Tom's Views

Low vision, faulty legs or arms, deafness, and the symptoms of simple aging can heap big challenges on people so affected, especially in dating. Further, not only is there the challenge of the disability itself to cope with, but also, the negative ways most non-disabled folks regard the disabled.  Many disabled people report that they’ve struggled over the years to date people they find attractive. The root of that struggle is this: When the non-disabled learn of the disability, they immediately bolt. They avoid dating a disabled person. This generally happens regardless of whether people tell them early on, or hesitate several weeks. No matter how well the non-disabled know the disabled, once they dub the disabled as such, natural selection seems to dictate that any romance that might have been, vanishes forever. Most healthy folks avoid the disabled men. So the disabled might as well become asexual.

Some disabilities hamper more disabled women in this way than disabled men, while for others more men are negatively impacted socially than women.  Just about any disability that impairs a man’s ability to provide well for a woman and family, discourages non-disabled women from dating him.  Likewise, any disability that impairs a woman’s ability to properly birth and raise children
discourages men from dating her.  The result is that most disabled people, regardless of sex, do not regularly date much less marry.  They are left alone and isolated.  While the healthy are lonely as they look for that “perfect mate,” so too are the disabled while they search for that rare person (disabled or not), who accepts them and who does not regard their disabilities as disabilities.

To be sure, the non-disabled (those in perfect health) will often be courteous, and perhaps even pity disabled persons, as they attempt to secure their places in Heaven with God, once their life here on Earth is done. But they’ll likely never seriously date a disabled person. They will rarely be in awe of him.  So, non-disabled women will never see disabled men as acceptable mates. He will never be the “perfect” man in their eyes due to his disability.  Nor will the disabled woman ever become the goddess in his eyes. Not even the holy enticement of the eternally good afterlife makes most of those in perfect health truly love disabled people, and view them as complete equals.

But this is so sad, because dating a disabled person can be one of the most rewarding experiences a mortal can enjoy. I’ve dated numerous disabled women and non-disabled alike in my time. I have found that helping a blind woman locate a coat that she’s misplaced, read a users’ guide for a new appliance, or describe what’s happening on TV screen to someone who cannot see it themselves makes me feel quite useful and needed.  It erases any guilt I might otherwise feel, for being too idle, and fills me with a greater sense of
meaningful purpose.  There is no more justifiable way to spend your hours, than in the service of others.  Indeed, I feel much less lonely while helping.  I sense that I’m truly making a positive difference in the life of a wheelchair-bound person for example, when I push them to lunch, or around the mall as we shop.

Helping others is perhaps the safest, yet most effective antidepressant.  It makes us feel good about ourselves, and the disabled represent a ready-supply of opportunities for helping.  Perhaps people at large would not be so depressed these days, if they’d only help others  little more. People are simply too focused on themselves and what they want for themselves.  This narcissism can leave us feeling quite sad, especially when we so often do not get what we want while believing strongly how much we deserve it.

But dating a disabled person definitely lifts spirits.  While helping them find greater happiness and joy in spite of their plights may not give you precisely what you think you want in life, helping nonetheless will attend well to your rightest needs.  True, you probably won’t make lots of money serving others day-in and day-out.  But you’ll experience increased health; both physical and mental.  You’ll truly get outside of yourself, and thus, observe a much longer-lasting sense of achievement than any job promotion, bigger house, or better car can ever provide.  Plus, you’ll lower your stress levels, as it’s much easier to please someone you’re helping than a cranky boss and his or her ever-increasing expectations of you.  So if you feel sad that you’re not making a bigger positive difference in this world, then by all means consider dating a disabled person.  I believe that the disabled were probably put here to not only test the brawn of compassion in the healthy, but also to help the healthy remain healthy by providing endless opportunities for meaningful service.  So help yourself and the disabled as well.  Date the disabled.  If you have any need whatsoever to give of yourself, you defiitely won’t be sorry.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Darwinism: Bad News For Blind Lovers
• There Is A Place For Pity Love

How is it that we’ve come to live in such a tit-for-tat or quid pro quoculture these days? Are people just so worried about losing something that they’ve become reluctant to truly give of themselves unconditionally? 

