720. The Evolutionary Purchasability Of Women By Alpha Males

720.  The Evolutionary Purchasability Of Women By Alpha Males

I have profiles on many matchmaking sites.    One such profile I made on a site apparently according to its name just another site for finding a serious relationship.   
When I found out, that this was just a secondary name for a site catering for extremely rich men, my first impulse was to delete the profile.  On second thought I decided that I do not want to exclude any chance to find an intelligent and educated man, only because of him having too much money.  
I am not a gold digger, I am the contrary.  My best match would be someone in modest circumstances.  I feel most comfortable and at ease with a frugal lifestyle.   I prefer hostels over luxury hotels, I prefer a picnic with purchases from a supermarket over a luxury restaurant.   
I am aware of the conflicts to expect with a rich man.   I would not want to feel a beggar when accommodating his needs by partaking in his luxury standard of living.    But I also would have no right to demand him to sacrifice the comforts of his accustomed luxury.   

So while I would not initiate contact with men, who present themselves as rich, I had the curiosity to have a look at the profiles.   I also have a profile on another site from the same company using the same software, but aiming at seniors of indifferent affluence.   When running a search I noticed a considerable difference between the men's accepted age for a match between the two sites.  On the general site, my age is often accepted, on the rich men's site, I am more often than not too old.

This vague observation made me curious to take a more exact look at this difference.  I made a search for men of 65 on both sites.   While I did not limit the search geographically, most of the profiles were from the USA.   

Then I entered the age requirements of the first 50 profiles from each of the two sites into a spreadsheet.   

The result:  

The rich men want on average a woman between 22.98 years and 5.14 years younger than themselves.   The men with any income want on average a woman between 15.3 years younger and 2.98 years older.  

Of course there can be factors other than wealth contributing to the cause of this difference.    But as the differences appear nevertheless really drastic, this made me wonder about how to interpret it.  

Does this difference merely represent wishes and a subjectively felt entitlement of rich men considering themselves as alpha males?   Or are these men's aspirations and claims derived from previous experiences of success with very much younger women?  

I googled and found this:

"When analyzing first marriages, men on the Forbes list married women who were on average younger than the average difference for similar weddings across the US population (7.01 years younger versus 4.1 years younger"
"When analyzing remarriages of the very wealth men, they tied the knot with women who were on average an astonishing 22.32 years younger than them."
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201306/very-wealthy-men-marry-much-younger-women

Of course I cannot know, how many of these men will find a woman as young as what they would prefer, but generally seen it is once more at least a sad indication, how much evolution has a grip upon people's subconscious choices.   

Instead of being rationally able to appreciate the value of an egalitarian companionship with a woman of a similar age, men strive to be or to appear as alpha males and foolish purchasable women choose them.

642. Statistical Evidence Of The Asymmetry Of Instincts

642.   Statistical Evidence Of The Asymmetry Of Instincts

According to estimates recently published in the local newspaper, the yearly transaction volume of prostitution in Germany are € 14.5 billion and the daily number of abusers (euphemistically called clients) of prostitutes are 1.2 millions.    The population of Germany is nearly 82 millions.    

Even by a cautious interpretation of estimated numbers, the magnitude of this market gives clear evidence of the biological asymmetry and the differences between male and female animal instincts.
 

I am basing my consideration, that prostitution is clear evidence for a blatant asymmetry upon the logic in people's decision, what they are willing to pay for and what they only supply in return for payment.  
People choose to pay money for the fulfillment of a need by another person, who himself does not benefit from his part in the activity and who therefore has no own reason to engage in unless for money.      
Outside training and instructing, people have no need to pay a partner for shared activities as is playing chess, tennis or dancing.  Such activities are chosen by both partners in a symmetrical dyad for the purpose of mutual benefits. 

Someone shining another person's shoes does not do this for personal benefits or by deriving pleasure engaging in such an activity.  Without being paid, nobody would shine shoes.  The person wanting his shoes shined can therefore obtain this service only by the compensation of payment.   

The statistical fact, that so many men can only restore their physiological homeostasis by paying indicates very clearly, that the emotionally unattached copulation of two bodies is not or rarely experienced by women as beneficial.    

