729. Research Concerning Women's Evolutionary Plight

729.  Research Concerning Women's Evolutionary Plight

"Imagine the following scenario: a woman and a man are having a conversation. She is interested in the conversation, and is friendly, smiling and warm. He interprets her behaviour as sexual interest.

Or maybe: a man is sexually attracted to a woman he has just met, and signals this in various ways. She thinks that he is just being friendly."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129094120.htm

When I was young, I again and again experienced a slightly different variety of the above scenario.  

I wanted conversation, either only or at least extensively for a long time before even considering anything more.   Being still naive I projected upon men the same needs, wishes and interests as are my own.  

But my mistake was limited to being theoretical.  Soon after the initiation of interaction, men's behavior became so clearly a nuisance, that it could not be mistaken for being merely friendly.

My own behavior showed very clearly, that I wanted to be taken for serious, to talk about cultural, intellectual topics the same way as men do between themselves.  I was not flirtatious, I was purposefully dressed in an anti-sexy way, which should have discouraged any misinterpretation.  

But I had no chance against the obnoxious male behavior. It did not appear like a misperception.  I experienced it more like behavior triggered automatically by nothing more than merely being in the presence of a woman.  This was enough to bring out the worst in men, to make them superficial, flirtatious, seductive and to deactivate any ability for serious conversation and communication.  

I suffered doubly.   I suffered from the degradation and objectification by being mistaken as prey, and I suffered from being deprived of fulfilling my own great need for intellectual exchange. 

The more women are superficial, uneducated and stupid, the more they feel flattered when being approached as prey.  Such women may not experience the nuisance the same way as I did.   But for educated and intelligent women, it is a serious plight. 

In those days, I had no clue, why I was treated as if I were nothing better than a brainless body.   Today, science and the availability of information on the web allow women and men to gain awareness of such misperceptions and misunderstandings.   

"In most areas of psychology, there is little to no difference between genders: mental capacity, intellectual achievements, food preferences -- men and women are all more or less the same. But when it comes to reproduction and challenges related to finding a sexual partner, there are suddenly differences to be found.

A man's ability to reproduce is all about seizing every opportunity. He has to spend both money and time on courtship, which still may not lead to sex. But it costs even more to not try, because then he won't be able to reproduce.

A woman can have sex with multiple men over a short period of time without producing any more children. So for men, it is a low-risk, potentially high-reward situation for men to have sex with women whenever the opportunity presents itself.

On the other hand, the cost is potentially great for a woman if she thinks that a man is more sexually interested than she is. A woman risks pregnancy, birth, nursing and raising the child, as well as lost oppotunities to reproduce with others. Across thousands of generations, women's psychology has evolved to set the bar higher, which means they need much clearer signals than men before they consider sex."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129094120.htm

Awareness for those differences is needed as a first step, but it does no suffice to change women's plight.   Needed is the recognition, that only a fair balance between giving and receiving can improve the situation of women.   

Men need to learn, that instead of demanding and pursuing sexual homeostasis as if it were an entitlement, they have to offer in return the full meeting of women's non-physical, cognitive and emotional needs.    

Women have no chance to get this without men's insight and cooperation.

707. Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

707.   Selfish Men's Delusion And Myth

Recognizing the biological reality, that only a man has a recurrent physiological urge to get rid of body waste, which women do not have, enables him to acknowledge, what a woman really does, when she contributes to his maintenance of his homeostasis.   He appreciates this as a gift of love from her.   As a caring and equal partner, he returns his own gift of love, by equally fulfilling her needs: He bonds with her in committed monogamy, he reciprocates her emotional attachment and the feeling of belonging together, and of being a unit, he shares intellectual intimacy, he enables her to feel significant and protected in a reliable save haven. 

But there are also those men, who want access to women's bodies without giving any of the above, and nevertheless they avoid to experience themselves as selfish or abusive.  The complete denial of the biological asymmetry is their method.  

These men have created a myth, which is perpetuated by the male dominated media:   This myth is a collective male delusion and fallacy, that allegedly women would have the same need for sex as men and would therefore also equally benefit.   This claim serves as these men's justification to refuse giving anything to the women or to ever accept any obligation to fulfill women's different needs.  

But it gets even worse.   Not all women are brainwashed by the oversexed social norms, some are quite aware of their own reality, that a behavior, which every animal without a rational brain does by instinct, is just too banal and stupid to be bothered about it.   For an intellectual woman, the question, how much or how little she enjoys a book, an art exhibition or a theater play is so much more significant than the question, how much she enjoys food or sex.   When a woman states this comparison about food, most men are able to grasp this.   But not about sex, which blurs male brains.   Whenever a woman has the self-confidence to insist, that she considers the male needs merely as an unavoidable banality in a relationship, most men are just unable to accept or respect this attitude.   Instead of recognizing, that some women's cognition is above such banalities, these men defame such women as flawed, inhibited or repressed.  

652. The Tit-For-Tat Meta Addition To The Golden Rule

652.  The Tit-For-Tat Meta Addition To The Golden Rule

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following:

(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.[1]

(Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (also known as the Silver Rule)."

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

Like expressed above, the golden rule is quoted often.   But for people using the tit-for-tat strategy as a basis of interacting, the following is an important logical consequence of the golden rule:

Do not blame others for treating you the same way, as you have treated them before.  

The tit-for-tat strategy does not suit morals, which are openly or even subtly influenced by a christian background of society.   Even rational non-religious people are often under this impact without being aware of this. 

Christianity promises the reward in the afterlife as a compensation for the acceptance of suffering, for unconditional forgiving, for turning the other cheek.    This is inconsistent with the tit-for-tat strategy, which chooses reactions to behavior as mirroring this behavior. 

Some people misunderstand the tit-for-tat strategy as a way of being vindictive.    This is not the case.  

• Non-criminal vengeance is an emotional behavior.   Under limited circumstances it can be a way of finding relief from suffering helpless outrage as the victim of a transgression.  
• The tit-for-tat strategy is a rational way of maintaining a balance of giving and receiving and of preventing disruptive imbalances.  

Vengeance can even be an apparently paradoxical reaction to following the christian demands under social pressure and misguidance while not being intrinsically agreeing.  Following these christian demands can lead to an extremely unbalanced situation of one person taking advantage and one suffering until a breaking point is reached.   

The tit-for-tat strategy can prevent this, because it leads to both persons involved reaching a point of ending a futile situation much earlier,   This does not escalate until one suffers enough to feel vindictive, when both do not gain any advantage.  

But tit-for-tat only works, when both agree on and are aware of its justification.   When one persons uses tit-for-tat, but the other expects christian submission to and compliance with bad treatment, then this leads to disruptive and unstable interactions.   

650. Independence And Interdependence

650.  Independence And Interdependence

Sometimes I am reading in men's profile their expressed wish to find an INDEPENDENT woman.    After some pondering I have come to the conclusion, that this is a huge red flag, because quite often it can mean something very different from what a woman herself would consider as being independent.   

Logically, dependence cannot be evaluated by probing only one person, instead dependence concerns at least two entities, of which one depends upon the other.   Absolute independence would mean, that there were no dependence whatsoever of no other entity.   

But to survive, humans do depend upon resources and usually also on other humans supplying such resources.   Any need creates a form of dependence upon the source of fulfillment, the stronger the need, the stronger the dependence.   

As therefore there cannot be absolute independence, all independence is partial and defined by the absence of the dependence upon a specified entity.    Calling oneself independent can mean a wide variety of even contradictory things.   A man wanting an independent woman and independence as a part of a woman's identity can be not only different but mutually exclusive.   

Personally, I as a woman value in both genders independent thinking, independence from social norms and especially the independence from being determined by instinctive urges.  

