252. Merging the Concepts of Instinctive and of Cognitive Mating

Merging the Concepts of Instinctive and of Cognitive Mating

Instinctive mating:
In entry 236 I explained, how mating between the instinct driven animals of the species homo sapiens is a three step process.   The first step is checking the visual and auditory signals for healthy offspring by sharing the social space, the second step is checking the chemistry by the olfactory perception of pheromones in the personal space and the third step is the copulation in the intimate space for the purpose of procreation.

Cognitive mating:
In the entries 174, 176, 178 and 185 I described the cognitive process of developing Commitment Governance as a process of three phases.  
The first phase is the decision phase to find out, if there is basic compatibility and if there are no incompatibilities, that are dealbreakers.  
The second phase is the engagement phase, which starts with an engagement pact.   This phase serves to verify the basic compatibility and the consistency between verbal agreements and actual behavior during direct personal contact.   This phase creates emotional and intellectual intimacy.   
The third phase is commitment, that begins with the commitment pact, which is the beginning of physical intimacy.

I am looking for my mindmate being hypoanimalistic.  That means, for him as for me, the forces of cognition are stronger than the forces of instincts.    But by hypoanimalistic I do not imply the complete absence of instincts, only the predominance of cognition, intelligence and rationality over the instincts.  

Hypoanimalistic mating is a process of the combined three steps of both concepts.    

1.   The decision phase includes the approaching and entering a shared social space.   In addition to the rational checking for intellectual and emotional compatibility, there is also the visual and auditory checking.  But the latter is not for the purpose of fitness for procreation, but to avoid physical repulsion as an obstacle to intimacy.
2.   The engagement phase includes the approaching and entering a shared personal space.   In addition to verifying in a more close contact, if there indeed is enough compatibility, there is also the olfactory checking to avoid repulsive reactions to each other's pheromones.       
3.   The third phase is commitment and sharing the intimate space.   Physical intimacy does not aim at procreation but as as symbolic beginning and then reinforcing of bonding and devotion of being a unit.    

243. Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 2

Patients' Cross Gender Choice of Doctors and Nurses - 2

This continues entries 241 and 242.
This is also a reply to Suzy's text, who has invited me to add my comment.
http://patientmodestysolutions.blogspot.com/2010/12/modesty-vs-moralsthe-hidden-battle.html

2.  Why do institutions ruthlessly force treatment and nursing by doctors and nurses of the opposite gender upon patients, even though they protest and resist?   

This concerns institutions like hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers, forensic and psychiatric wards, in short all institutions, where people enter, because they have no choice to stay out, either by health issues or by being admitted by law. 

The principle of medical treatment is supposed to be:  primum non nocere.   That means, first of all, do no harm.  

It is by now general accepted science, that psychological factors have a very important part in helping or impeding the healing of any health issue.   
When a woman experiences the handling of her body by a male doctor or nurse as a sexual assault and she is powerless to refuse it and to protect herself, this does serious harm to her.   This may well make her more sick and impede her healing.    It is a violation of the primum non nocere rule. 


There are several factors to consider:

1.  Who has the power to decide the job organization, the institution governance, the rules, the choice to employ male or female nurses?
Who is responsible and accountable, when a male nurse washes a woman in spite of her protest?
Has he decided this himself, is the distribution of the work load decided by the workgroup or by the management and by dominating bosses?
Are there any rules to protect the women, but the staff ignores the rules and nobody enforces them?

Does a male nurse risk his job, if he refuses to wash a non-consenting woman?  

2.  For what reasons do people choose to become nurses, doctors, massagers and other jobs of directly handling human bodies?  
How much maturity and emotional intelligence was in that choice?

• Average:  It is just a well paid and secure job, there has been a role model in the family, or there is any other haphazard but neutral reason.   
• Dangerously immature and lacking emotional intelligence:  Some men are driven by their subconscious sexual wishes to choose a job, which gets their hands on women's bodies.
• Maturity and emotional intelligence:  They are caring persons with a lot of altruism and maybe political motivation.  They want a job, where they feel to do something good and not just be part of the capitalistic rat race.  

3.  Has the institution of their training and the institution of employing them screened for their motivation to keep the dangerous and immature men out?