1.  Evolution

 

Some men justify their abuse of women as this being natural and that humans are just animals and thus nothing were wrong with behaving as such.  This is a fallacy, because it does not take into consideration the very unique distinction in humans between the evolution of both genders, where only in the females the cognition has evolved towards overriding the force of instincts.

Most species of non-human mammals copulate for the purpose of procreation at the moment of the female estrus.   As these animals are lacking the human cognition, especially the long-term memory, copulation does not create attachment.  For animals, copulation is a physiological act of limited duration, which leaves no traces except fertilization.  For most mammals, male dishomeostasis and female estrus are balanced and occurring following a similar cycle of recurrence.  

In humans, this balance is disrupted and modified in several ways. 

• The female estrus cycle is about one month, while male sexual dishomeostasis is a cycle of days or even hours.  
• Women are neither consciously and innately aware of nor signaling the moment of the estrus.
• The moment of estrus is for women only an option to become pregnant, not an automatic urge.

This means, that the human evolution has changed male instinctive urges to copulate with a female body only towards a higher frequency of the dishomeostasis.    But it has separated the female urge to procreate from being driven by the estrus to copulate for the purpose of becoming pregnant.   Emotional attachment has replaced the estrus as what is motivating women towards physical intimacy.  
If women were able to react adequately to this imbalance by refusing any abuse of their bodies and demand emotional attachment from men as a condition for giving them homeostasis, the human species would have been extinct a long time.   

But the concurrent superior male physical strength has enabled men to enforce their homeostation by the abuse of the bodies of non-consenting women.   Thus the ability for emotional attachment did not evolve equally in men.    

2.  The effects of this evolutionary asymmetry on contemporary people. 

A man wanting to merely copulate with a female body has only the choice between abuse by force or abuse by payment.   If he wants a woman's motivation to give him his recurrent homeostation, he has to take care, that she has a reason to experience physical intimacy as beneficial for herself.   This reason is giving her emotional attachment, bonding and long-term commitment.  

In modern civilized countries, the risk of the dire consequences of abuse by force is so high, that the abusers usually choose prostitution. 

   
Prostitution is for the man the exact simulation of the situation of the animal copulation.   But a woman, who is not driven by an estrus to get pregnant, has no own reason to copulate with a body.   She does not experience any personal benefits by being abused as a toilet for men's body waste.   The prostitute takes money as a compensation for the damage of allowing herself to be abused (if this even is a free choice). 

2.1.  Modern communication technology like the web enables people to find a partner for any activity.  Whenever an activity supplies reciprocal and symmetrical benefits, people can find a partner without needing to pay.  

If uncommitted copulation of two bodies were beneficial for more than a tiny minority of women, men would find them and avoid paying for prostitution.   The web is full with ads and profiles of men, who want intimate encounters, no strings fun, friends with benefits or any other euphemism for wanting a woman as a living toilet. Any woman (if there are any) attracted to be used this way, would be certainly found.   But the € 14.5 billion yearly only in Germany show, that the consent to be abused is not available for free, it is only sold.   

2.2. There is a big difference between reducing dishomeostasis and attempting to find and indulge in pleasure.   Dishomeostasis is experienced as an urge to remove or reduce a state of discomfort and return to the neutral relaxed state.    This urge can severely disrupt rational thinking and distort appropriate behavior.   

When in a relaxed state there is a free choice for additional pleasure and enjoyment, this is an undisturbed mind's wise choice or preference.   

Most people would prefer to buy for example a piece of cake or a newspaper rather than a painkiller.   But when they experience the dishomeostasis of having a headache then they need the painkiller and cannot spend that money on buying something else.   They are more driven to pay for relief than for pleasure.   

A man in the state of homeostasis can wisely choose between spending a sum of money on a book, a visit to the zoo or in a restaurant.    But a man, who pays a prostitute instead of buying a book is unable to make a wise choice, he is driven by an urge to reduce his physiological discomfort.    

2.3.  By evolution, women's strong need for emotional attachment has replaced the urge to copulate as being identical with the urge to get pregnant at the moment of a noticeable estrus.   This need to not only be in a situation of being able to get attached but also to experience the attachment as reciprocal is doomed to bring harm and pain, as long as it is onesided, because too many men are driven towards copulation without attachment.   

Many women get emotionally attached to their children, while they commodify and take advantage of men as material providers.  Based upon the evolutionary asymmetry, I am wondering, what is cause and what is reaction and how many women do breed not by really preferring their children for emotional attachment, but by perceiving this as their only chance to get any emotional attachment, which they do not consider possible with a man. 