But I suspect, that a man preferring an independent woman means something very different.   He expects from such a woman the convenience of not being bothered by her with any relationship needs to be fulfilled by him.  He expect to be allowed to use her body without giving her anything in return.   

Not giving what is not wanted nor needed is subjectively for him very different from denying a woman to fulfill her expressed needs.   Independence understood this way allows him to use her body without any reason for having a bad conscience.   His imagines an independent woman as one, who is an animal like himself, not needing, wanting or demanding emotional attachment, cohabitation, a safe haven, bonding. 

This is a consequence of the biological differences between the genders in the situation of coping with being singles.    Singles organize the provision for their needs as well as possible by a network of many sources.   

• Emotional needs of both genders are fulfilled by the family of origin, by the own children, by close friends and buddies.   
• Intellectual needs of both genders are fulfilled at work, by educational institutions, in hobby groups and with colleagues.   
• Physical needs are asymmetrical.  Many female singles are content with their sources for emotional and intellectual needs and they do not miss the physical interactions with a man.   But many men are driven by their recurrent sexual dishomeostasis to need a female body, while all other needs are met.  

The worst male animals do not hesitate to pay for the abuse of prostitutes or to behave as alley dogs abusing any female body they can lure into bed.    

The more decent, mature and considerate ones consciously want to refrain from any such abuse.   They are willing to get involved in an exclusive long-term relationship with one woman.  As all their non-physical needs are already cared for, this leads to an imbalance of giving and taking.  Having only physical needs, nothing else a woman offers has any value or attraction for them.  Fulfilling a woman's needs is therefore perceived as a price and a sacrifice, which do not supply sufficient benefits.   Men in such a situation wish for independent women, who need and want nothing from them yet appear content to maintain these men's homeostasis.  

A female body is easily replaced, a man's mere physiological needs do not suffice for the stability and durability of a relationship.    A relationship is fragile, as long as a man's entire human cognitive needs are fulfilled elsewhere, while only the animal in him needs the woman.   

A relationship, which is a reliable and trustworthy safe haven for a woman, requires a balanced mutual and reciprocal interdependence, the stronger the better.    Interdependence between two humans develops, when also the man enters the relationship with unfulfilled cognitive, emotional and intellectual needs and when he chooses his partner for her individual personal suitability for these needs.    Interdependence then means, that both partners need each other as unique sources for a wide variety of aspects of wellbeing and that they are fully aware, that the other is not easily replaced.    Under such circumstances, interdependence is not experienced as a burden, but as a beneficial arrangement for both partners.  

Interdependence has two aspects.  

One is the mutual enhancement of the joy of any shared activity.   The other is the reciprocal fulfillment of each other's onesided individual needs.   
All those joys, which are gender-neutral and cognitive, can be mutual as is for example the visit to a museum and the exchange of thoughts and impressions   

But where there are biological differences, it is reciprocal concerning different needs.    Keeping one emotionally attached partner in homeostasis is a fair deal, when he in return protects her against the dishomeostasis of all other men, who as predators would otherwise attempt to abuse her body.    

As I really like traveling, this is a good example of the balanced giving and receiving of very disparate needs.  Traveling alone means for a woman the unavoidable stress of permanent vigilance, recurrent fear and hazardous situations.   Traveling with a partner makes it a relaxed and safe joy.    The reciprocity of homeostasis in return for secure traveling is a very beneficial deal for both partners.  

560. The Bigfeet Relationship - A Metaphor

560.   The Bigfeet Relationship - A Metaphor

There is a proverb about the existence of a good match if found.  
'Every pot finds its lid.'  
But as an egalitarian, this is too asymmetrical for my taste.    A pot has a value even without a lid, while a lid without a pot is useless.   If I were to make a guess I would expect men to claim to be the pots.

So I have come up with my own symmetrical metaphor.  

A couple having a viable relationship is like an entity moving smoothly along the road of life on two feet in comfortably fitting shoes.   Each partner contributes one foot and the shoe for the other's foot.  

A foot represents a partner's relationship needs, a shoe is the place available in the own life for a partner.  The size of the available place for a partner is determined by what is offered to fulfill the partner's needs, and this depends on what is expected by a fair deal in exchange for getting the own needs met.          
Fitting means, that both feet and both shoes are all of the same size.   Both partners' needs are reciprocally met.   

When fitting shoes and feet are large, couples share intellectual, emotional and physical intimacy as much as both feel comfortable with.    

They are reciprocally significant to each other.

When fitting shoes and feet are small, both partners commodify each other in a complementary way.  This is for example the case, when the man only wants the regular use of the same body and the woman only wants his regular income for a materially secure life.  They both fulfill their other needs elsewhere.   

They are reciprocally insignificant to each other.


Couples are mismatches, when the sizes of the shoes and feet do no match.   When one partner's foot and shoe are small and the other's foot and shoe are large, their feet are not comfortable.  They have difficulties to move forward, stumbling and struggling instead.  

The one with the bigger foot is the one with the major disadvantage.   A large foot in a too small shoe hurts and gets harmed, while a small foot only is loose in the too big shoe, which may slip off.    The too big shoe does not hurt while worn, but walking barefoot on rough ground is painful after having lost the shoe.     
Walking in too small shoes causes painful blisters.  When the blisters are inside the shoe or sock, they are not visible to others.   Unmet emotional and intellectual needs are like invisible blisters.    

The one, whose needs are not met, suffers deficits and deprivations.  The other one getting all needs met would be satisfied, but experiences the other's expectations, demands and pressures as annoyance.   

Thus the damage to the relationship starts on the side of the unmet needs but has an impact upon both.  The failure of such a relationship by removing both shoes is experienced differently.  The one suffering harm from unmet needs tends to feel relief by removing a hurting shoe, while the one getting all needs met suffers a loss, when forced to walk on bare feet without the protecting shoe.     

There is also a variety of this situation, in which shoes do not fit by being too large in one direction and too small in the other, simultaneously hurting and being loose.   This is the common situation, when both have needs not met by the other.    Each partner suffers from the own unmet needs and is annoyed by the demands from the partner.

People needing the safe haven of bonded, committed close relationship have big feet.   Thus it can be called a 'bigfeet relationship'. 

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.

489. Demisexuality And Morals

489.   Demisexuality And Morals
Somewhere I read the suggestion to imagine a world, where more people were demisexual.    
My spontaneous reaction was to think, that this would be one huge step nearer to paradise, especially for women.   But this needs some elaboration. 

Humans can hardly survive alone, they need to be part of a system of cooperation and division of labor.   As a result, they need rules to guide the behavior.   

I am an atheist, so I omit any consideration of rules followed by people in fear of punishment and consequences from any deity or agent, that does not really exist.  This therefore excludes considering the special monogamy of men, who fear to be punished by a god.   

I consider morals as a choice based upon the consideration of the consequences of the own behavior upon others.  For non-religious people, the most logical rules are those derived from a balance between self-interest and responsibility and consideration.    
There is the golden rule, there is the tit-for-tat strategy and there is the Epicurean principle of not harming and not be harmed.    Behavior in accordance with such principles can be called moral behavior.  

There are two kinds of moral behavior, proactive and abstaining.    Proactive moral behavior means fulfilling accepted obligations, abstaining moral behavior means to refrain from hurting and harming actions.    The latter includes avoiding invisible harm and emotional hurting.   Knowing, which behavior inflicts physical or material damage, is generally unambiguous and usually easy.   But recognizing invisible emotional damage requires knowledge and awareness, predicting and preventing it needs even more thereof.  

When potential victims are spared from being hurt or harmed, it is not always obvious, why they are spared.    Someone can either use self-control in accordance to moral rules, or he can just have no urge or need towards this action.  

The difference between promiscuous behavior compared with monogamy and demisexuality is an important aspect of human life, where people are either hurt or spared.  

