732. How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

732.   How Men Could Cope With Their Physiological Urges Without Disrespecting Women

This continues entry 702. The Male NoFap Movement Brings No Benefit For Women, which seems to have been misunderstood.    So I add some clarification:

An unpartnered man, who respects women as humans with a brain and a personality, behaves following these guidelines: 

He recognizes the risk of making himself a nuisance to women and the necessity to avoid this.   He accepts to prevent causing any harm to women and to his own ability to respect woman.   He never copulates like an alley dog, not by payed abuse nor by taking advantage of the consent of women without self-respect.   His need to cope with his recurrent physiological tensions requires a non-abusive method to maintain his homeostasis.

This method is the unrestricted use of his hand but with the clear cognitive attitude and goal of this being a merely mechanical way of cleansing.  
He is motivated to not jeopardize his respectful attitude towards women.   Therefore he avoids anything, which would desensitize him and which would trick his subconscious mind to automatically confound female bodies as toilets for his body waste.   
He distinguishes cognitively between mechanical cleansing and physical intimacy as a facet of a longterm monogamous bonded attachment.  

Therefore he never looks at pornography.  
 

Pornography has been made by abusing real women.  The customer of pornography is mislead towards the cognitive pseudo-justification and trivialization of watching women apparently enjoying copulation.  He avoids cognitive dissonance by the complete denial, that abused and disgusted women have only feigned and pretended in front of a camera, what appeals to the animal in him.  

The realistic quality of photos and movies tricks the male mind to confuse the combination of his manipulations while merely watching as if he himself had also experienced the performance of what he does not recognize as abuse.   The result of habitual exposure is a fatal desensitization and subconsciously learning and enhancing the automatic and spontaneous degradation of women as objects.   

Exaggerated male urges for female bodies have evolved over millions of years.   Photography only exists since 200 years.  Therefore a man needing mechanical relief can perform this without pornography.  

He never fantasizes about any really existing woman.  

Alley dog copulation without longterm emotional attachment and respect for a woman's brain and personality are mutually exclusive.  
When a man's animal instincts make him feel the urge to copulate like an alley dog, his choice of subsequent behavior makes a big difference only for the targeted woman.   If a man approaches her suggesting the physical abuse of her body, this informs her of his disrespect.   If he only abuses her in his fantasy while finding solitary relief, she usually does not even know it.  
But for the man's subconscious mind in both cases the experience is similar.  It is the successful and pleasurably rewarded degradation of a woman's body as a toilet.   Thus his respect for her person is damaged in both cases, no matter if she has agreed to real abuse or if her agreement was only a part of his fantasy.   

Only the woman, who is approached, can show her indignation and adjust her behavior towards him.   In the case of fantasized abuse, the targeted woman is impeded from appropriate reactions by the ignorance of his unnoticed disrespect.   While due to her unawareness of his hidden degradation and insult she continues to be friendly to an unworthy man, his subconscious mind is prone to misinterpret her lack of any indignation as consent or even encouragement.   

The side effect hereof is the deformation of his expectations and his accompanying loss of respect for women.  Instead of acknowledging all degradation and objectification of women as an outrage, he gets mislead to consider the indignation of women with self-respect as a defect in comparison with too many women appearing to him as if not bothered. As the result of this desensitization he considers only those women, who seem to comply with their own objectification, as healthy and appealing.    

Preserving the ability to respect women requires to avoid this effect.   

Any man, who disagrees with these guidelines, does not respect women.  

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.

725. Objectification Of Women Gets Scientific Attention

725.   Objectification Of Women Gets Scientific Attention

I appreciate that the problem of the objectification of women gets into the focus of research.  There cannot be any improvement of this women's plight, unless men recognize objectification not only as a serious problem.  Any change also requires men to accept it as a task not possible without men's collaboration:

"According to the popular feminist Objectification Theory, women of most cultures are seen as sexual objects that are there for the pleasure of men's sexual desires. Examples of such conduct include men's visibly scrutinizing a woman's figure or making comments about her body parts, giving whistles or cat calls, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual advances or sexual assault. The media also play a role in these practices when they depict women as mere sexual objects. These experiences contribute to some women's developing mental health problems, such as eating disorders, depressive symptoms and substance abuse problems.

To study how women cope with such sexually oppressive experiences, Szymanski and Feltman studied the responses to an online questionnaire of 270 young adult heterosexual undergraduate women from a university in the Southeastern region of the US.
Their findings show that young women experience increased psychological distress when they are being sexually objectified. Women with low resilience are especially vulnerable, and tend to internalize such behavior. Some women feel confused and shameful, and reason that their own inferiority is the cause of such bad experiences. They therefore blame themselves, rather than the perpetrators, and this causes psychological distress.

Szymanski and Feltman surmise that resilient women are more successful at managing adverse experiences because they are able to cope and adapt. They can manage stress and rise above disadvantage. Resilience is both a style of personal functioning and a way in which people ably adapt to stressful situations. "Resilient women may see gender-related oppressive experiences as challenges -- rather than barriers -- that can be overcome," says Szymanski."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140806094838.htm

"To sexually objectify a woman is to focus on her body in terms of how it can provide sexual pleasure rather than viewing her as a complete human being with thoughts and feelings. While objectification has long been considered a problem in the media, how does it affect individual romantic relationships? New research finds that more objectification of a female partner's body is related to higher incidents of sexual pressure and coercion."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821141612.htm

690. Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

690.  Can Women Be Protected By Electronic Tagging And Monitoring The Known Beasts?

Abuse happens, whenever a victim is available and a (usually not-partnered) man

• is in the state of dishomeostasis, which causes his perceiving an urge to use a female body as a toilet for his body waste.
• has the attitude, that women exist for the purpose to be abused, independent of the women's own wishes and experience.

Abuse can be either violent or by payment, deceit and manipulation, the choice depending upon the abuser's ability for self-control and his subjective estimation of the probability of unpleasant consequences as are legal or social punishment.  

Women have brains to at least attempt to avoid deceit and manipulation, and not all blatant female stupidity can be blamed on men.   But women have no chance against violence of someone stronger than themselves and they need to be protected.  

Violent abuse can be caused or facilitated by not expecting any risk of being punished.   In this case a man with sufficient self-control refrains from further acts of violence after having learned a lesson by the first punishment.  