  

Women commodify men as purses and men objectify women as bodies, but there is a huge difference.    Men are at least respected as being able to fill the purses.   Women are perceived as bodies only apt to trigger men's instincts, which is not considered as an achievement requiring a brain and justifying respect. 

2.4.  By recognizing the reality of men's instinctive urges I do not excuse or condone any abuse of women.  Men have the problem, it is their task to cope with it without abusing women.    

When someone has a recurrent problem, which causes him so much discomfort, that he is willing to pay for a remedy, because he is unable to solve it in any other way, this is usually considered as an affliction, as an unfortunate and detrimental situation.   
But when the recurrent problem is a man's sexual dishomeostasis, and his choice of a remedy is paying for prostitution, because he is unable to get emotionally attached in a serious relationship, then this man often feels proud of his high libido and is in complete denial, that he has an affliction, a disability and a defect.  

I consider men, who are proud of their high libido, as pathetic idiots.   

The man, who has a low libido and no need for emotionally unattached copulation is the winner in the lottery of life, which has given him the genes, which cause the least harm to himself and to women and the most long term benefits.   

High libido is as obsolete as excessive hunger or appetite.  For long parts of human history, overeating served survival.  Fat stored on the body, when food is plenty was needed in times of scarcity.    Before modern medicine, the mortality was so high, that male high libido combined with physical strength enabled men to force so many pregnancies on women, that the species survived.    Today, the same combination has led to overpopulation.    Men overeating damage themselves, men driven by high libido towards abuse damage women.  

Unfortunately, people are more prone to change attitudes and behaviors, when they experience the damage on themselves, then when they only harm others.   

Not all men abuse women, and there are many, who theoretically and generally agree that women deserve better than being abused, with or without being paid.    But this is not sufficient.    What is really needed is a radical change of men's attitude towards their own libido.   

 

It is the same as with obesity.   As long as a man considers it as good to be fat, he will continue with a positive attitude towards overeating.  Only if he changes his attitude and considers overeating as harmful and undesirable behavior, he can control. his behavior and loose weight.   As long as a man considers it as good to pay for the abuse of prostitutes, he will continue with his positive attitude towards a high libido.   Only if he changes his attitude and considers copulation without attachment as abusive, harmful and undesirable behavior, he can control his behavior and stop all abuse of women.  

While there is nothing wrong with any amount of libido, as long as it can be absorbed entirely by the physical intimacy earned by emotional attachment in a bonded monogamous long-term commitment, men need to acknowledge and recognize, that all libido beyond this is a dangerous and detrimental affliction.    Only then the world can become a better place for women.

634. Equality And The Detrimental Effect Of Money On Men

634.  Equality And The Detrimental Effect Of Money On Men

Men are not only derailed by merely physical infatuation triggered by their instincts from making a wise choice of a companion.  The capitalistic distortion of deriving and attributing the value of people, especially of men, mainly from their financial power has additional detrimental effects on the mating behavior.   These effects are different for those, who are affluent and for those, who are not.   

  

1.  Men with low or moderate income 

  

Either in their profiles or in private correspondence, men with low to moderate income often express the expectation and fear to be automatically rejected due to lacking assets.   This frame of mind is real and thus it does not matter, if they have come to this state of mind from a realistic interpretation of their experiences.  

   

An unfortunate reaction is their loss of the ability to recognize, to trust or to accept, when a woman expresses clearly, that she is not interested in a man's money.    They appear bitter and angry, some seem to have a low self-esteem, not matter their intellectual achievements.    They are lonely and crave a relationship, but they do not dare to strife for it anymore, instead the rant and complain.  The less they expect, the less they are motivated to invest in any attempt and thus they also have no incentive for the challenge of conquering geographic distance.

It is disheartening for me, when I try in vain to encourage someone like this, but he withdraws, poofs or makes the fallacy to reject me first to prevent a wrongly expected rejection due to his financial situation. 

 

Some of them have been rejected, but for very different reasons being their behavior, habits and/or attitudes.  The attributing of rejections wrongly to lacking money has the unfortunate consequence of impeding the needed self-improvement.   Thus the not corrected reasons for rejections lead to repeated and continued rejections.