To illustrate this:

I have been mentioning in previous blog entries my disgust, when at a younger age travelling in Mediterranean countries, I was approached by male predators initiating contact with me as prey.   I would have appreciated a serious and civilized conversation.   But they were more often than not just jerks drooling over my body.    Their intention to harm me was obvious. 
But in the few cases, when I did get the chance to have a nice, friendly and intellectually interested talk about the country's culture, I was not able to know the reason, why I was spared the insult.   

The men's reason not to attempt to harm me could be:

• Generally moral:   The consideration to not risk to hurt a woman by using her body, while she gets probably emotionally attached.       
• Monogamously moral:  The consideration for his partner, whom he does not want to hurt by cheating.
• Selectively only drooling over some bodies, but not over all and I had the luck to not trigger his instincts.
• As a demisexual never drooling over a body.

Being emotionally attached to a person and needing the reciprocity of exclusive attachment in return is an experience made by so many human beings, that it can be considered a part of human nature.   Being cheated on or dumped by someone, with whom there is such an attachment, is one of the most frequent reasons of emotional pain.  

It can be so extreme, that it causes not only severe suffering, but often also PTSD, alcoholism, illegal and prescription drug abuse, suicide, violence, outbreak of dormant psychiatric illness.   There is also the indirect damage to the children of broken families.   Someone under emotional distress is more prone to cause an accident at a job, where he is responsible for other people's safety.  

If this sounds like an exaggeration, it is because in the media and in the social norm, monogamy has become stigmatized as outdated, while promiscuity is supposed to be normal behavior.   It is a very damaging myth and urban legend, when the promiscuous jerks not only claim, that people were not made to be monogamous, but when they also influence others to imitate them.  

It is the other way around: Many people are not made to be the victims of promiscuity.  Those who suffer as the victims of ruthless and cruel promiscuity are treated and considered as defective not only by social norms, desensitization, denial and power structures, but also by the christian religion demanding them to accept suffering and to wait for the compensation after death.  
  
But while the social norm encourages promiscuous jerks to feel no conscience or inhibition, the emotional and psychological reality of individual victim's experiences is very different.    Anybody, who reads self-help forums about relationships and personal experiences, will again and again read heart-breaking stories of the same problem:   Persons, especially women, suffer nearly always severe pain, when dumped or cheated by the partner, to whom they had become emotionally attached and whose exclusivity had become their emotional need.   

Feeling attached and then being dumped and not valued as a partner is being hurt and harmed.   Moral behavior means not only to avoid hurting.  It also means to avoid the risk of hurting.   Every time, when two persons get intimately involved, this realistically bears the risk of creating emotional attachment, even in spite of both consenting not to get attached.    In the best case, the situation remains symmetrical, either both or none.    

But as a result of biological differences, usually a woman bears the much higher risk of planned or involuntary emotional attachment.    This implies a high responsibility for a man, in the case of his wish to behave morally.    If he does not care, he is a jerk.   Since the promiscuous use of a body always includes the risk of hurting, promiscuity can be considered as immoral behavior.   As a conscious choice, it is an immoral attitude.  

When a person avoids unreciprocated attachment, this appears as moral behavior in the perception of the person not made a victim.   But a man, whose behavior appears moral, can abstain from promiscuous abuse for different reasons:

• He is consciously living morally.  He is monogamous by empathy, consideration and responsibility.
• He is demisexual.   Female bodies do not trigger sexual instincts, so monogamy comes natural to him.  

Therefore demisexuals are the men with the highest quality of outwardly appropriate behavior towards women, even though their behavior is not necessarily caused by a conscious moral decision.   

A world, in which all men are demisexuals, would be a better world, as long as there are not more men morally motivated to avoid hurting women by being monogamous.

This will be continued. 

456. The Harm Of Asymmetrical Relationships

The Harm Of Asymmetrical Relationships

A symmetrical committed bonded relationship between egalitarian partners is based upon the combination of physical, emotional and intellectual intimacy in balanced reciprocity.  

In asymmetrical relationships one partner has privileges and the other has disadvantages.   

There are three kinds of asymmetry due to an imbalance, that is often very painful for a woman:

1.  Physical asymmetry.  
A man has a polygamous harem.    
A man cheats on his wife.

2.  Emotional asymmetry. 
One partner offers and needs emotional exclusivity of reciprocally being the most important and most significant person on earth for the other.   The partner refuses to concede such exclusivity.   He is only available on the condition of sharing his emotional ties with outsiders, often his children and/or his ex-partners.

3.  Intellectual asymmetry. 
Physical and emotional asymmetry are easily recognizable, because other persons are involved as intruders and obstacles. Intellectual asymmetry is more subtle, less easily recognizable.  It can be very damaging, even though the man may be convinced to be a considerate and moral person.  
Intellectual asymmetry is the consequence of attitudes concerning the perception of the role, qualities and place for the partner in life.  The disadvantaged partner offers and expects more, than what the other is interested and motivated to give and to share.  

Men are generally prone to cause asymmetry in relationships because of their subconscious animal instincts.  Too often a man feels justified to initiate physical involvement with a woman by nothing better than the mere infatuation with her body.   He even is ignorant, that this is not, what the woman wants.   

For a woman with self-respect, this is not a sufficient reason to agree and comply.   She allows him access to her body, only when she not only considers him as suitable to be her companion, with whom she wants to share everything for the rest of her life, but when she also is convinced, that this is reciprocal.  
Unfortunately, women are often mislead and mistaken.  Instead of becoming appreciated egalitarian companions, they get themselves into the situation of onesided and very painful disadvantages.

Even if a man commits to be monogamous, and even if he forces no intruders upon her as a source of physical and emotional asymmetry, this does not automatically ascertain intellectual intimacy and symmetry.   The woman wants a companion based upon equality, she wants to share everything with him.   But If he is satisfied with her nightly availability in bed, while she is of not other significance for his life and he has not wish to share anything except her body, he is the one, who gets, what he wants, but this is far from what she wants and needs.   

The one, who wants less is always the one, who has the power to dominate and to enforce his conditions.   When he only wants her body, this is a form of asymmetry, that makes her helpless and defenseless.  
The woman in an asymmetrical relationship is powerless to make it symmetrical.   When a man only perceives her body and is oblivious and in denial of all her invisible qualities, then there is nothing, that she can do.   No matter, how much she deserves being appreciated and valued as an equal, significant, trusted companion, she has no power to get, what she needs and wants, if the man is not able to perceive, notice and value her qualities.  

When the woman wants to share decisions, but the man does instead, what he wants and forces his decisions upon her, he has the power to do so, but she has no power to stop him.   She suffers.
When the woman wants to share all innermost feelings with a mindmate, he has the power to refuse to communicate.   She has no power to make him listen nor to make him tell her, what he feels and thinks.   She suffers.  
When the woman wants to share time and activities with the man, but he prefers to spend his time without her, he has the power to go and leave her behind, whenever he wants.   She has no power to hold him back and make him stay with her.   She suffers.
When the woman wants to be mutually significant and to be the most important person, but the man treats her as a commodity and as insignificant, he has the power to do so, but she is powerless to defend herself.  She suffers.

An egalitarian woman with self-respect suffers humiliation, indignity, degradation, disrespect, devaluation, depreciation, when she is powerless in an asymmetrical relationship.   When the circumstances make her powerless, she cannot fight for what is out of her reach and not obtainable.     
But suffering without fighting does not imply mental acquiescence, even though it may superficially appear as if she would accept her disadvantages.  The man, satisfied in an asymmetrical relationship, is often oblivious and in denial.   Her silent experiencing of outrage and indignation cause devastation, but the suffering is hidden behind resignation and apparent submission.   The relationship is toxic and the woman has no other way out except leaving the relationship.