But there are those, who repeat violent abuse in spite of being sentenced and imprisoned several times.  This indicates their behavior as being completely determined by strong urges and by the lack of sufficient self-control.   These beasts are too dangerous to be ever let out again.  In too rare cases, here in Germany they are indeed kept in Sicherheitsverwahrung (preventive detention).   Unfortunately by some flaw in legal proceedings, some of these beasts where recently set free:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131025091830.htm
 

"Criminologists at the University of Tübingen will lead research into the effectiveness of electronic monitoring of criminal offenders in Germany."

"Some 60 offenders in Germany are monitored using the electronic tag around one ankle."

"Electronic tagging is used on those convicted of serious violent or sexual offences who have served their prison sentence but have had to be released from preventative detention. The monitoring devices are used as part of the supervision of their conduct and are meant to prevent former offenders from relapsing into criminal behavior. The tags must be worn at all times and may not be manipulated. Some of the tagged offenders are not permitted to enter or to leave certain areas. Electronic monitoring was introduced in Germany in 2011 in response to a European Court of Human Rights decision, which held that certain forms of preventative detention contravened human rights law. Electronic tagging is now used to maintain a watch on offenders who prior to 2011 would have been kept in preventative custody."

This is absurd and an outrage to women, whose safety is at stake.   Women and their own human rights to be protected from harm are sacrificed in favor of the human rights of beasts, who have proven not to meet the standards of behavior which would justify to call them human.  
Nobody would put an electronic tag around a lion's ankle and expect the lion to refrain from killing prey.  These criminals are as much beasts as are lions.   As a woman, I prefer not to meet neither lions nor violent abusers without a strong fence or wall between them and me.  

I do hope that the study comes to the conclusion, that such dangerous beasts are just not fit to be allowed to be free.  

688. The Self-Abuse Of Foolish Women

688.  The Self-Abuse Of Foolish Women

Reading men's profiles I am noting, how often men are a indicating their wish for 'no strings attached fun', 'intimate encounters', 'casual sex' or similar expressions, which all translate as the wish to find a willing target for the male urge for the one time access to a female body.  

If no woman ever would provide herself for this form of self-abuse, men would cease to try.   If many women would have the same wish, there would not be such a huge market of men paying for abuse, which they cannot get for free.   

Thus there are some but only few women, who do provide their bodies, before they learn the hard way to avoid a repetition. 
 
This frequent expression of men's wish to be allowed the abuse without paying can be explained best by the psychological observation, that behavior persists the longest, when it is infrequently rewarded.  This is called intermittent reinforcement. 

Thus men do not find enough victims for unpaid self-abuse and most abuse is only available for money, yet the few victim suffice to mislead men to continue the attempt.

 

I have been wondering, who are the willing victims of self-abuse, and I can see one possible pattern:

They are probably women, who

• identify as being their bodies
• derive their self-worth and self-esteem from their looks and their effects upon men.
• either are or consider themselves as very attractive.
• believe to be irresistible to all men. 
• are fully aware of the magnitude of men's instinctive urges for female bodies.
• are completely ignorant of the physiological differences between the genders and the disparate needs.  
• project their own need and proneness for attachment upon men.

Therefore these women disbelieve and fail to take for serious, when a man makes it very clear, that he has not the least intention to ever meet again after one night.   Due to the delusion of being irresistible, these women nevertheless believe to be able to get him hooked and to draw him into a committed relationship.   

These women are dangerous fools.  

They are fools, because they suffer a lot, when in spite of their delusion they are dumped and discarded without hesitation or regret by men, who do not feel responsible due to having been clear about their true intentions.  

But these foolish women are also dangerous for other women, because they reinforce men's attitude towards being predators.  Some predators project their own not-attaching urge for the use of female bodies upon women.  They are misled to believe, that women would have the same strong urge for depersonalized and objectified male bodies.  
Every time, when a man erroneously and unaware of her hidden agenda perceives a woman participating in the copulation superficially appearing as if she were as much an alley dog as the man himself, this reinforces his false belief in the projection.   

This reinforced projection also reinforces the generalization of his abusive behaviors, which makes him a nuisance to wiser women.   

684. What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

684.  What Partner Seeking People Can Learn From Monozygotic Twins

In men's profiles, again and again I am reading statements, which express the preference for someone more different then alike.   Implicitly or explicitly expressed is the belief, that the attraction of opposites were the best strategy for finding a match and the apprehension of getting bored with a clone of the own person. 

But there is living evidence for the benefits of being like two birds of a feather:  

Monozygotic twins raised by the same people are as much alike as can be.   Do they get bored with each other?   I very much doubt it, based upon what I have been hearing and reading about the especially close and strong lifelong bond of such twins.  

This apprehension of getting bored is also not logical.
 

If one person enjoys something of personal interest like an art exhibition or a theater play alone, sharing such activities does not make them less interesting, to the contrary, the sharing enhances the joy.   And when both contribute initiatives for more such activities, it could even reduce the risk of boredom. 
Comparing notes, pointing out observations, sharing thoughts and agreeing can be at least as interesting, rewarding and fascinating as controversial debates.  But agreement enhances harmony, while controversy may lead to antagonism and disruption.

If anything leads to boredom, it is the consequence of those compromises, by which one partner reluctantly participates in the other's favorite activities.   If a man in this situation is content to pursue his interests instead with his buddies, not even missing the sharing with his mate, then this indicates the degrading attitude, that a woman is only a body to be used and not a significant companion.    
Thus, whenever a man puts emphasis on the attraction of opposites, this is a red flag,  It could indicate a man prone to objectify women.  

The ideal prerequisite for long term happiness is the combination of being mentally as similar as possible, but (in the case of straight couples) having complementary bodies.   If any attraction of opposites is acceptable, it has to be restricted to only concerning physical and visible aspects.   

680. Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

680.   Research Should Not Be Misinterpreted To Trivialize Pornography

Pornography is a very serious problem.   Men damage themselves by a deliberate decision, yet they themselves do not suffer.   Instead they make women suffer by commodifying and objectifying them.  

Therefore men are not prone to refrain from exposing themselves, but they will gladly jump on any excuse to trivialize the self-exposure.  