  
2.   Affluent men
 

A wealthy man is a hazard to a non-wealthy egalitarian woman.    The ability to spend money gives people power, no matter how much or how little they do enjoy having this power and how much they are not even aware of it.    

Spending money often creates a temporary hierarchy.    The English language expresses very clearly, how monetary transactions divide people between masters and servants:  The customer orders food in a restaurant, and to order is synonymous with to command.   The waiter serves the food.    Not asking a fixed full price, but maintaining the deplorable custom of tipping aggravates this undignified distinction.   The haughty master condescends to give some extra cash to a waiter, whose fake friendliness and servility is nothing better than the manipulation to get tipped.  

Buying bread at the bakers for a fixed price is a form of the division of labor.

The more a man experiences being the master with financial power as a daily routine, the more he is prone to loose all awareness of this being a situation of his asymmetrical advantage.  Instead he is desensitized to perceive this as his innate right.   

Thus he is prone to generalize his allegedly entitlement to power also to the privacy of a relationship.   This means, he is a hazard of not only attempting to dominate a woman, but also of not even understanding, that this is not justified but an outrage.  
      
There is a second hazard, which is often visible in the profiles of those men, who brag about their assets.    They attempt to buy women using material benefits.   The hazard here is the possible fallacy of thinking that by spending lots of money upon women they are dispensing themselves of any non-material obligations or responsibilities.   They mistake giving money for a sufficient substitute for any efforts to make a relationship work.
They are also prone to consider their wealth as enough reason to be eligible for considerably younger women, even though these women often do not reciprocate:  


When given all my other criteria including being in the same age group, men in a similar financial situation are elusive and discouraged, affluent men consider me as too old, while I consider men as old as 78, who have contacted me, as not suitable, no matter who and what they are.
 

There are things like no children and no religion, where compromising for me is out of the question.  But when it comes to the financial situation of a potential mate, I am willing to compromise.   

I do prefer someone of low or moderate income and the subsequent equality of sharing resources, expenses and decisions, who feels comfortable living frugally (entry 631), who does not mind nor hesitate to invest temporary discomfort for saving money, and for whom making the best of limited resources by using his brain and acquiring compensatory skills is welcome as a challenge and an achievement.  
But I am willing to accept a man of any financial situation, if he has the qualities of a mindmate.  

533. Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

533.  Cohabitation And The Safe Haven

Some days ago, I exchanged a few emails with someone, who appeared as a good match by the first superficial impression.   But the futility of pursuing this contact became evident, when he explained his situation:   By marrying or cohabiting, he would loose his rather high widower's pension.  

I personally consider a happy relationship being a safe haven as worth much more than money.   I would not hesitate to accept a man, who is suitable and compatible, no matter his poverty.  I would reject an unsuitable and incompatible man, no matter his affluence.  Generally I think this widower's priority of his money is a mistake.   
But when it comes to considering my own person, I do not even expect, let alone demand from someone to value living with me as preferable over his money or any other priorities.  A man has his priorities and choices, and whenever they are incongruent with mine, I do not consider myself as a sufficient reason to modify them.   Any decision in my favor would only be valid, if it is based upon a man's need, independent of any influence from my side. A man's incongruent priorities are a reason to keep away from him, not a justification for stupid and futile attempts to influence him   

The essence of a bonded and committed relationship is for me the safe haven, which it cannot be without cohabitation.    Only a cohabiting couple really sits in the same boat, for better or for worse.  Only when sharing the home and applying the shared survival resources, both financial and skills, then all troubles, inclemencies and problems of everyday life really concern both partners equally without a back door. Whenever something breaks or goes wrong, the partner in a LAT-relationship can feel relaxed as he is not under the same pressure to solve the problem.  Having still his own home to retreat to, he has the back door to abandon the partner in need.   

Practical problems like when a needed household appliance or installation breaks cause situational pressure.  The less there is the alternative of affording the easiest and most comfortable solution, the stronger is the pressure upon me.  My resources are more skills than money.  Being alone under the pressure of needing to cope with situational problems of any kind drains and exhausts me, no matter how successful I am in solving it.   Even when I find a solution making me feel clever and adding to my confidence, the coping process nevertheless leaves me drained.    