So men have the power to choose wisely, if they are aware of this, before it is too late:  

They can make a relationship symmetrical by giving a woman, what she really needs and wants: The respect and appreciation for a person in a balance of giving and sharing physical, emotional and intellectual intimacy.

They can enforce an asymmetrical relationship upon a woman, profit from this, as long as possible, until they have devastated one woman and move on to the next.
Women have only the choice of prevention, they can refuse to enter a relationship, when the risk of asymmetry is recognizable.   Once they have made the mistake of entering an asymmetrical relationship, they are doomed.   They cannot make it symmetrical against the will of a man, who prefers the benefits of the asymmetry.   

440. The Benefits Of Giving In The Balance Of Giving And Receiving

The Benefits Of Giving In The Balance Of Giving And Receiving

I claim, that only a balance of giving and receiving leads to maximized total happiness in a couple bonded by caring love.  Today I read about scientific research about the emotional benefits of giving:

'Tis Better to Give Than to Receive? Life Scientists Find That Giving Support Offers Health Benefits -- To the Giver

(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109152213.htm)

'"When people talk about the ways in which social support is good for our health, they typically assume that the benefits of social support come from the support we receive from others, but it now seems likely that some of the health benefits of social support actually come from the support we provide to others," said Naomi Eisenberger'

"The life scientists found that when women gave support to their boyfriends in pain, the women showed increased activity in reward-related regions of the brain,"

"In addition to being a pleasure center, this region plays a role in threat- or stress-reduction by inhibiting other regions of the brain that process threats, such as the amygdala. Researchers found that the women who showed greater activity in the septal area also showed less activity in the amygdala."

But of course this does not imply, that people, who only give, while receiving nothing, would be the most happy.   The subjective benefits of giving are not indiscriminate of whom they are bestowed upon.   Giving is most beneficial when based upon experienced and expected reciprocity.   The conscious evaluation of the partner as someone worthy, benign, decent and trustworthy is crucial to the experience of the own giving behavior as subjectively beneficial.   

When one partner is selfish and only takes all benefits obtainable from the other, while giving nothing or too little, this has consequences.   The giving partner experiences this as being used and exploited, as being disrespected, depreciated, devalued.    This causes pain, that outweighs the benefits from giving.

  
Happiness in long-term commitment is only possible, when giving and receiving are balanced. 

428. Selfishness And Identity

Selfishness And Identity

Selfishness as a trait means considering oneself entitled to selfish behavior including the justification for such behavior in the past and the planning or willingness for such behavior in the future.

Selfish behavior is

1. subjectively beneficial for the one acting selfishly.
2. subjectively or objectively harmful to the target, either physically, emotionally or materially.
3. done without the consent of the target and not based upon previous consent as part of a deal.

Most people can agree with part 1 and 3 of the definition.   

But the apparently paradoxical mutual accusation of being selfish between breeders and non-breeders (entry 426) made me aware, that there is a wide discrepancy concerning the target of the behavior in part 2 of the definition. 

Personally I can take two views on breeding.    By projecting from myself to others, I consider breeders as self-harming fools, who waste their life away by their choice of changing dirty diapers, when they could instead read a good book.    Taking a more objective view I consider those breeders, who do raise children in an appropriate way as the heroes, who do the dirty and unpleasant work for the survival of society, so that childfree people like me can enjoy the privilege to avoid the dreary and annoying interaction with children.    Before I was in contact with other childfree people, it never even occurred to me to consider those child raising heroes as selfish.   
 

Of course the following is no claim of any truth or facts, it is a model of speculations.   (It is so much easier to express myself by using simple statements.   Therefore whenever I write 'is', this needs to be read as 'it seems probable to me'.)

I already attempted in entry 426 to explain the childfree accusing breeders as selfish by the discrepancy between their innate attraction to children and their self-restriction and denial to have their own due to some external reason.  

The difference in defining the target of selfishness can be explained by a difference in the perceived own identity.   I am using another pseudo-dichotomous explanation model.   It is a scale of a distribution along a bell curve.   At one extreme end there are the persons with an individual identity, at the other end are the persons with the particle identity.   The majority of people are somewhere in between.

The individual identity means, that a person experiences himself only as an individual person, living his life until death, when the entire existence ends.    A person with such an identity perceives and experiences himself interacting with other individuals.  Morality means the limitation of responsibility and consideration to individuals as the targets of behavior.   

Only individuals consciously suffer pain when harmed.  Not harming according to Epicurus' principle is the reason for limiting the definition of who is the target of selfish behavior to individuals. 

When it concerns resources owned by more abstract entities like society or the ecosystem, the principle is the self-calculated balance of not causing damage without compensating and for not taking more than giving back.    No instance of behavior without any individual as a target can be defined as selfish.  There can only be the trait of selfishness leading to a long term lacking balance of taking more than giving.   Taking long-term responsibility for this balance makes the difference between legitimate self-interest and selfishness.  

The particle identity is different.   Whatever there is innate in the brain as a part of animal instincts, it creates on the conscious level a vague feeling of interconnectedness with something higher, more significant and more valuable than the individual self.  Most probably it is the instinctive identification as being one's eternal genes more than one's individual person in a one time body.  

Feeling interconnected leads on the conscious level to create an image, attitude or idea, of what it is that people feel interconnected with.    This can be anything from the eternal soul of religion and reincarnation, the creation, a system of cosmic powers, mother earth or the ecosystem.   No matter which higher entity they ascribe their being a particle of, being only a particle makes people accept to be externally guided by morals given by and obligations towards that higher entity.

Considering their own individuality as insignificant, they apply this same insignificance also to their fellow particles.   For them, the entire or any part of the higher entitiy is considered as a target in need to be protected from selfish behavior, and everybody else is supposed and sometimes forced to submit to this obligation.

 
When people, who had been brought up religiously and who had so far to their own satisfaction explained all their feeling interconnectedness to their immoral soul, become atheists by rationally discarding the existence of a soul, this does not eliminate their particle identity and their feeling interconnected.   

For them, the ecosystem as something scientifically real and not requiring any faith, is a good replacement to feel interconnected with.   Many of them are somewhere on the middle of the bell curve of the strength of the procreation and nurturing instinct.    

This moderate magnitude of these instincts would motivate them to breed, when encouraged by their religion, even though they are sometimes unhappy with their burden.    Then they call the non-breeders selfish.   

The same magnitude combined wtih the knowledge, that the ecosystem is under hazard of the overpopulation, causes them to refrain from breeding, but they feel deprived of what attracts them to breeding.   So they call the breeders selfish with the ecosystem as the target.   

In both cases, selfish is defined by either god's creation or the ecosystem as the target, but not by the wellbeing of living individuals, who suffer.  

341. Interaction Style, Influence and the Predominant Motivational Force

Interaction Style, Influence and the Predominant Motivational Force

There are three major determinants of human behavior:

1. Consequencity, which I have already described in entries 338 and 339
2. Social and environmental external influences, their impact depending upon the innate gullibility.
3. Instinctive urges, not only those directly and indirectly connected with procreation, but also hedonistic selfish urges of any kind.

Usually, each of these motivational forces leads or can lead to different, often contradictory behaviors.   Therefore people may experience internal conflicts prior to acting, but the visible behavior is determined by the strongest of these forces. Which force dominates the behavior is innate and a part of the personality.  

The sharing, agreements and consent being vital to a bonded committed relationship can only be reached, when both partners are able to influence each other.    Influence in its most basic and general form means, that when one partner expresses a wish, need, suggestion, this information enters the conscious mind of the other, who processes it and arrives at a decision.    Even the conscious decision not to react in a specific situation is the result of an influence.    Blocking the input of information is impeding all influence.  

