Monday 10 March 2014

On Communication and Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

From the commentary of one of Rollo's posts over at The Rational Male, GeishaKate brings up an interesting observation/comment:
Not really, Jeremy. The thought of being in a relationship with someone you don’t want to talk to doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you aren’t excited to share things with them, learn their perspective, hear their thoughts, you’re just together for the arrangement of the relationship, not the actual person. If people are happy with that kind of structure, fine, but others are not satisfied with that. They’ve already transcended the basic Maslovian needs or have even adapted to proceed without them.
I'm tempted to state that she's implying women are higher on the scale of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. At any rate, my response was somewhat out of left-field from what I think she was expecting:
@GeishaKate – you have just described the typical hookup-culture/fuck-buddy/harem arrangement that has been de-facto created within today’s sexual marketplace. When young people are content with being in an arrangement where they aren’t excited with sharing things, learning perspectives, etc. They’re just together for sex, no more, and can go find another “partner” for that as and when desired.
The disconnect is when a woman then tries to act as though that arrangement were something more serious. Thus the “meaningful communication” problem that we are commenting about. There is no real interest in communicating with what happens to be a human-shaped vibrator, whether male or female. Certainly not at an early age.
This is partly why in the old days sex was in marriage only. It was taken very seriously. Much communication happened before that step occurred. I won’t go on ad-nauseum about the decline of marriage etc – that horse has been thoroughly beaten to death already. Various anecdotes and the like can be taken from all and sundry here and many other places in the Manosphere.
So yes, proper communication between the sexes is important from the perspective of marriage and the long-term raising of strong sons and worthwhile daughters. When there is no intent for true long-term (lifetime) commitment then there is no desire for true communication from either sides of the sexual equation.
From this situation the irritation from the male side of the equation erupts when the female side attempts to effectively change the arrangement – and the male doesn’t think that she’s worth the effort of doing so. Or the male does not trust the fidelity of the female. Nobody can be bothered entering a contract that is made in bad faith by one party because it is incentivised to be broken (millions of examples).
It therefore appears that the decline of marriage and the rise of hookup culture go hand-in-hand. Also the decline in real communication between the sexes. When there is no intent from an early age to seriously do the “til death do us part” thing, for either sex, attempting to switch tracks after 30 years of life is a dismal failure.
You mention Maslow’s Heirarchy of needs. From the male perspective there is no security these days in the Security of the Family (second level). Most males come from broken homes, where “daddy” is one of several men who share mommy’s bed as and when desired.
On the third level there is no Love/Belonging with Family and Sexual Intimacy. Again there is no safety: that Love/Belonging can be removed at a whim. Legally. The earliest example of this being when mother beats down on dad and/or they get divorced. Things shared and involved in the sexual intimacy are used as ammunition to get her way within or to end the relationship.
So men fall back to the most basic level and develop themselves from there:
His Physiological needs for sex get met.
His Safety is developed for the self only and especially involves protection from the female and often from former family members.
His Love/Belonging is restricted to friends, some select family members, and does not involve other females or the building of your own family.
His Esteem and Self-Actualisation levels are developed by and for themselves, no woman required or desired for that.
Result: massive social dysfunction, as we see around ourselves now. Women left in the icy cold situation of having to fend completely for themselves, no man to provide for any parts of her Heirarchy of Needs.
It is of no moment to the man who has developed himself when she suddenly decides that she wants to do certain things in her life, that she is now “ready” for them. That she wants to do them with him. Or that she finds his developed self to be absolutely awesome, attractive, wonderful, etc.
He has developed thoroughly without her. Remember the wild Bonsai from another discussion.
I’ll stop it here, this is getting tremendously long. @Stingray – this seems continuation of prior. Might be of use/interest to you.
I think that this is plenty enough as a starting-framework for you readers to do your own thought and research to reach your own conclusions. Enjoy!


  1. Hey! You have your own spot!

    I did not mean that "women" are higher on Maslov's scale but that certain "people" are. The rest, sure we've all heard before, but you wrote it in a nice tone, which was refreshing.

    In "girl world," where I came from before I started reading men's stories, they talked about that not switching the arrangement in the middle thing. That's why the beginning of a relationship is so important because it launches a certain sequence.

    I wish I had more time to write thorough responses, but I don't. I'd love to see everyone find their own happiness, but people are just so darn resistant! Pax!

    1. I have the feeling that you are not gonna like my mind GeishaKate. Hehehe.