnerable causes and justifies the other's moral obligation and responsibility to avoid hurting, harming and damaging the emotional wellbeing. It cannot be justified, that one partner profits from a relationship and in return damages the other's emotional wellbeing. The baseline has to always be Epicurus' principle of not harming and not being harmed.
When he knows in advance his strong permanent and persistent need for multiple important female friends, this clearly indicates, that no woman has ever any chance to become exclusively significant as his one and only bonded companion and confidante. The exclusivity of only one significant partner is beyond his imagination.
A different man, mature and with a good theory of mind, is able to draw a clear line between female acquaintances, who are kept at a sufficient and safe emotional distance. He is able to understand the importance of having close friends as common friends.
2. Healthy people do not get hurt by insignificant persons, and they are capable to choose, who is significant. People with a healthy emotionality are vulnerable to what significant people do to them. Entering a meaningful personal relationship with a significant other implies to make oneself vulnerable. It implies to give the significant other the power to have an impact upon the emotional wellbeing and it is based upon the trust, that this power is not abused.
People, whom nobody can hurt, are either robots, monsters or psychopaths, or they are unable to perceive someone as significant and to allow anybody to become significant. One method to interpret this man's normative statement is to imply, that he avoids being vulnerable by not allowing any person to get close, not even a woman in a relationship.
If this man does, what he claims, he would not hesitate to return every night to the bed of a woman, who lies, cheats and betrays him, and the lacking emotional impact of her behavior upon him clearly indicates, that to him, she is not a person of significance, but only a body and an object. As long as the availability of her body serves his physiological needs, nothing else of what she does matters. And if he considers this as normal, then he obviously has never in his life experienced a woman as significant.
Enhancing the shared happiness is a common goal of a bonded couple, while it is an illusion to passively expect to be made happy by the other's proactive actions. A partner has no obligation to add to the other's emotional wellbeing. But the trust of making oneself vulnerable causes and justifies the other's moral obligation and responsibility to avoid hurting, harming and damaging the emotional wellbeing. It cannot be justified, that one partner profits from a relationship and in return damages the other's emotional wellbeing. The baseline has to always be Epicurus' principle of not harming and not being harmed.