When mindblind filters as for example denial, willful not listening or projection impede the other's messages from entering the conscious mind, then there cannot be a decision and there is no influence.   Applying the mindblind filters can be unconscious and involuntary, or it can be a conscious decision to generally use mindblind filters against all utterances from the partner or even from all women.  This is an indication of immaturity, temporary psychological troubles or mental illness. 

In a viable bonded committed relationship, both partners allow enough influence from each other.  The mutual influence is distinctly stronger than other influences.    

One difference of the three determinants is the kind of influence possible in the interaction with a partner in a relationship.   

1.  In entry 338 I defined consequencity as an important personality trait.   In entry 339 I enlarged the concept, in which the best decisions are reached by consequency and skepticism.   It is obvious, that my description of what I am looking for in a mindmate, as I have been writing much about already in this blog, implies that he is also predominantly motivated by consequencity and able to be skeptical.  
In entry 338 I described consequencity in reactive situations, when I am willing to do only, what rationally makes sense, while I refuse to yield to unjustified pressure, nagging and bullying.   

But consequencity has also an important proactive aspect.  For a fair balance of giving and receiving it is not sufficient, that the partner initiating the influence upon the other with a suggestion considers this as fair, it is important that both partners agree.   Proactive consequencity means not to just express wishes and suggestion, but also to explain them.   It also means not to insist on anything, not to make demands, even less use pressure, but to discuss the topic until achieving to convince the other, that it is a fair and rational suggestion.   
Refusing something without a discussion is denying the other a fair chance of convincing.  Such a refusal is even an expression of disrespect, whenever it implies, that he other is irrational, has no good reasons or is not able to convince.   Accepting with a hidden grudge every suggestions in preference to the effort of mutually convincing discussions also impedes the fair balance and damages the relationship.  

That means that I am looking for a partner, who agrees with me, that both is important:  to convince and to allow to be convinced, and that this is the only constructive method of sharing decisions.  And the partner is also able to participate in this strategy.       

The following characteristics are a bit exaggerated.   I will call the extremely gullible puppets, and those extremely driven by selfish urges robots.   Both are high hazards of making the relationship toxic for a partner with consequencity, because the influencing is distorted.  

2.  The puppet.   The gullible person is too easily influenced by anybody and anything.   The partner's influence is not strong enough in comparison with external influences leading to selfish or irrational behaviors doing damage to the partner or the relationship.   

Some examples:
The puppet believes rumors, even those about his partner and his behavior is effected by the rumors.  

He gets sucked into religious groups and esoteric sects and invests time and money, that is needed for the relationship, and/or he neglects his partner.   

He is an easy prey to scams and frauds, he is the sheep of the commercials, buying what he is manipulated to.  
He is taken in by any woowoo, like homeopathy or feng-shui and he is immune to reason and doubts.  
His partner can easily influence him temporarily or to make promises, but he cannot be relied upon, because as soon as he is under a different influence, the promise will not be kept and he will change his mind or abandon a started endeavor.   She walks on eggshells never knowing, what he will do the next moment.  

3.  The robot.   The robot is completely determined by his instincts and hedonistic urges.   He is completely selfish.   He has no interaction with others in the sense of perceiving them as persons or as human beings the same as himself with equal rights or needs.   Everything around him is environment, people are the inventory items therein, they are living tools, commodities, utilities, he perceives their existence as justified only for the purpose of serving his convenience.   

For the robot, there is not much difference between a partner and for example a bicycle.   He wants both to function well and takes care of what he considers appropriate maintenance.    He can love the benefits from being able to ride a bicycle very much, and he can love the benefits of having a partner with the same ardency as loving his bicycle.  
He does not notice, it just does not even occur to consider or to wonder, if and that she has a mind of her own, a personality, needs, emotions, opinions, that are hidden from external observations, but nevertheless real.    He is not only oblivious and mindblind to all this, he is also just not interested or bothered.    

She is a good woman and he loves her, as long as she is functional by giving him the required benefits.  If she resists, he automatically perceives and believes her as flawed and dysfunctional.  Treating her according to what he believes to be his entitlement, he is unable to perceive and acknowledge any unwanted or unpleasant behavior of hers ever as a reaction to his treatment.    

Acknowledging a reaction means to understand being in an interaction with another human being.  But according to his attitude, the purpose of a utility is to serve and not to interact and thus not to react in any way except as required by functioning according to expectations..
The robot is completely uninfluenced and unimpacted by whatever she thinks of him or tells him as feedback to his behavior.   Once he has established control over her, he experiences this as having acquired her as his property once and for ever, and he feels entitled to get all his needs met as long as he wants it.   
For him, all is well and he is content, as long as he succeeds to get his needs met, oblivious of and not bothered about what she wants or feels.    She can grow into disrespecting and even loathing him, he is mindblind to this. 

There is no improvement possible until the relationship fails and ends after having become too toxic for her.  While being out of the relationship is a relief for her, if he got his needs met until the end, he then stalks her for years wanting to regain control over his property.   He cannot be stopped, no matter how drastically she tells him that it is over and that she does not want him anymore.   

Her will and wish just cannot influence him to choose one of two reasonable paths, he neither even considers to change his attitude and his behavior towards her, accepting her conditions and attempting to win her back by learning to treat her as she needs to be treated, nor does he accept to leave her alone, if he is not willing to change.   

He only stops stalking and considering her as his property, if he finds another commodity fulfilling his needs at least as well as she did.   In this case, she is discarded from his inventory list as a piece of garbage, that does not warrant any further consideration.   She is to him like the bicycle.   If it is stolen or has disappeared, he claims it back.   As soon as it is replaced by a new one, it can go to the garbage dump without any regret.  

296. Bears and Jerks

Bears and Jerks

For a woman, bears and jerks have a lot in common.   

When a woman hikes in the bear's territory with a backpack full of food, this is very dangerous.    If the bear smells the food, he wants it.   If the woman does not give it to him, the bear will attack her and harm her very seriously.    She has no chance to find an agreement with the bear by constructive communication, the bear cannot be convinced, that the food is hers.   He cannot even be talked into a compromise to share the food.    He wants the food and he uses his power to get it.   The bear is unable to comprehend any reasoning and cannot be influenced.   The woman is helplessly at the mercy of the bear.   If the woman does not keep at a safe distance and runs, whenever she sees a bear, he will harm her.     The bear is a predator, the woman is the prey. 

With a jerk (this includes the emotional moron), the situation is the same.    

When a woman gets near a jerk, appearing to be a suitable commodity for him, this is very dangerous.    If the jerk notices the benefits to be obtained from her, he wants them.   If the woman does not submit to be a commodity, the jerk will attack her with rage and intimidation and harm her very seriously.    She has no chance to find an agreement with the jerk by constructive communication, the jerk cannot be convinced, that the benefits are hers and only to be earned.   He cannot even be talked into a compromise of a fair deal.  He wants the benefits and he uses his power to get it.   The jerk is unable to comprehend any reasoning and cannot be influenced.   The woman is helplessly at the mercy of the jerk.   If the woman does not keep at a safe distance and runs, whenever she sees a jerk, he will harm her.   The jerk is a predator, the woman is the prey. 

295. Intrinsic Commitment and Emotions

Intrinsic Commitment and Emotions

A viable relationship has to be a fair balance of giving and receiving, according to the relationship deal.     I can only last, if both partners feel satisfied with the relationship.    

Entries 262 and 98 are about the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment.   But there are some more differnces:

• How the satisfaction with the relationship is measured.
• If and how information about satisfaction or dissatisfaction is conveyed and shared.
• How a partner handles dissatisfaction.   

Extrinsic commitment is based upon the balance of material and practical benefits and services.   In extrensic commitment, the compliance of the deal or the dissatisfaction of the failure thereof can easily be claimed and evaluated.     If a man demands a  specific service or benefit from the woman, no matter if by agreement or by his entitlement delusion, it is easy to specify and to blame her for what he did not get.    