In fact, we need not   get everything back   we   give in kind  in order to secure lasting happiness; money being the possible exception to this. So why are people so intent on keeping such detailed scores of who does what and when?  Why do they insist on getting everything back that they give in such precise measures?  That doesn’t sound very compassionate of them to me. 

It’s true that getting something back for our efforts feels nice, because it shows that our beneficiaries appreciate us.  But refusing kindness to those who really need it because we estimate that they cannot give us something equally valuable back, is crazy.  Why?  Because by passing up opportunities to   give of ourselves   without reservation, we’re also skipping over chances to raise our levels of   contentment in life.  Since lacking contentment in life seems to trouble people more than ever these days, I’d say that society in general really needs to practice more   unconditional love   giving, and be far less concerned with over-giving.

Loving unconditionally (something that the selfish person might deem as over-giving) is a joyous thing and is thus, probably the most effective anti-depressant available.  Yet so many folks fail to give in the most therapeutic ways possible (E.g. unconditional giving), because they’re so concerned that they’ll be taken or that they’ll waste their lives giving without getting the happiness they seek in return.  Indeed, they have their own agendas for reaching happiness and believe that they must stay focused on only those paths to reach it, else they’ll never be happy.  So they refuse to take the time to give in ways that others need them to do so. 

Consider the dispositions of those who do not give much, and I think you’ll find them to be chronically sad, depressed, mean, and discontented with their lives.  I’m sure most of us have observed that grumpy old man or woman neighbor; the person who sees no one, and will not allow little kids into his or her yard to fetch a ball that they kicked there by accident.  Nor will this ironically lonely individual retrieve their ball for them. He’d rather deny himself their company even though it would only be for a few minutes. This sad person paces the halls in his house, all by herself, angry, frustrated, snappy, and worst of all, unfulfilled.  If only they’d try reaching out a capable hand to help others less capable now and then, they’d probably find opportunities for lasting happiness in places where they never expected to find it.  Giving is such a loving thing; at least as much so for the giver as the receiver.

My lady friend enjoys giving me long back massages, but I don’t return them because I just don’t enjoy doing them. Instead, I reimburse her favor in other ways: I help her shop. I buy her things she needs for her apartment. Plus, I bail her out when she accidentally messes up her computer.  Indeed, I devote much energy to making her day better, although it’s not the same energy that she devotes to improving my day.  So, while I’m confident that I return the general pleasure to her that she gives to me, I realize that I do not give her back precisely what she gives to me.  But there’s nothing wrong with that arrangement, as long as both people are getting things they wish to receive in the relationship. 

Thus, there’s no hard and fast rule that says that if I accept anything at all, that I must give that same thing back in return.  Who made that up?  We need less quid pro quo and more   unconditional love   both given and received, to lessen society’s need for therapists, anger management, and other expensive yet stopgap remedies for unhappiness.  Next time you feel angry, sad, or depressed, just try giving unconditionally of yourself to someone that really needs your kindness.  See if then, you don’t feel better about your life. 

Tom Hesley

Older women typically do not   date   much    younger men   because they wish to avoid the jokes, ridicule, and statements of concern from friends and parents.  But thse “frends” should keep quiet; especially if that older woman is happily in love. 

Indeed, lasting dating relationships are indeed forming between older women and younger men. We hear more today about the exploits of the so-called cougar (the older woman). Relationships in which a large age difference exists (more than five years) are firing up more often these days, and the participants seem quite happy with their lovers. It’s good to see that age discrimination dropping in the dating arena.

Age differences between older women and younger men become less noticeable as the relationship progresses. Many people, especially those who’ve never dated anyone very far from them in terms of the years of age, harbor prejudices about very much older women or ver mucy younger men.