The safe haven of a cohabiting relationship, in which the partner is equally concerned by situational pressures of any kind, is the relief I need to not get drained.   Being alone when problems require coping is what drains me.
Of course, being equally concerned does by itself not suffice as a relief.  A safe haven requires not only to be equally concerned as a team by all problems, but also to share basic agreements about rational coping strategies derived from the same evaluation of the shared situation and resources.   Only this enables a couple to be a team in problem solving and a source of relief to each other. 

Someone adding more pressure upon me than the problem itself can instead make the situation even worse. 

I cannot accept a man's putting pressure upon me to waste my own money.   If a man is as poor as I am, I expect him to support me in solving problems by the principle of compensating for expenses by efforts.  He can give me the best relief by sharing the efforts.  

Only if a man can afford himself the comfortable expensive solutions preferred by him, it is his choice.   

But the poor man putting pressure upon me to waste my own limited money on the comfortable solution sparing him efforts drains me even more, having to cope with the combined pressure of the technical problem and from him.     

A safe haven can bring reciprocally many protecting and relieving benefits, no matter if the problems are practical, social, psychological, physical.  The emphasis is on the reciprocity.     The more a man also needs a safe haven, the more I can expect to be given one in return.    This is very significant. 

A man's refusal to cohabit tells me, that his goal is not the same kind of a safe haven as is mine and logically then a safe haven is also not available for me.   

A LAT arrangement enables a man to get all the benefits of using a woman's body at his convenience, as this can be achieved without cohabitation.   But a LAT arrangement also enables a man to limit, what he decides to give to the woman.     

A man's refusing to cohabit indicates and implies the presence of some or all of the following good reasons justifying suspicion.  While his superficial reasons may appear as convincing as is the example of the widower's pension of my contact, but the following reasons are probably hidden behind:
1.  A man does not expect a safe haven available from any woman, because he commodifies her and he is blind to even notice any other option besides using her.   A man can experience a safe haven only, if he is aware and appreciative of women being persons with cognitive qualities sufficient as providers of a safe haven.    
2.   A man has already a fragmented supportive system consisting of any combination including his family of origin, friends and even exes and children.  He does not feel a need for a safe haven, which would motivate him to provide one for a woman.   Having sufficient supply for all other social and psychological needs, a woman is only a body.   Only homeostasis is not available from his supportive system.   

3.   A man is so powerful and affluent, that he solves all problems by paying services, no matter if it is the craftsman or the therapist.    If he is decent, he prefers a monogamous relationship for his homeostasis over paying prostitutes.      


As I mentioned already before, the decision to get involved with someone has to be a very careful rational decision, which certainly cannot be rushed into without a high risk of failure.   What matters is is the shared goal of cohabitation and the shared need of a safe haven.  Sharing the goal of cohabitation is very different from making the mistake to rush into cohabitation with a haphazard person.

The refusal of cohabitation is a good reason not to pursue a contact, but the shared goal alone is only one of many necessary but not sufficient criteria for compatibility.    

409. Poor Men's Mental Trap

Poor Men's Mental Trap

I have been declaring before, that I feel more comfortable to share a frugal life based upon a basis of equality than I would as a woman under the expectations of what a wealthy man may feel entitled to get in return for the money spent on me.   

According to my own observations from correspondence, reading forums and blogs, I have come to the conclusion, that having money or not is in men's own perception and self-assessment the most important factor, to which they subjectively ascribe their failure or success with women.   This is independent of the role and purpose they want the woman for.   

Even the most stupid but wealthy men feel as if they were god's gift to women, while even the most intelligent and educated men feel as losers and disheartened, when they are poor.    There may be exceptions, but I still have not found him yet.  

I am not bothered about the stupid rich, but the disheartened intelligent and educated men's belief to be automatically unattractive to all women while poor is a real problem.   I am aware that they often do get rejected by stupid women, who value a man's money more than his person.    Unfortunately, when this happens too often to a man, especially someone sensitive, this has detrimental effects:  

1.   Withdrawal

He withdraws and gives up looking for a partner.   He could be my perfect mindmate, but if he does not search, if he has not even any profiles on any dating sites, we cannot find each other.     That is tragic, as much for him as for me.