A man, who considers the woman as a commodity, has the power to bully her to do and to comply with what he wants.    Bullying it the man's method to deal with his dissatisfaction, that the woman does not agree to be a commodity.   She has only the power to leave, and that is, where his power ends. 
Bullying as a love killer (entry 294) therefore only happens, when the bonding-disabled man establishes extrinsic commitment.    Bullying happens, when either the woman wants intrinsic commitment or accepts extrinsic commitment, but as a fair deal and not as his commodity.  

The man remains ignorant, that the woman's dissatisfaction is caused by the imposed role of a commodity, he is deaf to her complaints and blames her dissatisfaction instead upon her alleged flaws.    Bullies are unable to trust, that makes them such a hazard.   The man does not trust the woman, he never believes any of her statements about her feelings, he cannot be influenced to alter his using her as a commodity.  When she tells him, how much a specific behavior is hurting, he believes, that this behavior cannot hurt anybody, because it is his entitlement.   He attributes her feeling hurt as her own flaw and continues his hurting behavior.   Her pain accumulates, until the relationship has no more value for her and she leaves.  


Intrinsic commitment is about emotions, the relationship deal is giving each other the feelings of wellbeing in a safe haven. Nothing can be gained by power.   A man can never bully a woman to love him.   If he wants to be loved and his wellbeing to be cared for, he can win her good will only by treating her the way she needs and wants to be treated.   

The conscious measurement of satisfaction with the relationship is the perception of pleasant and unpleasant emotions elicited by the partner.   While extreme emotions are usually visible, more moderate emotions are often not visible on the outside, but have nevertheless a significant impact upon a person's general wellbeing.   This impact can accumulate.   A person can feel either content and happy or hurt most of the time, but this can be hidden from the awareness of the person causing these emotions.    Therefore sincere communication about the true innermost feelings is the only way to find out with certainly, if the partner is satisfied with the relationship.   This means to ask, to listen and to trust, that the other tells the truth.  

Each partner evaluates the relationship very subjectively by what he feels.  These emotions are real and valid, they are the true measurement of the quality of the relationship, because the only purpose of intrinsic commitment is to be more happy and less unhappy than alone.   The partners can compare notes about the dynamics of their behavior, but the emotional reactions are subjective.   People can react very differently to the same experience.   What is extremely painful for one person can be of no significance to another.    In this case, the subjective experience has validity, no matter, if the cause of the experience has empathy, understanding and insight or not.  
Therefore intrinsic commitment requires absolute trust in the truth of the other's declarations of how he feels, and it requires taking everything said for serious and at face value.    It requires to ask and show interest in the emotional reactions of the other as a result of the own behavior.   Intrinsic commitment is the never ending endavor of making each other perceive the relationship as emotionally beneficial.   

Whenever a woman tells a man, that she feels hurt because of a specific behavior of his, he knows that he needs to change the behavior.   If he continues his hurting behavior and she reaches the point of feeling more hurt than happy, then the relationship has become worthless for her, and she has no reason to stay.  

A sane, decent and mature man in intrinsic commitment is aware of these basic facts:

1. The emotions of a woman are real, true and valid for herself, no matter, what others think or claim that she should feel.
2. The woman's evaluation of the relationship is based only upon her own subjective emotions, as she experiences them.
3. Disagreement, claims, denials, accusations, interpretations can influence and distort, how the man perceives and interprets the expressed and declared emotions of the woman, but he cannot influence, what the woman subjectively feels.  
4. If the man wants to influence the emotions of the woman, he can only change his own behavior, that causes the emotions.   If he wants her to feel happy, he has to treat her well.
5. The only way to make a woman stay in a relationship of intrinsic commitment is to treat her in a way, that causes her to feel happy, and to abstain from all behavior, that hurts her.    
6. A woman has no rational reason whatsoever to be or to remain in a relationship, where she experiences more pain than joy and happiness and the pain is a result of the man's behavior.  
7. Pain caused by hurting behavior cannot be annihilated or compensated with any other benefit.    Such pain can only avoided by stopping the hurting behavior.  

The jerk or the emotional moron asks, how good he feels because of having control over a woman as a commodity.    

The wise man asks, how good he can make the woman feel, when and because she is with him.

284. Trust

Trust

A bonded relationship with intrinsic commitment is based upon mutual trust and trustworthiness.    This requires two partners, who both are able and motivated to make the fair balance of giving and receiving the basis of the relationship.   
Trust implies, that one partner can tell his true innermost feelings to the other and the other will never use this knowledge for selfish purposes.   
Trust implies, that one partner can influence the other in constructive communication to treat him the way he needs to be treated. 


1.  There is no trust, when two persons do not know each other well enough and are not interested or bothered to do so, because they both limit the relationship to be superficial and physical, like being friends with benefits and other arrangements for convenience based upon physical infatuation.    But the lack of trust is not a problem, if it is by consent.  

2.  There is no trust, when there is a power struggle or domination, and it is a tragic problem.  
In a power struggle, both are fighting to get, what they subjectively believe, that they are entitled to get.   
In domination, one had the better weapons and has established a hierarchy of power.

A power struggle can happen:
2.1.  When someone like a narcissist has the delusion to be entitled to special privileges and is not aware, that this impedes the other from getting a fair balance of giving and receiving.  
2.2.  When two persons have contradictory needs and are not aware of it.   They both believe to rightfully struggle to get a fair deal from someone appearing to claim onesided privileges.

The power struggle ends either with ending the relationship or:
1.  When the narcissist has established his domination and is able to apply his power to press his all his needs out of the subdued victim.    
2.  They gain mutual awareness of each other's needs and find a compromise to fulfill them and establish a trusting relationship.

Dynamics: 
A jerk or psychopath establishes domination, because he knows, that he is not trustworthy and that no woman in her right mind would trust him and accept her role in his life as to be used and abused.   For him, domination is the only way to have a relationship to fulfill all his needs and privileges, that he feels entitled to.   He knows, that with trust, he cannot get this.

A sane and mature man knows, that he cannot have a committed relationship without trust, and he attempts to build trust.   If he cannot trust a woman, he does not get involved with her.

An emotional moron does not know, what trust means.   He also does not know, where and when his selfish needs curtail the equally justified and valid needs of others. 

As a consequence, he believes, that every relationship is a power struggle, and that he can only get his needs fulfilled, if he is able to become the dominating male in a relationship and to limit the subdued woman's allegedly selfish taking advantage of him.  
An emotional moron is someone, who believes in his privileges as he believes, that the woman's purpose and even own wish is to serve his needs at his convenience.   He enforces domination in full oblivion of the woman's perception of it being abuse, he enforces domination as establishing, what he believes as correct.    An emotional moron believes in sincerity, that a woman exists for his convenience, as I have explained in entry 282.   He sincerely believes, that there is something wrong with a woman, if she resists to serve his convenience.   Logically, every woman, who insists to be a partner and to get a fair balance of giving and receiving, is considered as warranting to be forced into her right place by domination.  

An emotional moron is pathetic figure stuck in a dead end.    He is caught in his false belief of an entitlement to so many selfish onesided privileges in a relationship, that no mature woman in her right mind will ever concede them to him as justified.   He projects his own selfish entitlement of privileges onto her and believes, that if he does not struggle, he will get nothing.    

==> Every attempt he makes to have a relationship leads automatically in a struggle, when the woman defends herself against his unjustified claims of entitlements.   
==> Due to his belief, that without struggling he gets nothing, he never yields, when a woman struggles in self-defense.   Thus he can never experience, how much he would get without struggling for more, if instead he would take, what the woman gives him deliberately.  
==> Being deprived of the experience of how much of value he can get without struggling, he is unable to correct his unrealistic and unjustified expectation.   He cannot learn, what expectations are fair enough to get them from a woman without struggling and domination.  

