Why men change?
Seem that statement of a question is inherently absolutely helpless. And in itself conceals sistemnets of a mistake, reliably protecting looking for minds from the clear answer throughout centuries.
We will begin with the formulation. Before dealing with something, whether it be a rhetorical cry of mankind or a praktichy question from the category “ to buy bread tonight or not to buy “ it is necessary to specify the value and sense put in each word forming a question. Otherwise, the withdrawal pains of copies will be infinite and absolutely sizifovy.
So, we will take the floor “ men “. As if on its place was “ people “ the sense would be absolutely other. We already have tendentiousness in search of the answer. In - the first because it is looked through “ female look “ i.e. specific interest in features of behavior of men, search of dependences from “ behavior of women “ influencing acts of a strong half of mankind. If you want, even a certain form of potential female manipulation which can or lead to change, or to prevent it. And in - the second as it is quite clear that “ men “ - this instruction on a certain special breed of people which significantly differ from other breeds. For example, women, transvestites, transsexuals, role and actual homosexuals of both floors. In other words, statement of a question does not assume any more scientific approach because obviously does not consider a set of the conditions and factors significantly influencing features of behavior “ men “ as “ beings with the member “.
A mistake here that if we study this part of society designated, figuratively speaking, by a structure of genitals, then we are insured from the clear answer to the question. As men are gays, latent or faktichsky, and there further - they are already “ girls “ “ boys “ “ uni “ and for certain still somebody about whom we do not know yet. All these categories have the features, the most typical templates of behavior, motivation, and they have the statistics in part “ changes “.
Second word: “ change “. What means? Again - it is not clear at all. If under “ change “ it is meant “ sexual “ contact, it is necessary to determine what is it. As if it is the dotted line which is carried out upon from the " point; and “ in the " point; “ we thus cut 99,9 percent “ changes “ at once, and the situation becomes absolutely confused. I will explain why.
In - the first, formally speaking if sex is something, connected with genitals, then hardly this in itself is “ absolute fact of change “. In the same way as reception at the gynecologist for the woman does not do her “ changed “ (though, probably, it depends on the doctor) or visit to the urologist does not do the man by the homosexual.
For example if we have sex with somebody another in the dreams whether it is the fact “ changes “? If we look at other woman or other man with desire, in our thoughts we overslept with them for a long time or gave birth from it to the child - not “ change “ whether it?
I know the girl who being in the corresponding mood, is capable to test an orgasm when by there passes the beautiful, well smelling man. As you think - it is “ sex “? It - “ change “? And in general - what is more important: the formal genital contact or passions storming in our imagination? That from this it is more “ change “ - where feelings are brighter or consequences are more serious?
I would be at a loss with the answer. Because if we consider the social party of a question i.e. as it looks society eyes that " here; well “ and “ badly “ “ compromises “ whether me if my partner behaves as “ changing “ or does not compromise, we receive absolutely other answers. If we consider a subjective, internal essence of process, then a situation absolutely other.
I would tell that in the second case we say about what occurs upon in soul, in the person “ changing “ and it - is much more important, than a social assessment. It also is the most important in a question if we want to understand what occurs, but just we do not try to save worthy social face in any way.
I.e. if our partner dreams of sex with other woman, in the imaginations makes with her inconceivable trick and thinks of her the most part of time, but at the same time is even close to it does not approach, it - not “ changes “ he is a worthy member of society, does not compromise us, does not put in idiotic situations. Let thinks better and dreams, but behaves “ well “. If we move in this direction - it is not search of the answer, it is a way most far from the answer to leave. As, upon is an attempt to correspond to a social assessment of own goodness as women. I.e. it to me not “ changes “ therefore in the opinion of others I “ good “ the wife or the mistress, the rest is not so important.
If he stroked it on a back - it is “ change “? And if up to a breast? If he put it a hand on a knee - “ change “? And if 40 cm higher and slightly aside? Whether correctly I understand that there are areas on a body, which “ correspond “ classifications “ izmenoobrazuyushchy “ and which - are not present? Then I have a question. And if she, the woman, put to it a hand on “ here “ - it at this moment “ changes “? Or it depends on how quickly it will jump and will escape? And how quickly it has to be? 1 - 2 seconds to think - at it are? And if it in general not really “ it is fast “ on life?
All of us time use words which exact sense we do not know though it seems to us that actually it is obvious to us. In this example we see that the man dreaming of sex with someone another (or the woman) is not considered by us as “ traitor “ as “ to carp there is nothing “. And the fact that upon made the sexual movement, but at the same time perhaps at all not volekayas mind and imagination, already precisely - “ traitor “. One - lives the imaginations, all in passions, another forgot in an hour that he happened. Which of them “ the man who changes “?
Now we approach the last unclear word - “ why “. The word assumes the logical answer having prichinno - the investigative structure clear questioning. However, here the contradiction is put too. In what occurs in the sensual sphere, in what is called “ soul “ in feelings of the person in general, the logic as a way of the analysis, is absolutely useless.
Imagine that you should define logically why you prefer 5 of 30 cocktails offered in the bar. Moreover, you need to explain why you drink the first of five three times a week, the second and third 1 - 2, and the fourth and fifth - time - two in a month. Though, by the way, happens and it is perfect differently - you suddenly prefer the fourth three days in a row moreover having a snack on its limonchik or an olive. Good luck to you in the answer to the question “ why “. Equally, as well as it will be very difficult for each of these five cocktails to understand what ingredient in yourself should be increased or reduced in order that you wanted it at least four times a week steadily. I think that this cocktail risks to begin to ferment slightly with despair, in attempt to determine it in grams or milliliters.
In other words if we want to understand really seriously what occurs, we have to consider the specific person, a concrete situation, concrete acts and actions, concrete thoughts and feelings. Only then we will be able really to find the answer, and very often happens that it is very unexpected.