Of older women, the younger men might say:

• That older woman won’t be able to keep up with me.
• That older woman probably way out of shape underneath her clothes.
• I’ll have to take care of this older woman because he’ll get sick with age way before me.

Of younger men, the older women might say:

• That younger man will still act like a kid and want to hang out in bars.
• That younger man will take foolish risks with his health.
• I’ll feel like that younger man’s father more so than his lover.

Another reason people resist the concept of older women dating much younger men, is that the romance could just be a novelty that wears off quickly. But novelty is found in most any love relationship, especially at the start of it and especially with those new to the dating game. So novelty does not seem like it’s exclusive to dating arrangements involving vastly different ages among the partners. Besides, once you dissipate the novelty by dating a few much older or younger lovers, the next relationship like this you find won’t be so exciting due to the age thing. Once you have a little experience, true love rather than novelty will more likely bind you to your sweetie. So while I would not recommend settling down with the first much older or much young lover you find, I’d also say that novelty is a poor excuse for an older woman not to try dating a younger man, and vice versa.

But younger men often find dating older women more comfortable and comforting. Many younger men believe that the older women are not as moved by money, status, and power; quantities which the younger man typically has less of since he’s still young and thus, has not yet established himself as a successful business man or entrepreneur. This is often true of older women, as many of them have already dated (or in many cases, married) the so-called rich man, and found the experience lacking. They’ve dispelled the myths of increased happiness when having lots of money long ago. Indeed, older women seem more content living off of their own accrued wealth, than do the younger women. So dating older women may be less threatening for younger men.

Her girlfriends may try to talk the older women out of dating younger men because they’re jealous themselves. These naysayer friends resent the older woman’s ability to get with younger men because they’ve tried all their life to acquire the very things (status, money, and power) to impress such a person, yet that person doesn’t seem to be swayed by these symbols of success. The older woman’s happiness befuddles and confounds her nay saying friends.

Another possibility that those opposed to older women dating younger men is that they have baggage. But in this case, an older person’s baggage may in fact be good wisdom that she’s acquired throughout her longer dating life. Experience has taught her how to better make her love relationships successful. Thus, baggage may be bad in fact, but can often be an asset as well. Again, this is no reason to forego dating a much older or younger person, as baggage impacts most relationships to some degree; even when the lovers are the same age. Being the same age means not that the two have similar experiences. One could have been traumatized or dated lots more in her life than the man. All these things create the potential for negative baggage. The fact that the woman is older does not in any measurable way, mean more negative baggage in her dates with younger men.

Some others, for inexplicable reasons, just don’t like the thought of dating someone far removed from their own age for reasons. That’s prejudice. That’s humbug. If you find an older person that sets your heart on fire, then go for it and date them if they’ll have you. To deny them means that you could be denying yourself the happiness and fulfillment in love that so many of us hope to find these days. So don’t discriminate based solely on age. After all, age is usually just a number.

Examples of older women dating younger men:

• Cameron Diaz (Dating Justin Timberlake with a nine-year difference).
• Demi Moore (in 2001, she was 40, and dating a man who was 25).
• Madonna married a younger man.
• Couple on Opera: Liby is 26 years olde than her lover, Joe.  At the airing, she was 52 and Joe was 26 years of age.

Tom Hesley

Some people can indeed live as happily as can be without love relationships; if that’s what they truly wish to do. But that’s not the case for most of us, and apparently neither for many   celibate priests   either.  It appears that scores of celibate priests and nuns alike are not completely fulfilled sexually while maintaining their celibacy. Consider the years of sexual misconduct in the Catholic Church that is now being uncovered around the country, and who knows what goes on in the convents and parsonages after hours? I think these people are generally less devout than appearances imply. So even the most devout and practiced Christians have trouble   living happily without love.

