643. A Man's Persistent Contact With Ex-Partners Is A Variety Of The Traditional African Polygamy
In entry 642, I pointed out, how prostitution simulates the copulation of mammals, where the male is not impacted by any emotional or cognitive trace after copulating with a female body.
When a man perceives a deactivated intimate partner as not different from someone, who had never been more intimate than a platonic friend, this also is evidence, that this man does not experience physical intimacy as creating an irreversible permanent special bond, which can never be undone, but only drastically broken and severed.
I once wrote a term paper upon traditional African family structures. Simplified, it was like this: When a man marries for the first time, he and his wife have one hut each in a compound. They have an intimate relationship, until the first child is born. Then the physically intimate relationship with this wife is deactivated. The man marries a second wife, who gets also her own hut. When she has her first child, the physical intimacy with her also gets deactivated. Depending on his material resources, he may add several more wives. When he reaches his limit, he reestablishes the intimacy with the more ancient wives, until they again are pregnant.
This means, such a man has a harem, which consists during long periods of one active intimate relationship and several deactivated intimate, but temporarily platonic relationships with women, whom he has not discarded as unsuitable.
A man, who enters a new intimate relationship, while maintaining a platonic friendship with deactivated intimate partners, has the same kind of a harem. If he would experience emotional attachment as connected with physical intimacy, he would know this. But if physical intimacy does not create any permanent emotional trace, then he is not aware of creating a harem and he does not know, what he does to the women, whom he denies exclusivity by placing them in the harem.
He is oblivious of the decisive difference between a deactivated intimate partner and an ex-partner.
I define an ex-partner as someone, who is discarded from all voluntary contact as being unsuitable for a relationship.
A woman, who was an intimate partner and who is still treated and considered as a platonic friend, is not an ex-partner, but a deactivated intimate partner.
I define monogamy as having only one intimate partner at the same time, no matter if active or deactivated.
I consider and perceive a person, who is not suitable for friendship as also no suitable for an intimate relationship and the step from friendship to physical intimacy as a one-way street and there is no way back.
I have been thinking hard, but I cannot imagine any valid reason, why two persons get intimately involved and end the relationship, and in spite of this can continue to reciprocally merit each other's friendship. A valid reason to end a relationship and valid reasons to reciprocally merit each other's friendship are mutually exclusive.
In entry 642, I pointed out, how prostitution simulates the copulation of mammals, where the male is not impacted by any emotional or cognitive trace after copulating with a female body.
When a man perceives a deactivated intimate partner as not different from someone, who had never been more intimate than a platonic friend, this also is evidence, that this man does not experience physical intimacy as creating an irreversible permanent special bond, which can never be undone, but only drastically broken and severed.
I once wrote a term paper upon traditional African family structures. Simplified, it was like this: When a man marries for the first time, he and his wife have one hut each in a compound. They have an intimate relationship, until the first child is born. Then the physically intimate relationship with this wife is deactivated. The man marries a second wife, who gets also her own hut. When she has her first child, the physical intimacy with her also gets deactivated. Depending on his material resources, he may add several more wives. When he reaches his limit, he reestablishes the intimacy with the more ancient wives, until they again are pregnant.
This means, such a man has a harem, which consists during long periods of one active intimate relationship and several deactivated intimate, but temporarily platonic relationships with women, whom he has not discarded as unsuitable.
A man, who enters a new intimate relationship, while maintaining a platonic friendship with deactivated intimate partners, has the same kind of a harem. If he would experience emotional attachment as connected with physical intimacy, he would know this. But if physical intimacy does not create any permanent emotional trace, then he is not aware of creating a harem and he does not know, what he does to the women, whom he denies exclusivity by placing them in the harem.
He is oblivious of the decisive difference between a deactivated intimate partner and an ex-partner.
I define an ex-partner as someone, who is discarded from all voluntary contact as being unsuitable for a relationship.
A woman, who was an intimate partner and who is still treated and considered as a platonic friend, is not an ex-partner, but a deactivated intimate partner.
I define monogamy as having only one intimate partner at the same time, no matter if active or deactivated.
I consider and perceive a person, who is not suitable for friendship as also no suitable for an intimate relationship and the step from friendship to physical intimacy as a one-way street and there is no way back.
I have been thinking hard, but I cannot imagine any valid reason, why two persons get intimately involved and end the relationship, and in spite of this can continue to reciprocally merit each other's friendship. A valid reason to end a relationship and valid reasons to reciprocally merit each other's friendship are mutually exclusive.
- When a relationship ends, because one commits an unforgivable transgression, then this means, that the basis for friendship has been forfeited and destroyed.
- When two people have made the mistake of getting involved by infatuation, while they had nothing in common to keep them together, then the they cannot remain the friends they never had been.
- When a man gets aware of the banality of his recurrent urge to restore his homeostasis, then as a wise man he understands, that this is inherent in human cognition, which enables intelligent humans to compare more rewarding intellectual activities with the primitive homeostation of animal instincts. This awareness does not diminish a mature man's attachment to the person of his partner.
But if experiencing his own needs for homeostation as a banality suffices for a man to replace his companion's body with another female body for the purpose of enhancing the sensation of primitive thrills, then he is a worthless idiot and an immature jerk and he does not deserve the discarded woman's friendship.
Therefore any man, who needs to continue the contact with his deactivated intimate partners, scares me for two reasons.
It makes me suspicious, that physical intimacy is for him not connected with emotional attachment, bonding and commitment, and it indicates a high risk of me being hurt by his ending the relationship for invalid reasons.