The following may be mistaken as supplying such an excuse.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130906102536.htm

"asked 200 Danish adults aged 18-30 about their past pornography consumption; assessed a central part of their personality (the trait of agreeableness i.e., individual low in agreeableness typically holder higher levels of antagonism, coldness, hostility, suspiciousness, disagreeability, unfriendliness, and self-interest); and exposed them to hardcore pornography in the laboratory."

"Among men increased past pornography consumption was initially found to be associated with more negative attitudes toward women including more hostility, negative prejudices, and stereotypes."

"However, when the researchers actually exposed participants to pornography, personality (agreeableness) was found to influence the relationship between pornography and sexist attitudes so that it was only among participants low in agreeableness that pornography was found to increase sexist attitudes. Among this group it was found that laboratory exposure to pornography modestly increased hostile sexist attitudes. Further this increase was found to be brought about by increases in sexual arousal to the pornographic exposure material. For all other participants, pornography exposure was found not to influence sexist attitudes."

Pornography desensitizes men by destroying their ability to perceive women as persons, who suffer when being abused.  It replaces the appreciative perception by the sexist attitude of mistaking women as objects and commodities existing to be abused.

Desensitization is a time dependent effect.  The longer a man is exposed to pornography, the worse he gets and the more harm he does to women.  

The duration of the exposure to pornography in a laboratory study is limited, while the most damaged men are impacted by the cumulative effects of repeated and regular extensive exposures.   The short exposure in the laboratory does not simulate the magnitude of the real life desensitization.

Therefore the absence in this one study of an effect after only a short exposure does not justify any trivializing misinterpretation.    

I doubt, that high agreeableness suffices as a general protection against desensitization, it may only slow down the speed thereof.   The short exposure in laboratory may suffice to bring out the worst only in those men with low agreeableness, while those with high agreeableness would need longer exposure before they succumb.

663. Rational Feminism And Female Demisexuality Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin

663.  Rational Feminism And Female Demisexuality Are Two Sides Of The Same Coin

Rational feminism and female demisexuality have the definition and recognition of women as being predominantly persons with a brain in common.   Interactions between the genders are determined by intelligence, personality, talents, skills and other cognitive, non-physical traits.    

Usually, female demisexuality comes first.  The perception and awareness of own needs, including avoidance needs, can be strong yet at the same time vague and unreflected.   

A demisexual woman experiences a strong emotional need for the dignity of being recognized as a cognitive person, before a man is considered as a potential match.   Her non-physical needs for appreciation and respect have priority.  Physical needs can only follow, when these needs are met.  

Not feeling attracted to mere bodies appears as natural, until women start to be the target of predators, who cause suffering, annoyance, fear and a constriction of liberty.   For demisexual women, the frequent male attempts to abuse them as toilets for male body waste are incomprehensible (until the sad truth is revealed by learning about evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology).  

As soon as women with self-esteem and self-respect start to think thoroughly about the initially vague feeling of outrage, rational feminism is the only logical conclusion.  

The cognitive identity is the core value of rational feminism, represented as appreciation and respect for the mind of women. This value rejects all forms of degradation, objectification and commodification as an indignation and as inappropriate.     When some women behave as brainless animals just as many men do, when they agree to copulate like dogs from the gutter, they do establish a form of low level equality.   But even if some people claim this to be a variety of feminism, it is certainly not rational feminism. 

On men's side, rational feminism is an attitude, on women's side it is also an emotional need to be treated by men in accordance with the attitude.  

Female demisexuality can lead to rational feminism, and rational feminism only suits those women, whose needs as demisexuals are congruent with this attitude.

645. The Implications Of Men Fighting Over Women

645.    The Implications Of Men Fighting Over Women 

I recently read an article, which while mainly about another topic mentions men fighting over women.  

"NC: I reported in my 1988 article, “Life Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in a Tribal Population” (Science 239: 985-992) that unokais (men who had killed others) had 3 times the average number of children than same-age non-unokais and 2.5 times the average number of wives."

"I found the Yanomamö quite violent, without any outside provocation making them so, and that their violence revolved around competition for women. Specifically, there was chronic and sometimes violent competition to obtain nubile, young females."

"Now if a scientist studying yaks, bullfrogs, bats, deer, salamanders, or any non-human animal stated that they competed for opportunities to mate, no one in biology would have taken that to be anything other than an accurate observation. But if you say that about human beings, it becomes “lurid speculation.”"

Source: 

Savage Science: Excerpt of an Interview of Napoleon A. Chagnon
by Frank Miele, Senior Editor, Skeptic Magazine
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/13-03-06/


Being a woman, I perceive men, who fight over access to and control over women, as a hazard. 

A not partnered man experiencing sexual dishomeostasis often encounters obstacles between his instinctive urges and the access to a woman's body.    Depending upon circumstances, these obstacles are varieties of who controls this access.  Men's methods how to react to these obstacles depend not only upon the factual control, but also upon an individual man's attitude towards women.

1.   When women are controlled and owned by men.   

Under different social and historical circumstances, there are and have been many situations, where women are and were under the control of men, enforced by structural power and physical strength.   This control can be legal or illegal, the controlling men can be family members, religious gurus, autocratic leaders, owners of slaves, captors, abductors, kidnappers, who restrict the access to the women under their power.  
Access can only be obtained by fighting, payment or clever means of outwitting and overriding this control.    Any transfer of who controls a woman is between men, while the woman herself has no influence.

Depending on his general attitude towards women, a man's congruent behavior respects or denies the woman's own wishes to have control over herself. 

1.1.  A man freeing a respected women attempts to win her consent by creating emotional attachment and commitment and he disagrees with any man's usurped alleged right to control a woman.   History, fairy tales, fables and novels are full of such stories.  

1.2.  A man with the attitude of subjectively justified objectification and commodification acquires control over a woman as over the possession of a utility.    Having the delusion that acquiring control creates unlimited rights, he abuses women in disregard of their own wishes.   The victory of one man over the other determines, who will be the one imposing the abuse upon women, who themselves have no chance to avoid this..    

2.   When women have themselves the legal and/or factual control over their own body.  

In this situation, a rational man respecting and appreciating a woman as an equal partner with her own capacity to decide does not fight or compete with other men over her.    He recognizes that only the woman herself is entitled to deny or allow access to her body.   He knows that unless she needs to be freed from another man's illegal and unjustified control as in 1.1., every agreement for any interaction is strictly between him and her.   