2.   Trust

I found this today:

"In three separate experiments, researchers found that high-status people tended to trust people more in initial encounters than did people with lower status. One experiment showed why: high-status people rated others as more benevolent, which led them to trust more."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110928110012.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fscience_society+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Science+%26+Society+News%29

While the research was based on the general subjective self-attribution of the own status, I see a strong implication of this on the problem of poor men searching for a partner.    A poor men attributing his failure to find a partner to his lack of material resources is someone perceiving himself as a person of low status.

Trust is the basis of a relationship, without trust, a relationship is not viable but doomed to fail.   The process of growing trust as a result of behaving trustworthy and of reacting to perceived trustworthiness is a part of creating commitment.   Lacking trust, commitment is not a safe haven but a danger.  The man, who is unable to trust is also unable to commit.

But when a man with a subjectively low status is unable to trust in oblivion of the trustworthiness of a woman, he risks rejection or the failure of the relationship.    The real reasons are his lack of trust and commitment, but the man is mistaken to attribute the rejection again to his being poor.   This reinforces his subjective low status and his inability to trust even more.   He is in a vicious circle.   

3.   Asymmetry

But there is not only the asymmetry of trust, but also a more general asymmetry of reciprocal evaluation according to a different value system.     Even though a woman like me judges and treats a man by his education, morals and personality as her equal, due to his being brainwashed and guided by his bad experiences, he continues to consider his own social status as not sufficient for her because of his poverty.  
As a consequence, he is prone to react with disruptive psychological dynamics to this asymmetry, which exists only in his perception, while she is not even aware of it.   He projects his own self-attributed low status as if she would attribute it to him.   He misunderstands and misinterprets her as if she treats and considers him as someone of low status, and he does not accept critical feedback as an indication of the necessity to improve his behavior but as a devaluation.    

In short, he is caught in the mental trap of a vicious circle.   He does not see, that he can be rejected for many reasons, including the lack of trust, but also incompatible habits, differences in basic values, not enough shared interests and tastes.   There are many possible reasons, which are not just stupid women's greed.    
It is in his power to change bad habits, learn better communication, find out who really is a match and be more selective to avoid being rejected by the truly greedy women.   But by attributing every failure and rejection to lacking money, he is deprived of the chance to improve the real obstacles to find the happiness with a woman, who is not interested at all in his money.    

262. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment and the Relationship Deal

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Commitment and the Relationship Deal

I already described the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment in entry 98.    I described the problem of a mismatch between a woman in search of intrinsic commitment with a man, who offers her anything except this, in entry 256.    Also there is an extra page about what kind of relationship deal I am offering to my mindmate.

A relationship is a deal, and when people are entering a monogamous relationship, this decision is based upon the evaluation , that what they offer and what they expect to get is a fair balance.    A man often enters a monogamous relationship for the purpose of acquiring a steady method of maintaining sexual homeostasis, when he subjectively wants to be decent in not abusing women or when he prefers this over the efforts needed to regularly chase new prey, of both.   In return he offers, what he has to offer, what he is willing to offer, and what he believes that the woman wants.  

Both intrinsic and extrinsic commitment start like this.    But from then on, what women experience from bonding-disabled men limited to extrinsic commitment, and what they experience from mature high quality men able to give them intrinsic commitment, is very different.   

1.  Identity:   

An intrinsically committed man changes his identity.   By getting committed, he starts to experience and to perceive himself as half a couple, as part of a unit, as an ingroup consisting of two partners.   He merges into being incomplete without the other half.

An extrinsically committed man experiences and perceives himself as continuing to be a single man with a woman attached, who requires some price to be paid regularly to keep her there.     She is peripheral to his life.   He does not need her, she is a body, that can be replaced.    He experiences himself as someone protecting and defending his boundary and his space against someone, whom he wants to keep at a safe distance.   He wants her body to be available, but she is supposed not to interfere too much with his life.

2.  Deal:

For an intrinsically committed man, the calculating, how much he gives and how much he gets in return, ends with the subjective merging into a unit.   From then on he experiences himself as acting in the best interest of the couple, who has joined forces in the shared competition with their environment.    In his talking and in his thinking, he replaces 'I', 'me', 'mine' by 'we', 'us', 'our'.  

An extrinsically committed man continues to evaluate the benefits of the relationship by book keeping, by which he keeps record, if he gets enough and does not give too much.     He is ready to end the deal at any moment, when he experiences it as no more beneficial for himself.