Assuming for the following considerations, that the male nurse is a person with the motivation to give good care to the patients.  He sincerely wants to avoid harming.    What are the reasons, that he in spite of this does wash the woman, who experiences this as a sexual assault?

1.  The woman suffers but nobody knows it.

1.1.  The woman has been so brainwashed, that she is has begun to belief herself to be a ridiculous prude, whose feeling uncomfortable in this situation were her own flaw, and she does not dare to protest.    

1.2.  She is scared to be punished as a trouble maker.   

1.3.. She has been declared as seriously mentally disturbed, and her protest against being washed by a man is mistaken by insensitive promiscuous men as a part of her mental condition.   In the worst case, if she has the courage to struggle against the sexual assault, they may even force psychopharmaceuticals into her.

2.  The nurse is promiscuous with extrinsic morals only.   For a promiscuous person, sexuality between bodies is principally permissible and acceptable, no matter if it goes as far as copulating like alley dogs or if indulging in any form of allowing or enjoying sexual stimulation.   For a promiscuous male nurse, it is just of no importance, how much or how little washing a woman's body is a sexual activity.    

If he is not only promiscuous, but also immature, he projects his own promiscuity upon all other people.   He has no clue, that a woman, for whom monogamy is a core part of her personality, perceives any sexuality without a committed relationship as a harmful assault.    He is ignorant, how much he is harming her.  
He may well have the morals not to cheat and to respect other people's relationship, and such.  He may well consider himself as a moral man, but based on the assumption of universal promiscuity.    If he is part of a social group, where promiscuity, desensitization, oversexation (entry 237) have become the norm, he may never have a chance to learn, that a woman has her own dignity and that her basic human rights include her right to keep unrelated men away from her intimate space. 
Such a nurse may take the alleged sanity of promiscuity so much for granted, that he may indeed sincerely belief, that a woman's wish for modesty is a sign of mental disturbance.

Only a male nurse, who is monogamy and whose promiscuity-inhibition (entry 101 ) has never been destroyed, can have the intrinsic moral based upon his own values, that enables him to know the limits of morally justifiable intrusion into a woman's intimate space.   

There is the problem:   The woman in the situation of experiencing the male intrusion into her intimate space directly suffers harm from that nurse, but the true cause of the harm is the social norm of widespread promiscuity and oversexation in mainstream society, and the desensitization of those, who have the power to inflict harm on the minority of the sensitive and monogamous people.    

Promiscuity is a scourge of humanity, and the harm of promsicuous male nurses is just one more indication of this.  

240. Chemistry and Subconscious Instinctive Communication - 4

Chemistry and Subconscious Instinctive Communication - 4   

This continues entry 238.

General scenario:   A woman and a man, each married, are colleagues at work.   Due to their adjacent desks, the share their social space.   Sometimes they also share their personal space, when being in crowded conditions like using public transport together.    

1. Their interaction is under the influence of:
1.1.  The attraction of the other's body according to the checking by the instinct.   It can be between zero as the result of previous checking and very strong.
1.2.  The capacity to perceive the attraction and checking by the other.
1.3. The amount of desensitization and denial keeping the feeling and perceiving of attraction below the threshold of consciousness and the individual level of the threshold.
1.4. The outcome depends also on external circumstances, their strength of self-control and their consciousness of the consequences of defective behavior.


2.  Possible symmetrical scenarios.

2.1.  Truly platonic:   There is no instinctive attraction and they can work together without trouble
2.2.  Pseudo-Platonic:   The mutual instinctive attraction is below the threshold and they also can work together without trouble
2.3.  Disturbing:   Their mutual instinctive attraction reaches consciousness above a low threshold.   They do not want to cheat, they feel uncomfortable and solve the problem by finding other work arrangements.
2.4.  Disruptive:   Their mutual instinctive attraction reaches consciousness above a high threshold, maybe triggered under alcohol at some social event.    This leads to cheating.