As long as their behavior is correct and not breaking any preexisting freely chosen obligations, nobody else matters or has a right to interfere.   Even in the case of a cheating woman, she is herself responsible for the transgression.  The betrayed partner has a right to direct his consequences to her, but this does not justify to fight over her as if she were a stolen possession.

Fighting over women can have many forms.   While animals and some men fight by using physical violence, in modern societies men often compete by more subtle means.   But this still implies blatant disregard for women's ability to decide for themselves.
The story of the wager in entry 119 is a good example.    Even though in this event the woman apparently made her own choice, the circumstances were created by two men.  She was manipulated by them for the purpose of winning a wager.  

There is a very serious and dangerous fallacy in a man's thinking, if he competes and fights over a woman with another man, who has no factual legal or illegal control over her.   Such fighting implies a man's lack of respect and regard for the woman as a person.    

2.1.   Fighting over women implies a general justification of male control and dominance over women.    Instead of principally rejecting such control, men fight over who of them can have it.   

2.2.  Men fighting over a woman deprive her of the choice between all of them.   The loser usually is no more available to her.   Either the winner impedes the loser(s) to get near her, or they withdraw discouraged.   Even a winner, who has enough consideration to not attempt to control her, thus limits who other than he himself gets a chance to attempt winning her consent.  

2.3.  Men competing misrepresent themselves in their attempts to appear each better than the other.  This deprives her of a more realistic assessment of any of them, which would enable her rationally evaluate each of them compared with her needs.    Competing has the best result for those men with the most advanced skills as manipulators, bluffers and liars.  

2.4.  A man fighting over a woman often respects his rival more than he respects the woman.   In this case he fights mainly for the psychological benefits of winning against a valued opponent.  Winning is the main objective, the woman herself is not important.  

2.5.  Fighting means taking risks of being harmed and it means strain and effort.    Therefore the winner is inclined to feel entitled to his prize.   But winning the fight only removes another man as an obstacle, it does not automatically make the woman want him.
Some men are afflicted with the fallacy of wrongly assuming, that as the winners they are automatically attractive and wanted by the women.   

Thus they are prone to become a nuisance when not accepting the woman's rejection.
If such a man would realistically consider the probabilities of a woman's choice between consent and rejection, this would make fighting less attractive.  It would motivate him to attempt to win her directly instead and respect her choice.   

638. Research Indicating Indirectly A Correlation Between The Objectification And The Commodification Of Women

638.   Research Indicating Indirectly A Correlation Between The Objectification And The Commodification Of Women

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130130082258.htm

"Married men and women who divide household chores in traditional ways report having more sex than couples who share so-called men's and women's work, according to a new study co-authored by sociologists at the University of Washington."

The article states a link but does not supply explanations.   In the framework of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, it makes sense to assume the force of instinctivity as a shared cause, which leads directly to the objectification of a woman's body and indirectly to the commodification a woman as a utility to serve a man's other needs.    Of course the circumstances determine the magnitude of objectification and commodification.    A man's abusing a prostitute is much more drastic and conscious than subtle tendencies of a husband towards his wife as shown in the study.

The stronger a man's recurrent sexual dishomeostasis, the more the animal part of his brain is at risk of subconsciously experiencing a woman as an object to be used, even while he consciously is not aware thereof, even if he consciously rejects objectification and respects women.   

This subconscious objectification is not limited to the use of her body, but is also generalized towards the commodification of perceiving the woman's entire person as existing for the purpose of additionally serving the man's general comfort and convenience.  

"Couples who follow traditional gender roles around the house -- wives doing the cooking, cleaning and shopping; men doing yard work, paying bills and auto maintenance -- reported greater sexual frequency."

This division of chores is´not derived from biological differences in aptitudes, but from men installing for themselves the privilege to pick those chores, which require skill, creativity, intelligence and which supply the reward of experiencing achievements, while the women are burdened with the dullest, banalest and most unrewarding routines like cleaning. Women are made to do, what men do not want to do.  

Women are often so exhausted and worn by their ascribed and enforced work load, that they have no time or energy left to learn the skills needed for the chores, which the men have reserved for themselves.   Thus the men believe to have a sufficient excuse to perpetuate their privileges by claiming, that the women were unable to do anything better than cleaning.    

This study indirectly reinforces once more my conclusion:     

It is many men's fallacy to claim and believe, that a high sex drive were a positive and desirable attribute of male quality.  They often are even foolish enough to feel proud of their sex drive.  They are unable to recognize, how much it can also be an affliction causing harm to women, at least to those, who are intelligent and educated.   

The lower a man's sex drive, the less he is prone to fall into the trap of subtle objectification and commodification.    The lower a man's sex drive, the higher the probability, that a man is able to treat a woman with appropriate respect and appreciation for her as an equal partner and person.  

  

635. A Male Misrepresentation Of Epicurus' Philosophy

635.   A Male Misrepresentation Of Epicurus' Philosophy

I have been watching a video containing a male interpretation of Epicurus' philosophy.   (I am not giving the link, as I do not want to propagate any expression of sexism.)

The author is talking about the wisdom of considering before acting, what price in pain has to be paid as the consequence of indulging in pleasure.  Unfortunately he presents (or rather misrepresents) it as an entirely selfish and self-centered balancing with the limited consideration for only the own person, without any reference to avoiding the pain done to others.   

Basically this guy claims, that if someone expects to get more pleasure than pain for himself, then there is no reason to refrain from any indulgence, even when this includes the abuse of women's bodies.

He talks about a man's decision to have sex or not the same way as if he were talking about his decision to use a car or not.   He implicitly considers women as utilities, not as human beings deserving consideration, respect and to be spared pain.
By his interpretation, even Genghis Khan would have behaved in accordance with Epicurus.   Genghis Khan had the power to get away with raping thousands of women without himself suffering bad consequences.

As a woman, I am appalled by the author's very selfish, irresponsible and inconsiderate attitude, which he shows implicitly by some of his examples.   He misleads people to think that the objectification of women were in accordance with Epicurus.

One of the core statements of the Epicurean philosophy is "neither to harm nor be harmed".    This responsible perspective towards others is even mentioned first.

Based upon this, the correct application of the balancing of pain and pleasure includes the consideration and responsibility to avoid hurting and harming others and to restrict indulgence in any pleasure to when there are no suffering victims.