He has no chance to learn, what is a fair deal, and he cannot learn to trust a woman to get a fair deal from her.  

283. Urges, Cognition and Psychopathy

Urges, Cognition and Psychopathy

The following are speculations after pondering over the jerk's claim for his convenience in entry 282. 

As mentioned in earlier entries, I think that the human behavior is the result of the relative strength of cognition and instincts.    When the cognition is stronger than the instincts, then the person is able to act rationally, when the instincts are stronger, the person uses the cognition as a powerful tool serving the instincts.   

So far, I had been using this concept on the major instinct of breeding and the auxiliary instincts of sexuality, ingroup-outgroup and hierarchy to acquire resources.   
But I think I can broaden this concept to include the relative strength of hedonistic urges for food, drink, sexual homeostasis and general comfort compared with the strength of cognition.    People, whose cognition is stronger than their hedonistic needs can live in a fair exchange with other people, acknowledging their needs as valid and accepting fair deals.   They can evaluate, that sometimes other things are more important than physical needs and self-control can be very beneficial.   
But those hedonists, whose urges are stronger than their cognition, use whatever intelligence they have as a powerful tool to fulfill as many of their urges for the least price and with the least delay.  

This can also explain the behavior of psychopaths, because it seems obvious to assume that psychopaths are driven by hedonistic urges.  I cannot imagine an ascetic psychopath.  Urges strong enough to override all control and cognition like in an animal are usually physical.  

While their predominant cognition enables people to see themselves as interacting with others for the equal benefit of all, while they can understand justice and the rights of others, the psychopath only has the intelligence to know these things by rote, as methods, but not concerning himself as guidelines for the own behavior.  His urges are so strong, that his knowledge of the rules of social interactions is derailed to only serve his selfish purposes.    

The psychopaths can have the complete knowledge how to make a woman believe in his sincere commitment, he can be able to lure and manipulate a woman to accept a relationship with him.    But his urges are stronger than his cognition, and once he has her under his control, he does not continue to use his knowledge for the benefit of a happy couple.   Instead he now uses, abuses and takes advantage of her by allowing himself every selfish impulse that he has.    

I also had already previously stated my assumption, that the predominant urges and instincts determine the identity and the value system of a person.    Those with a high breeding instinct develop an identity as dedicated parents, a value system based on the glorification of children and an attitude that their purpose in live is procreation.  They take this for granted and some of them are oblivious about how some people do not want to breed.

It seems that this is also the case with a psychopath, whose whole identity is determined by his need for physical pleasures and comforts, and whose value system is based upon taking it for granted to be entitled to the limitless supply of all the pleasures he wants.  The phrase 'at my convenience' of the jerk in entry 282 illustrates this.  For him, a relationship with a woman has to be at his convenience only.   The psychopath is just oblivious, that other people are not commodities, and he has no conscience, no matter, what he does.    He is oblivious, that it is practically impossible to have a relationship, that is equally at the unmodified convenience of both partners.   To be at the convenience of both as a couple, they need to find agreements and compromises.    But when the psychopath insists to get the woman entirely at his convenience, she is a commodity, serving his convenience paying the price of her own disadvantaged position.     

Maybe psychopaths are a kind of relapse to earlier phases of evolution, where even food was so scarce, that only those, who ruthlessly and without a conscience took, what they could get, had a chance to survive and to breed.   But when with agriculture and complexer societies the requirement for survival changed to the ability for mutually beneficial social interactions, cognition evolved to be stronger than the urge to eat all the food and let others starve, and psychopath became obsolete for the survival of the species.   Unfortunately for their victims, too many reappear once in a while as an anomaly.    

282. A Specimen of A Jerk

A Specimen of A Jerk

In entry 257, I wrote that I can offer to my mindmate a place to live, where the risk of natural catastrophes are very low.   I did not mention, that I am looking for someone, who either likes the idea to come and live here with me or someone to move together between two countries.    It means following my steps of carefully building commitment as described in entry 252.    But once the bond of commitment is physically sealed, it means to be and to stay together, no matter where.    Intrinsic commitment means a wish to share each other's life, and that means sharing time and activities.  

I was corresponding with someone, who is retired and free to go, where he wants to.   He wrote me this, and the capital letters are his own emphasis.       

"i would never go to any foreign country to live forever before i had spent at least a year going back and forth AT MY CONVENIENCE before i could make a committment to stay with you for the rest of my life."

I was speechless for a moment, when I read this.   First I thought: what a jerk!   But on second thought he seems more like an emotional moron, who is unaware, that a woman like me rejects such an impertinence and impudence.    A psychopath would intend such a scheme, but would attempt to manipulate the woman into bed by false promises of commitment.  

The man feels entitled to come and go at his convenience.    That means, that he does not want a woman to be together all the time, and it means, that he alone decides, when to be together and when not, excluding the woman from a decision, which has a heavy impact upon her.

This one statement tells the entire attitude of this jerk concerning the role of a woman in his life.   Even though he had pretended before to want a woman as an equal partner, his concept very clearly tells the contrary.    

1.  A woman is a commodity
This man considers a woman as a commodity, whose sole purpose in life is being there for him, when he wants her.   Like a commodity, an object, he wants to find her waiting for him in the locker, where he had stored her, whenever he wants to make use of her.    In the meantime, he may well chase other women or forget her over whatever else is more important than she.    But she has to remain available for him on demand.

2.  He does not value a woman as deserving a fair balance of giving and receiving
Once he has gained control over a woman as a commodity, he perceives and considers her as his property, that he can use without giving anything in return.    

3.  A woman has only an unimportant function in his life 
He chooses a woman for her body and maybe for getting supply, if he is a narcissist.   He does not choose her to have a companion, who is intellectually and emotionally attractive enough to share his every day life with her, to share activities and intellectual pursuits.    He does not honor a woman's brain as something beneficial for himself.

4.  He dominates the woman
He reserves the decision, when to be together, for himself alone, and he can enforce it by just leaving.   He does not accept to share decisions with a woman, he feels entitled to force his decisions upon her.  This is domination.    

5.  He degrades a woman
He wants a woman to allow him to use her body, but he does not consider it as correct to give her anything of value for her in return, he does not accept any obligations towards her.  He degrades her to be a friend with benefits.    He does not respect her dignity. 

6.  He is oblivious of a woman's own needs and emotions
A woman's own subjective perception and resulting emotions just do not exist for him.   He considers her availability for him as the purpose of her existence.   He is oblivious of her needs.   He is void of any consideration of how she experiences his attitude and treatment.   

7.  He supplies no safe haven for a woman
The man is not reliable and not predictable, coming and going at any time, which a woman can neither influence nor even know in advance.    She cannot trust him.  

Such a man is a nightmare.   The only good thing about this particular jerk is his honesty.   He has warned me with this huge red flag to keep away.    I prefer to be alone rather than to be with such a jerk, even though I am lonely and it is important for me to find my mindmate.   

276. Needs, Habits, Consideration and the Relationship Deal

Needs, Habits, Consideration and the Relationship Deal
As already mentioned several times, a viable relationship is based upon fulfilling each other's relationship needs.   A relationship deal is an agreement about which needs each expects to be fulfilled as the purpose of having the relationship.   This also requires, that they agree about how much the fulfillment of every need costs the other.     This means that both partners evaluate, if they can principally fulfill all needs, and if the subjective costs of all the needs of the other are in proportion with what can be gained in return.

There are very different kinds of needs.   Some needs are

• practical, concrete and material, while others are emotional, abstract and immaterial.
• fulfilled by actively doing something, other needs are fulfilled by abstaining from doing something.
• very costly to fulfill, others are easily fulfilled or even cost nothing.
• simple, others are complex on different levels of abstraction.
• subjective and individual of the partner, other needs are based upon general obligations or consideration between decent and civilized humans.