3.  Obligations:

An intrinsically committed man considers the obligations of the relationship governance not as restrictions or as a burden, because his partner and her behavior is important enough to value her being bound by the same obligations.     He adheres to rules like not cheating, being bound by agreements, being honest, because it is for him the method to ascertain, that his partner's behavior is reliably determined by the same rules.   He perceives not lying as a very fair price for his own need of a partner's honesty as a basis of mutual trust.     He experiences mutual obligations as a part of making the relationship a safe haven for both of them.

An extrinsically committed man may consider it as a burden, when he has to pretend to be honest and try not to be caught lying., even though he is completely unconcerned and uninterested in what the woman says, be it honest or a lie.   Her honesty has no value, because all he wants is her body.    Not lying or not being caught lying is therefore for him an unpleasant price to pay to keep the woman available in bed.   It is not a price that he perceives as worth paying for her honesty, if he does not care about it.    He perceives all obligations as a restriction to his liberty, that he grudgingly pays to have her in bed.

4.  Caring and Consideration:
An intrinsically committed man perceives his partner's wellbeing as equally important as his own.   Whenever he is at the point of doing something, he automatically considers first, what impact his action would have on his partner.   If he cannot know it, he asks her.  He trusts her word, that she means, what she says and is honest about it.    He feels responsible for every impact, that he has upon her.    He cares to spare her pain and to fulfill her needs.  

An extrinsically committed man thinks economically.   He wants to get as much advantages as possible from his partner for the least cost, that makes her stay.    He cares about a woman's wellbeing only, when she explicitly asks for it as a part of the deal.  He ignores and denies her needs unless he is risking to loose her services in bed.    When  he cannot avoid caring for her needs, such a man bargains to get as much and pay as little as he can get away with.  

5.  Time Together:

An intrinsically committed man wants to be together with his partner and share those activities, where he can rejoice all the qualities, that she has in his evaluation.    He clings to being with her, because being with her is rewarding.

An extrinsically committed man wants to have the woman in his bed in the night.   If he shares other activities with her, this is not of any emotional benefit to him.    As long as he gets his homeostasis, he can be content to spend a lot of time without her.   

6.  Being Together:

An intrinsically committed man would not even think of dumping a partner, because he perceives her as an essential part of his life, of himself in his identity as a merged unit.   He feels only complete when being with her.  It would not even occur to him to incomplete himself, to amputate an essential part of his life.

An extrinsically committed man does not hesitate to dump a woman, as soon as he does not get anymore, what he wants from her.    

7.  Sharing Resources:

An intrinsically committed man accepts, that he joins assets and resources with his partner and that these are then joined property to be used only by joined and shared decisions.    Whenever the resources are limited, they both give priority to spending money on what is of benefit for them both together.    Spending money benefiting only one is based upon a shared decision.  

An extrinsically committed man considers a woman as a commodity and a tool to add as much benefit to his life for the least cost, he does not enter a relationship for her benefit.   Such a man spends as much money on himself as he has to fulfill this own selfish needs first.    Only if it pleases him to feel good about doing it or if he has the misguided wish to give something back for the woman's service in bed, he decides to spend money on her.    But no matter, if the spends money on himself or on the woman, he reserves the decision for himself and excludes the woman from it.

8.  Sharing Decisions:  

An intrinsically committed man has chosen his partner for her intellectual and emotional qualities.    Whenever he wants to do something, he expects to get some additional valuable input from her.   Therefore he talks about his plan and discusses his suggestions with her until they can agree and share the decision.    With this attitude towards her, consulting her before deciding anything is an automatic reaction.    Whenever some idea occurs to him, his next impulse is the question, what she thinks about it.   
Therefore such a man shares decisions with his partner as a method of enhancing the qualities of his decisions and the quality of the life of both.    He does not feel limited by this behavior.

An extrinsically man is convinced, that he knows best what is good for him.   He is focusing only on gaining his own benefits in competition with her and in using her.   He expects the same selfish goals from her too, he considers her as competing with him for resources.    Logically he does not trust her advice or her being a fair partner when sharing decisions.  

He wants the availability of her body and nothing else from her.    Therefore he decides, what he wants for himself, then he just does it without any consideration for her.   If she is involved in the execution of his decision, he uses, whatever means he has, to make her comply with his decision.
When she asks to be included in making decisions, that impact her, he perceives this as her attempts to control him.   