619. Objectification And The Ingroup-Outgroup Instinct

619.  Objectification And The Ingroup-Outgroup Instinct

The ingroup-outgroup instinct has evolved in many species living in groups.   It provided two sets of behaviors, automatic in animals and as a social norm in humans, which are sometimes very contradictory.   
Examples: 
Outgroup members are prey to be eaten by cannibals, while ingroup members are companions to share the food with. 
Outgroup women are prey to be raped during wars, even by men, who are no brutes to their wives or any ingroup women.

 

When a previously unknown man in real life initiates contact with a woman, for her this always bears the risk of at least the indignation of being considered as prey to be objectified and commodified, if not the worse victimization by violence.   

But there are two distinctive instinctive urges, which unfortunately add to the number of men behaving as disgusting alley dogs towards women.   

There are not only the general jerks, who driven by their instincts promiscuously objectify all women.    There are also the those jerks sufficiently determined by their ingroup-outgroup instinct, who behave differently towards ingroup women while treating outgroup women as mere prey.     

When younger and traveling alone through some Mediterranean countries, I have experienced the following pattern so often, that it started to cause me nausea.   
Sitting somewhere like on a bench in a park and being approached by a man I hoped for some interesting conversation about the country and its society and way of life.    But I was not treated as a human being with a brain.  Instead I was the target of a predator, flirting and attempting to seduce me, perceiving me as prey, as a body to be used.   

I doubt very much, that all of these predators would have caused the same indignation to local ingroup women as they allowed themselves to do to a tourist.  

Being a foreigner made me unequivocally an outgroup person by nationality.    But on a subtle and diffuse level, any subjective distinction by sorting them into either ingroup or outgroup facilitates some men's selective objectification of women.   

When driven by instinct towards abusing indiscriminately any female body for homeostation, while moral imperatives of their religion and culture forbid them promiscuity, uncoupled men suffer discomfort by either dishomeostasis or cognitive dissonance.   Defining an outgroup of women as such, upon whom moral rules do not need to be applied, is their mental trick to acquire homeostasis and avoid cognitive dissonance.   It is the mental trick of the selfish jerks attempting to acquire homeostasis without accepting commitment as not only bringing a subscription to recurrent homeostation but also meaning monogamy and emotional obligations.  

This mental trick enables jerks to have the sincere delusion to be decent and correct men, as long as they refrain from promiscuous behavior with women of their ingroup, while feeling free and justified to behave like alley dogs with women from any outgroup.   
The social history of an ingroup defined as an upper class, where so called gentlemen abused the servants and other poor and lower class women, is one example.           

613. Commodification And Objectification Of Women Are A Teleological Fallacy

613.   Commodification And Objectification Of Women Are A Teleological Fallacy
 

Men commodifying, obectifying and abusing women are an example and specific case of the general teleological fallacy.   

As outlined in entry 612, nothing has an independent purpose.   Any purpose is always and only in a person's mind, while an object is produced, used or considered for use.   

Using something merely because of its apparent and alleged purpose sometimes seems superficially as correct behavior and thus justifiable but it is a fallacy.    No properties of any object, which make it appear as if it were perfect for application in a person's pursuit of a purpose, suffice to automatically justify or excuse the use of this object.  There is even less such justification for the use of a human being wrongly mistaken to not differ from an object.  
 

To the contrary, the use is not justified unless there are sufficient legal and moral rights.  Moral obligations require to refrain from harming people and damaging their property without consent in exceptional cases.  

The fallacy of commodifying, objectifying and abusing women is unfortunately enhanced by several factors: 

1.  Religion  
 

According to christian fairy tales, a god has allegedly created the first woman from the first man's rib only as a favor fulfilling his wish.   

This can be translated and generalized easily into the typical male fallacy of believing that 

~in the god's initial plan, men sufficed and women were superfluous.   

~the god consciously created men as beings with the property of recurrent sexual dishomeostasis.  

~a god is perfect by definition and makes not mistake, therefore the recurrent need for homeostasis is something valuable and not a fault in the design.     

~the god created women especially suitable to be used to restore male homeostasis.  He created them for the purpose to supply men with such bodies.  

=>  Therefore these men believe it to be the god's will and plan, that men use women and that all harm to women is justified by being the god's responsibility.   

2.  Natural selection
 

As sad as it is, procreation and the survival of the human species depends on the physical abuse of women's body by the harm, pain and discomfort of pregnancy and birth.     But the property of having wombs and thus being suitable to reproduce does not automatically imply, that women exist for the innate purpose of breeding.    

The more women are willing to self-abuse and the more men are inconsiderate and ruthless to abuse, the more offspring they have thus contributing to the gene-pool.  

3.  Evolution of the telos drive
 

Pararajasingham's suggests (http://www.reasonism.org/main-content/articles-by-other-authors/item/285-the-telos-drive-a-neurobiological-basis-for-religious-belief) the telos drive as an explanation for religious beliefs.    I would rather explain both religion and the teleological fallacy by the biological fact, that breeding is inherently harmful for women and would not be chosen by women, who are fully intellectually and rationally free.     

The telos drive could alternatively be explained as a co-evolutionary coping strategy due to the emerging cognitive dissonance between men's instinctive urges to use haphazard female bodies for homeostasis and the evolving cognition and ability to have empathy, which enable men theoretically to appreciate women's brains along with learning to solve survival problems by reasoning and to use self-control motivated by consideration.
Would they only solve this dissonance by having an isolated belief of women existing for their use and convenience, this would easily be recognized as irrational.   But a more general dysfunction of the brain towards teleological thinking and a telos drive make the belief of women existing for men's purposes consistent with the more ubiquitous fallacy of imputing a purpose to life, to the universe and to the will of some creator.  
  

Promiscuity and the teleological fallacy of believing that women only exist for the purpose of maintaining male sexual homeostasis are two sides of the same coin.   Promiscuity is the logical behavioral expression of this false belief.   
The teleological fallacy of ascribing to women the purpose of being used enables, enhances and reinforces promiscuity.    

Unfortunately it is very difficult for some men to gain insight and awareness, that acting based upon a fallacy of an alleged purpose can be morally wrong due to harming the victims.   The denial of the victims' suffering is a part to the fallacy of ascribing a purpose.    In reality, the fallacy of women's purpose to be used by promiscuous men does not diminish the harm to the women, it only disables men from comprehending, what harm they do. 