3.  Possible asymmetrical scenarios.
 

3.1.  Onesided disturbing:  One feels instinctive attraction consciously above a low level threshold.   The other does not feel attraction and either is or is not conscious of the situation.    The one feeling the attraction is very uncomfortable and can only solve this by getting out from this situation. 
3.2.  Onesided disruptive:  One feels instinctive attraction consciously above a high level threshold.   The other does not feel attraction or attraction below the threshold.    This is the situation, usually of a woman, who is under sexual harassment.  The male predator is pushing his attentions on a female prey, while he is ignorant, if this is welcome or not.   If she is lucky, the harassing colleague gets removed.   
3.3.  Onesided disruptive and power:  One feels instinctive attraction consciously above a high level threshold.   The other does not feel attraction or attraction below the threshold.   The male predator is pushing his attentions on a female prey, while he is either ignorant and not interested, if this is welcome or not, or he is forcing his attentions on a rejecting female.     This is the situation, usually of a woman, who is under the sexual harassment of a boss, and all she can do is get out of the situation.  


Based on the delusions of underestimating the instincts and overestimating self-control and the deterrent effect of sanctions, unrestricted mingling of pairs of the opposite genders is considered as harmless.   People organize their every day life at work and their social life, as if truly and pseudo-platonic interactions were guarantied for all people, who intented it this way.   

If people had a more realistic notion of the power of the instincts over them, they could prevent some of the disturbing and disruptive scenarios.

238. Chemistry and Subconscious Instinctive Communication - 3

Chemistry and Subconscious Instinctive Communication - 3   

This continues entry 236.   By the way, my limiting the considerations of instincts to the effects on heterosexual interactions does not imply the non-existence of the effects of the interactions between males.   As a woman, this is outside my scope of interest.

The instincts are the same in modern times as described for our prehistoric ancestors.   Men feeling strong urges for sexual homeostasis approach women, people develop chemistry as a consequence of reducing the distance between them, and the result is copulation for the restoring of the sexual homeostasis of both.  
In my prehistoric scenario, the male initiated the process by entering the female's social space.   In modern times, circumstances bring people into each other's social and personal space all the time without them having any intention of mating.   In both situations, the instincts are triggered automatically by the approaching of two bodies, but only modern people can know by cognition, if the approaching was by choice for the purpose of mating, or an unavoidable consequence of our crowded modern life.   

People in the crowded modern life situation therefore need mechanisms, how to cope with the unwanted sharing of their social and personal space.   Desensitization and denial are these mechanisms, and they make a huge difference between our ancestors and modern societies.   Due to these mechanisms, there is no conscious perception for the working of chemistry between two individuals, until the strength of the chemistry reaches a threshold.  

But things are more complex.

1.  Checking without restoring distance can lead to attraction or aversion.
In our ancestors' times, the automatic process of instinctive mating had two options after approaching, either reciprocal checking and mating or distancing to avoid mating.    When the requirement of modern life impedes restoring enough distance in spite of an inclination to do so, a woman feels molested by men's onesided checking. 
Therefore, desensitization and denial serve two purposes.   They avoid low level attraction by chemistry to be kept out of consciousness, but also low level aversion to male chemistry checking out of a woman's consciousness.   Low level welcome chemistry is often mistaken for platonic sympathy, low level feeling molested is often mistaken for platonic antipathy.    

2.  There are individual differences of the magnitude of this threshold.  
For the most desensitized, the threshold is so high, that once chemistry is strong enough to rise over the threshold, this immediately triggers behavioral drives towards copulation.    
For more sensitive people, especially women, the threshold is low enough to perceive danger or aversion much earlier, either when feeling molested or when being fully aware of very good reasons of not succumbing to chemistry.   This lower threshold gives more sensitive people more options for appropriate actions. 

3.  The checking instinct triggered by proximity consists of an active and a passive component.   The passive component is the ability to perceive, consciously or subconsciously, when being checked.   The active component is the own checking, when driven by a need either to procreate or to gain sexual homeostasis or both.   
There are considerable intra-individual and inter-individual differences in the innate strength of both components.    I already described the differences between breeders and hypoanimalistic people in previous entries.   

4. Desensitization and denial of the instinctive forces have the consequence, that our modern western societies are afflicted with several dangerous collective delusions, which have led to social norms, that are detrimental for the more sensitive and less instinctive persons.  
Collective Delusion 1. When the true force of instincts is not consciously perceived, they are underestimated as either not existent, very weak and/or no causing harm.  
Collective Delusion 2. The ability to rule over instincts successfully by self-control and willpower is overestimated. 
Because of these delusions, the powerful, the most instinct driven, the most desensitized are forcing suffering and harm upon the sensitive, the hypoanimalistic, the non-breeders, the egalitarians, the epicureans.     

More in another entry.