9.  Communication:

For a man with intrinsic commitment, who has chosen a woman for her intellectual and emotional qualities, deep unrestricted communication about his and her innermost feelings and thoughts are a rewarding activity of joy.   Trustful self-revelation and shared introspection enhance bonding, togetherness. belonging and feeling close.    Accepting each other's support is a welcome and asked for part of the commitment.    Such a man values his partner's support as he appreciates her personality.    Therefore, he feels good to tell her everything that he feels and thinks, spontaneously and without hesitation or restriction.

An extrinsically committed man has chosen the woman for the benefits of her body.   He is not really interested in her personality, he expects nothing from her.    He does not want to communicate with her, her attempts to communicate annoy him.    He considers his own inner life and his feelings as his private matters and none of her business.   He perceives her attempts to talk about it are as a violation of his boundaries.    He feels an urge to protect his private life from her, because he perceives her as a competitor for resources, for power, for control, and the more she knows, the more she becomes dangerous.   
He either avoids communicating or he derails all communication to topics, that he does not consider as dangerous, while he keeps all real important information about himself hidden from her.  



Of the above list of the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic commitment, only the first item of the man's identity is hidden  from direct experience and only accessible by the man's own declaration.   Everything else can be experienced by how the man behaves and treats the woman.  
If a woman wants intrinsic commitment and there is the question of getting married, she is wise, if she first makes sure to experience his ability to offer her the intrinsic commitment, that makes a relationship for her to be a safe haven of mutual trust, reliability, predictability and security.

202. Women, Men and Money

Women, Men and Money
I read someone's painful ranting and venting about his experience with a gold digging woman.   His infatuation had been strong enough to spend huge amounts of money on her while he hoped for marriage.    But she dumped him after some month.   

According to his subjective account, that woman was certainly selfish and shallow, and by my own interpretation, even possibly a psychopath.   

But I started to wonder, why on earth would a man consciously choose such a woman and why would he so willingly buy her attentions?

Subconsciously and unknowingly, it is obviously his genetic program determining by instinct his behavior like it does with all potential breeders.    His infatuation with her body indicates to him, that his genes approve of her genes, that she appears fit to have healthy offspring as the bearers of his genes.   By spending money on her, he attempts to give evidence, that he can provide for her and her offspring.  

There remains the interesting question, what psychological reasons could motivate such a man to submit so readily and so much to his genetic program, without consciously getting into a painful state of cognitive dissonance between his instinctive urges and his rational judgement of what is wise or foolish.  

Here are my speculation for some possible reasons.  They are not mutually exclusive, it could also be a combination of them:

1.   He could be naive, immature and brainwashed and believe, that all women are only available for those men, who buy their attention with money.   He perceives the market for any woman as an auction:  Who offers the most, gets her.  
2.   He could use his money to compensate for really or assumingly not having to offer anything else or not enough else of immaterial value.
2.1. She could be in some aspect superior, and he knows, that he is no match for her.  But he values his money so much, that he believes it to suffice as a compensation.
2.2. His judgement could be blurred by the halo effect:   Being infatuated with her looks, he overestimates her invisible qualities so much, that he perceives himself as inferior, but believes that he can compensate for it with money.       
2.3.   He could have low self esteem and underestimate his own qualities and believe, that he has only his money to compensate for his assumed own inferiority.
3.   He could be selfish himself, wanting to get as much as he can for as little a price as possible.   For him, paying money subjectively costs him less than making any immaterial sacrifices of any kind, like communicating profoundly, learning how to treat her, changing his own behavior to please her.  
3.1.  He could have enough easily acquired money, so that he subjectively parts easier from his money than he sacrifices his psychological comfort in favor of her immaterial wellbeing.
3.2.  He could not value and appreciate women, not considering them as deserving anything more valuable than his money as would be for personal sacrifices.  


Being aware of all those scenarios, I would be suspicious of any man, if he were too eager to spend money on me.    

If a man asks himself and me the question, what he can do to enhance my emotional and immaterial wellbeing and how he can avoid hurting me, then this question is the most valuable gift, that a man can make me.  It has more value than any material gifts, even if they would cost thousands.   
But If this question does not even occur to a man, then he can keep all his gifts and himself away from me.