609. Subtle Commodification

609.   Subtle Commodification

There are many forms of commodification, not all are drastic, some are very subtle.  

A while ago I contacted someone due to being attracted by his profile.   As a first impression, there seemed to exist a common intellectual basis and he had indicated to be seriously looking for a long term relationship.   
I was pleased, when I got a fast and apparently interested reply.   But my being pleased did not last long.  

That guy had just sprained his ankle so badly, that he was housebound for a week.   This made me cautious and suspicious.   When asked directly, he admitted that he started corresponding with me only as a distracting entertainment until he would be well again.   

I do not like this kind of playing games.    Had I not asked bluntly, I would have been led on during a week of building up false hopes followed to an unavoidable disappointment.  

Subtle and low scale commodification as was this nevertheless derives from the same attitude as do the more hurting and more drastic commodifications and objectifications.  

607. Pseudo-Chivalry

607.  Pseudo-Chivalry

Sometimes I am reading in men's profiles the slogan:  'Chivalry is not dead', followed by the emphasis of the guy on his habit of opening doors and helping women into the coat.   

I doubt, that they are aware of the real meaning of chivalry as an attitude towards women.  

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

"Chivalry, or the chivalric code, is the traditional code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood.  .....  Over time its meaning has been refined to emphasize more ideals such as knightly virtues, honour and courtly love,  "

"The Knight's Code of Chivalry was a moral system that stated all knights should protect others who can not protect themselves, such as widows, children, and elders. ..... Knights were required to .. always respect the honour of women. "

Chivalry is an attitude towards women, not just some superficial behaviors, It means respecting women as having dignity and honor, not as objects to be abused by ephemeral copulation but on the contrary as persons to be protected against being abused by promiscuous villains.  

Whenever a man attempts to manipulate a woman into bed without his having any intention to commit to her, his opening doors and helping into coats is only pseudo-chivalry and hypocrisy.   His pseudo-chivalry is nothing more than a disguise for his true being a jerk, and it is sad, how many women get taken in by this pretense.  

Chivalry and commodification or objectification are mutually exclusive.  

604. Commodification Under The Influence Of Culture

604.   Commodification Under The Influence Of Culture

Biologically seen, there are factors determining the watershed between the intrinsic commitment of nice guys and the promiscuity of abusive jerks.   

These factors are the innate strength of men's instinctive urges causing the discomfort of sexual dishomeostasis and the innate quality and strength of the cognition upon the behavior.  

Demisexual intellectuals with a strong need for bonding are able to appreciate women's personality, promiscuous jerks are programmed to always degrade women as objects for use.   But there are also the fence sitters having behavioral predispositions in a delicate balance between instinctive urges and cognitive strength.   Upon them, culture and social norms are a third and decisive influence.     

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905135340.htm

"To be a 'success' in evolutionary terms, women need to have access to resources for raising offspring, and men need to have access to fertile females. Researchers have argued that women tend to prefer partners who have an ability to invest resources in their children (i.e., wealthy men), and men tend to prefer partners who appear fertile (i.e., young women) because evolutionary adaptations have programmed these preferences in our brains."

"They found that the gender difference in mate preferences predicted by evolutionary psychology models "is highest in gender-unequal societies, and smallest in the most gender-equal societies," according to Zentner."

"Because increasing gender equality reduces gender differences in mate selection, these studies indicate that the strategies men and women use to choose mates may not be as hardwired as scientists originally thought."

"But he also adds evolutionary roots shouldn't be ruled out entirely.

"Indeed, the capacity to change behaviors and attitudes relatively quickly in response to societal changes may itself be driven by an evolutionary program that rewards flexibility over rigidity.""

When a promiscuous jerk copulates with a female body like a dog in the gutter, this is determined by four factors.   

• The experience of the intrinsic urges of dishomeostasis, 
• The enhancement and magnification of the impact of dishomeostasis by external triggers upon the perception.
• The availability of bodies for easy abuse.    
• The basic attitude of accepting promiscuity as appropriate behavior without any damage to his self-esteem or confidence.   

While only the innate magnitude of dishomeostasis is biological, the availability and ubiquity of external triggers, the availability of bodies for ready use, and the choice between promiscuity and monogamy as part of the ideal-self depend also upon the social environment.   

I was a child in Germany in the 50s, before the fatal sexual revolution freed the worst in men.    The 50s were certainly not a golden age for women, while there was still no reliable birth control, no legal abortion and husbands had unjustifiable legal rights like the one to forbid their wives to have a job.   

But as far as women were commodified, it was as wombs, not as objects and utilities serving men's animal instincts.  There was no public objectification of women.   Sexuality was restricted to its appropriate place inside the privacy of the bedroom of committed couples.  

There were no pictures of naked or lascivious women in any public place, not in commercials, magazines or newspapers, nor in movies.  Most women were aware, that being nice but decently dressed was in their own best interest, just as was also the conscious rejection of any involvement except long-term commitment.    

It was a golden age of beneficial wise prudery.    

Public life was free from detrimental triggers for male instincts.   

There were too many jerks then too, but they were jerks by their own innate animality, they were jerks in spite of a social norm of commitment and monogamy.  Abusing women was not facilitated for them.  These jerks had to consciously decide first, that they really wanted to abuse a woman, because finding the hidden prostitution and pornography required a proactive search. 

The nice guys and the fence sitters were spared the involuntary exposure to triggers, which were incongruent with their real wishes and inclinations for intrinsic commitment based upon their cognitive personality.    

When they experienced the discomfort of dishomeostasis, the circumstances due to the social norm and the culture smoothed their path much more towards commitment and monogamy than towards promiscuity.   

In the 50s, it was much easier for intrinsic nice guys to remain decent, nothing perturbed and distracted them from living in congruency with their cognitive ability to appreciate women.     

Today, the public objectification of women does not only cause a lot of harm to women, but it also causes self-harming to those nice guys, who would be most happy in bonded monogamous commitment.   They are exposed without having a choice to the ubiquitous triggers to their worst animal instincts by the combination of the excellent quality of the realism of the media, the oversexation of every day life and the social norm of male promiscuity and female acquiescence.