1.  Subjective and individual needs:

Examples:

1.1.  A man snores horribly, whenever he drinks alcohol.    The woman has the need to sleep undisturbed by the snoring, so she asks him not to drink alcohol in the evening.  
This is a practical need.  It is a need for abstaining.  It costs him something, how much depends on how much he needs to drink something to relax, assuming that he is not an alcoholic.   

1.2.  A woman has the need to share as much as possible.   She wants to share activities, this is a practical need.   She wants to share decisions, this is an emotional need.  On the practical level, when money is limited, an important shared decision is the question, what to spend money on.    For example, she wants to spend money on vacations together.   
This is a material need.   Going on a vacation is an action.   The subjective cost can be high or low, this depends on how much the man feels deprived of having more money for personal purposes like buying an expensive car for himself.
It is also an emotional need.   Sharing and consulting her before every decision, that has consequences and any impact upon both her, is an expression of respect, of appreciation, of equality, of closeness, of being important enough to be included in his life.      
It costs him nothing, if he is bonded and sharing is also for him a basis of the relationship.    It is a very costly need, if he is someone considering himself as entitled to dominate.       

2.  The need for the partner's acceptance of his obligation to overcome disturbing habits.

Example:

A man has bad habits like using the f-word or burping, and this disturbs the woman.   When the woman asks him to stop those habits, it is not expressing a need in the sense of a favor to please her.    Overcoming disturbing bad habits is an obligation of politeness and civility.   This obligation is a part of commitment.  

It is important to be explicit in the relationship deal about the obligation to overcome bad habits and to agree, which behaviors are bad habits and which are to be accepted and tolerated as the partner's basic rights to be himself.      

3.  Considerations

Considerations means fulfilling individual needs of the partner, that cost nothing but are important her.
  
Example:

A woman dislikes everything Teutonic, because she associates it with the Nazi history and Auschwitz, and this includes names like Kriemhild (more in entry 186).  She has a strong aversion to be called by such a name.   
Not hearing the name is an emotional need of hers, which costs him nothing to fulfill.    It is an act of consideration.   Considerations are similar to overcoming bad habits, they are included in politeness and civility and therefore a part of the relationship deal.   


When a man fulfills all the woman's needs, that he has accepted in the relationship deal, and when he shows the civility to fight his bad habits and when he has considerations for her, then she can interpret this as an expression of his caring for, respecting, appreciating and valuing her. 

But if the men in my examples continue to drink in the evening, buy a car without consulting her, consider burping and calling her Kriemhild as their entitlement, then this expresses something fundamentally deficient in the relationship.    All these behaviors are clear indications of disrespect, depreciation and lack of caring.    By denying her her needs, civility and consideration, he denies her her most basic emotional need of being treated and perceived as a cherished equal valued and cared for partner.   

If the man appreciates her, and he fails to do something, that she rightfully expects, then he welcomes her feedback as a reminder for him to do, what he wants to do or feels an obligation to do.
But if the man depreciates her, and he fails to do something, that she rightfully expects, then he perceives her feedback as unwarranted criticizing and even as nagging.       

Therefore, the relationship deal and all agreements of a couple need to be carved in stone for both of them, until and unless they both agree unequivocally to change it.   Otherwise the relationship is doomed.   

264. Procrustes

Procrustes

The effect of an immature emotional moron upon a sensitive woman is emotionally, what Procrustes did physically to his victims.   

"he had an iron bed in which he invited every passer-by to spend the night, and where he set to work on them with his smith's hammer, to stretch them to fit. In later tellings, if the guest proved too tall, Procrustes would amputate the excess length"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes

The emotional moron believes, that everybody is like him.   He thinks this even about women, as long  as the differences are not obviously noticeable.    His interaction with a woman is determined by projection and by taking the validity of his projections for granted.  

• He projects his needs upon her. 
  If he wants to be caring or give her something as his part of the relationship deal, he fulfills his own needs upon her, even if she protests and resists, because what he wants as good for himself is painful for her.    He is ignorant of her needs, if they are different from his.    It does not even occur to him, that she could have needs, that he is not aware of.   
  
• He projects his denials, delusions and sore spots upon her.  
  
• What he does not want to exist, in his mind also does not exist for her.    When he thinks, that something does not exist, he also cannot accept it as a problem for her and if it is, he considers it her flaw.    If he has an entitlement delusion, he expect to get his alleged due from her.    If he has sore spots, she takes it for granted that she knows without being told.   If she ignorantly touches them, he blames her.
  
• He projects his own weaknesses and troubles upon her, depreciates her and even attempts to fix her.
  
• He projects his own reaction patterns upon her.  
  Whatever she does, he believes that she did it for the same reason, for which he would have done it.    If he is not sincere, he also does not trust her.
  Whatever he does to her, he believes to know, how she will react.   If she reacts differently and he dislikes or does not understand it, he considers her as being flawed.    He does not doubt his prediction.   He does not consider to change his behavior to get the reaction, he wanted and expected.
  He does not take responsibility for his own actions, if she suffers from what he considers as correct behavior by projection.    He blames and considers her as flawed, when he confounds her reactions with independent actions.   
• He projects that what is good for him is automatically good for her. 
  If she suffers, he firmly believes, that there is something wrong with her, he does not doubt, that what he has done was appropriate.    He never evaluates his own actions by taking her reaction into account. 
  If he is bonding disabled and perceives a woman automatically as a friend with benefits, he projects this on her and believes, that she is content when treated as such.
  If for him a relationship serves the purpose of gaining homeostasis for the urges of his instincts, he projects that he has to be a stud for her and nothing else.  
  
• He projects also his attitudes on her, where they define complimentary behavior of the two genders.
  If he believes in the gender roles of male dominance as natural and correct, he projects on her her compliance to submit and feel content.  
  If he is a narcissist, he projects on her to be content as a co-narcissist. 
  If he sees a relationship as a complimentary deal, then he considers money and material benefits as a sufficient price for her maintaining his homeostasis.

Whenever he projects something on her, he takes it for granted, that she knows, what he wants and what not without explicitly talking about it.    If she does not fulfill his expectations, then he considers her as at fault, he does not consider any need to communicate explicitly.    If she does not comply with his expectations without being told, he begrudges her and gets angry.  

According to his projections, a woman can only be right, when she does, what he expects, or wrong otherwise.   He feels no need to get any information input from or about her.   That makes him a robot, who is determined by his innate projection program and cannot to be influenced from outside to adapt his program to any specific woman.   His program treats all women as one prototype.    He believes so much in his projections, that he is immune to any attempt to influence him by proffering information and feedback.   

For him a relationship is not a deal based upon each explicitly telling the other the own needs and checking, if the needs of the other can be fulfilled.    The emotional moron condescends to mold any haphazard woman, if he happens to get infatuated with her body.   Due to his projection, he has no doubt, that she will fulfill his needs and he hers.    If there are conflicts, he experiences her as a faulty copy of the prototype, not as a mismatch.  

He believes so much in his projections and in treating her how she should be treated, that he cannot acknowledge or admit, that she could ever be unhappy because of him.   Even when she outwardly shows serious indications of unhappiness or distress, he is unable to perceive it as such.    Instead he interprets it as behavior for the purpose of manipulating him.

He does not consciously search for a woman, who is as much like him as possible, so that she could be treated as the prototype of his program and be happy about it as is would be congruent with her person.   Instead he gets involved with any haphazard woman, whom he takes for granted to be only raw material to be reformed in a mold to fit his projections.    He believes her in need of molding, until she not only resembles his projections, but also expresses her approval.