The potentially responsible and considerate nice guys and the fence sitters are in the unfortunate situation of being triggered by instincts and encouraged by social norm to use those too many women, who acquiesce too easily.  Such women are also manipulated by the same social norm into believing, that promiscuity were modern, monogamy were prudish and old fashioned and that the only chance to successfully compete with other women is to allow themselves to be available first for use lest another would be chosen for being easier to get.  The sad result are many women suffering from unilateral and not-reciprocated attachment.  The men get desensitized by using too many women.    This is, how fence sitters convert themselves more and more to jerks.   

The guy described in entry 601 is a good example.    In the 50s, the easiest way to homeostation would have been to continue his efforts towards finding commitment, which he initially seemed to really want.   But now, the social norm and the triggers lured and lure him to desensitize himself, until he will be unfit for commitment by his own doing.     

 

I have a very high regard and appreciation for those nice guys, who are determined by their cognition and no trigger of any strength has the impact to cause them to stray from decency towards abusing women as bodies.   

The true quality of a man reveals itself, when no trigger and no influence can ever make him sink so low as to become promiscuous.    Such men are rare, but they do exist.    I am looking for one of them as my mindmate.  

601. Anecdotal Evidence: How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

601.   Anecdotal Evidence:  How Instinctive Urges Blur, Distort And Deactivate A Man's Reason

A few days ago, a man's profile gave me the impression of his being a nice, decent, and considerate guy.    He used words like honesty, sharing, loving, kind and compassionate in his profile.   He told me, he were fitting my own profile, where I have explicitly mentioned, that I do not want any contact with promiscuous men.   

He seemed interested in further contact with me.   We exchanged a few emails and he agreed also with the importance of communication and of intellectual compatibility.   

But when I had another look at his profile, I was really puzzled.    He had changed his declared intention from actively seeking a relationship to dating but nothing serious.   When I asked him about this unexpected and seemingly incongruous change, his answer was so different from what he had appeared before, that he appeared like a different person.  
.   
He wrote,
1.  that he was "totally discouraged with online dating"
2.  that he now intended to have "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex."

For a moment I was speechless.  When he wrote this, it was morning in his time zone.  Had he written this in the evening, I would have suspected him to be drunk.  
  
1. Even by not being his dream woman, according to his initial interest, the contact with me could more logically have encouraged him.
  
2. Something is strange, when someone with this man's profile decides on such a project.  It is not something to achieve with honesty.   Most women, to whom a man would unequivocally suggest "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex" would feel insulted by this objectification and disrespect.  They would consider him a ridiculous fool for having such expectations.   
Most men, who succeed in getting "a hookup, nothing serious. Dinner, movie, and sex", do this by lies, manipulation and other methods of misleading a woman to consent based upon the false hope of beginning a relationship.    This is abuse. 

It seemed incongruous and inconsistent, that a man, who had declared himself as valuing compassion and kindness, suddenly plans coldblooded abuse.   It is incomprehensible, how someone suddenly decides to abuse a female body as a toilet for his body waste in spite of his claim of wanting intellectual compatibility.

The following are of course only speculations, as there is no way to find out the truth. 

Desensitization to full comprehension for how much a woman gets hurt, when she is used and discarded is not enough to explain this contradiction.  Desensitization to harming others works best in the absence of compassion.    

The most plausible explanation is this man's overreacting to a state of strong physiological dishomeostasis.    The guy seems to have been reduced from a thinking and feeling human being to a mere animal, being completely under the power of overwhelming instinctive forces.   In this state as an animal, all his human reason appears blurred, distorted or deactivated.    

Any option for behavior guided by human compassion and kindness seems to be concealed behind the predominant urge to copulate like a dog in the gutter, and behind the drive to be a predator and to ruthlessly hunt for prey.   This state as an animal lasts until homeostation restores humanity.

I replied, that a man, who objectifies women, is not worthy of me.    His reaction was "F**k you, you crazy broad. Go back to the asylum."    I was merely blunt, but the animal in him became vulgar.


While I am scared of men's dangerous instincts, I also feel sorry for them.   They are afflicted with instincts, which destroy for them the chance to get, what is most beneficial to their human cognition, especially in the case of men, who are intelligent and educated, and only deranged when they experience dishomeostasis.   

This guy is just one example.   Without being deranged temporarily by his instincts, he could have a happy symmetrical committed and bonded relationship with a woman like me.   But his instincts reduce him to a disgusting beast, who temporarily sinks so low as to intend to abuse women as a toilet for his body waste.   No decent woman with dignity and self-respect wants anything to do with such a man.   

It is very difficult for me to imagine, how men's specific physiological sexual dishomeostasis of needing to get rid of body waste feels.   Biologically, women's bodies do not provide this same experience of dishomeostasis.   
My best attempt to comprehend the magnitude of men's problem is to compare it to the urge of an addiction like alcoholism or even an extreme deprivation as is starvation.   Sometimes an extremely strong craving deactivates and overrides all higher cognitive and moral consideration.  The craving person ruthlessly applies any atrocity, which allows him to restore homeostasis, even killing, stealing and robbing. In the case of men, it can be abuse and rape of women.       

Those jerks, who always copulate like dogs in the gutter, oblivious of the damage done to the abused women, are just animals, who have never really become fully human.  
But assuming, that the guy in this incident knows the full meaning of the words used by him in his profile, like kindness and compassion, makes me wonder, what happens after he had his night in the gutter.   How will he feel, when he is back temporarily in a state of homeostasis, becoming fully aware of what he had done to the woman by luring her into his gutter?    Will he feel the same shame and regret as the addict, who in the state of homeostasis wishes to be free from the addiction?

585. Masculinity And Femininity As Identity Crutches

585.   Masculinity And Femininity As Identity Crutches

Masculinity and femininity are both identities based upon specific dispositions for needs and behaviors determined by virulent instincts.  The stronger the instincts, the more masculinity and femininity are pronounced.   The stronger masculinity and femininity, the more they bring out the worst in men and in women.  

Masculinity and femininity are consciously expressed as favorable attitudes towards specific instincts.

 

Masculinity is based upon a positive attitude towards more or less excessive instinctive urges for sexual homeostation leading to the objectification of women, and towards the hierarchy and ingroup-outgroup instincts, leading to competition, fighting, domination, aggression.   All this often causes extreme suffering for the victims.
 

Femininity is based upon a positive attitude towards the more or less instinctive breeding urge.   This leads not only to their sacrificing their own wellbeing for the priority of breeding, but they burden the disadvantages of breeding also upon other people.    

Masculinity and femininity are complementary identities.    Masculine men abuse women's bodies as objects, feminine women displace their bonding needs to their offspring and do not offer bonding to a partner.   

Masculinity and femininity are the social norm.   

1. When their high instinctivity predisposes people to innately conform with the social norm, they are at ease with themselves and with their social surroundings.   For people with more cognition than instincts, they are a hazard.
   
2. There are also those other men and women, who are either equally instinct driven and controlled by cognition, or their cognition is even stronger than their instinctivity.    In this situation, their confidence makes a big difference.

• Strong, secure and independent thinkers with high self-esteem are not impressed by the pressure from a social norm, which does not fit their needs.   They reject masculinity and femininity in favor of a gender neutral rationality, they are only concerned about their genuine emotions and needs.    They too live in the congruence of their attitudes with their innate inclinations.
  
• But those also lacking confidence, who are insecure and have low self-esteem, are in a especially difficult situation.   They need an identity.  Theoretically they have two options, a cognitive or an instinctive identity, depending what influences their ideal self.
  
  • The more appropriate cognitive identity is hard to obtain, it requires learning, working on oneself, mental and intellectual efforts and resisting social pressure.  
    The false instinctive identity is much easier to obtain.  It just needs to refrain from any self-control or reasoning and to allow existing instincts to rule.  The rest is imitation of all the other instinct driven people and to fulfill the expectations of the social norm.   It is the choice of the least resistance.
    
  • Some people may even not feel any of the instincts, and nevertheless strife to fulfill the social norm, because it supplies them with a fake identity.  They may even relapse at the same time into some apparent cognitive behaviors and appear contradictory and inconsistent.
  
  Whatever the exact dynamics, masculinity and femininity are for these people no real identities, but identity crutches. 

  

584. Rejection And Objectification

584.   Rejection And Objectification

The more someone is valued and appreciated as a person, the more a rejection by this person hurts.   Experiencing such rejections is a reason to select carefully, whom to approach as a method to preclude avoidable rejections.

This is not only the case in real life, but also when initiating contact on the internet.   

Of course, there is no justification to take a rejection by a complete stranger personally.   The contacted person rejects not the unknown real personality of the contacting one, but merely the apparent impression and perception as presented by the profile. 
But this is principally a rejection of a person by a person, even when the rejected person only exists as a distorted imagination.

Many men contact women in a haphazard and indiscriminate way, without even reading profiles, taking not at all for serious, what the women want.   As a result, they get rejected very often.   Yet this seems not at all to bother or discourage them, they continue as if being rejected had no impact upon them.   

I have got aware of the probable reason.   While women reject these men as unsuitable, or even as weird and foolish for even trying the unattainable, these men do not experience the refusal as being rejected by a person.  
They are like hunters, who have attempted to shoot a rabbit and missed.   Such hunters do not feel rejected by the rabbit, they merely experience this as the failure to have hit one target, which requires to move on and try the next.   They may interpret the rejections as being themselves losers, failures, clumsy, but it is all about have missed to gain access to the use of an object.   Women are no subjects in this, only hunted objects.

They are predators hunting prey, not humans in search of a companion.   

Whenever predators objectify women by hunting them as prey, this automatically precludes their feeling rejected when they fail.    

Whenever men lack to feel rejected, this indicates objectification.  

567. The Pulvinar And The Commodification-Objectification Disorder

567.  The Pulvinar And The Commodification-Objectification Of Women Disorder

When a man commodifies a woman, he perceives her as if she were not different from an inanimate utility, which only exists for the purpose to be used by him.  Insufficient information about her person and her needs as the basis of his decisions causes, enables and aggravates the commodification.    He acquires such information only by proactively fetching them.  He studies her like a new appliance or a lab rat by observation, probing, trial-and-error.    

His reception for verbal input from her is limited to receiving the answers to his own questions. Any initiative from her to influence and improve his treatment by proffering additional information input about herself fails, because this information is not received.    It bounces off his mind with no impact.   
He communicates with the woman as if using a walkie-talkie, where only his device has the buttons to switch between transmitting and receiving.

His being thus deprived of ever getting sufficient information precludes any improvement of his behavior and perpetuates the commodification. 


There are two possible dynamics leading to this problem.    

 
Small children are self-centered and commodify their caregivers.   At some stage of maturation they get aware of and become considerate about another person's needs, and they learn to perceive and receive the necessary information. 

 
1.   The distorted misconception of women as utilities is established first and never corrected.   A boy remaining immature and having been exposed early to strong commodifying role models is never prompted by any occasion to awaken his dormant potential to receive input from others.   

2.   The reception of information input from others does not work properly.   Maturation is delayed due to lacking and never acquiring sufficient information about other people.

The following text has made me wonder, if maybe the pulvinar could be the dysfunctional part of commodifying men:     

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120817151519.htm

"A mysterious region deep in the human brain could be where we sort through the onslaught of stimuli from the outside world and focus on the information most important to our behavior and survival,"

"The researchers report in the journal Science that an area of our brain called the pulvinar regulates communication between clusters of brain cells as our brain focuses on the people and objects that need our attention. Like a switchboard operator, the pulvinar makes sure that separate areas of the visual cortex -- which processes visual information -- are communicating about the same external information "

"The brain instead selectively focuses on, or attends to, the people and objects most relevant to our behavior at the time and filters out the rest. "

"Saalmann said these findings on how the brain transmits information could lead to new ways of understanding and treating attention-related disorders,"

The commodifying man may only be puzzled, irritated and frustrated, why the commodified woman does not function as he expects.    The woman experiences such a man's behavior nevertheless as disordered.   

I would be very curious about the results, if any scientist would ever make a brain scan of a man, while he stares with a blank face and no reaction at a woman, who explains to him, why she feels hurt by his behavior.    

Maybe some men have a Commodification-Objectification of Women Disorder (COWD)?

Unfortunately I can only suggest men's COWD as food for thought, because of the ubiquitous desensitization and bias towards acceptance of and tolerance for harm, abuse, deprivation, exploitation and domination of women, which has become part of the culture and is derived from religion (more in entries 552, 553, 554).    Men, who do this to women are generally not considered as having a disorder, but as normal men doing, what they are born to do, what they are meant and entitled to do.