Not that I’m faulting the celibate priests for failing to live happily without love. After all, I’d expect to see many break their vows (sexual and otherwise) because in making those vows, they’ve pitted themselves squarely against primal human urges by ignoring   Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While we cannot know for sure if someone is truly happy, their actions provide potent clues as to their state of mind. The actions of celibate priests up to now suggest that they’re wanting sexually and   dangerously lusting for love;   particularly since they seek innocently trusting children for sinful fun in the confessional.

I’d argue that this rampant child abuse stems from neglected level three needs as described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and suggests that celibate priests do not really live happily without love at all. After so much denying of the basic carnal needs, something’s got to give. And it often does in the form of deviant sexual behaviors by these celibate but human priests, nuns, and clergy.  Ignoring or vilifying our sexual urges, as the Christian faith seems to do, has created predator-like and thus, dangerous and sexually deviant behaviors in the church.  Perhaps it’s not wise to ignore the human need for love and affection therefore, and even more foolhardy to trust that a celibate priest has.

The great spiritual leaders on the whole, were probably less honorable than as portrayed in today’s romanticized books, simply because the temptations of the flesh are just too strong for all but the very few to overcome, without gratifying them. The thirst they produce is quite powerful and so fundamental to human proliferation that it gets incorporated into nearly every well-functioning human. So I’m skeptical of those celibate priests who claim to have never succumbed to the mating instinct, who carry the burdens of such denial, yet who boast that they’re maximally fulfilled and indeed live happily without love. It happens, yes. But truly happy and fulfilled lives without love are extremely rare.

Besides, in the days of the Buddha and Christ, in those times devoid of mass media, keeping secrets was much easier, with far fewer reporters and paparazzi flitting around. Even if one discovered incriminating information, exposing and substantiating it proved challenging. No film, no Internet, no radio, no television, no telephone, no fingerprints, no DNA. Back then, you only had word-of-mouth to inform the masses.  So it was much easier then to hide one’s sexual activities.  It was much easier to fool the public into thinking that you had managed to live happily without love when in fact, you were getting lots of hidden love. 

Did you ever wonder why monks and celibate priests spend so much time meditating, praying, and tending to the church? True, there’s much to do and learn for the aspiring virtuous priest. But all these devotional hours also serve to quell the lust for love by keeping the priest from books, movies, and other influences that might inspire more fantasies or leave him more wanting. While he may remain abstinent however, he apparently does not completely banish the lust from his heart. 

The priest, as evidenced by how many of them just can’t seem to keep their hands to themselves, cannot be maximally fulfilled with such questions outstanding. As the courageous man contends effectively with fear, so too does the esteemed priest contend with temptation. It’s the celibate priest’s contention with temptation that makes him great, not his ability to eliminate that temptation, though I would trust very few to fully live up to the ideal of celibacy. Living happily without love is virtually impossible.  So I doubt anyone who claims to be doing it.  The church needs to recognize just how powerful the need for carnal love is, and abolish the vows of celibacy to reduce the danger of child abuse coming upon thos innocent, church-going children. 

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Can Mindfulness Meditation Therapy Cure Love Lust?
• Church Ignores Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• More Than Just God To Live For
• Only True Love Truly Cures True Love Desire
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love
• Why Doubt Religious Faith?

References

• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs   definition on Wikipedia

Romantic rebuff   really does   hurt deeply,  and things that hurt generally speaking, negatively impact us even though they may not injure us physically per se.  So, romantic rejection is by no means undamaging, precisely because it deeply hurts  mentally.  It traumatizes.  While rejection rarely results in visible bruises or any immediately-obvious physical tolls whatsoever, being told no too often wounds the self-esteem in lasting ways.  In fact, too much rebuff can permanently cloud an otherwise positive outlook on life.  Too many snubs over too short an era, encourages chronic self-doubting. 

This consistently negative history of recurring love rejections, instills fear in us against trying again, by undermining our self confidence and resolve.  Perennial dismissals of us by those who intrigue us most can set us to wondering if our dreams of   happiness in love   are worth the pains of pursuing.  The cumulative hurt we feel may drive us to answer this question with a resounding NO, and convince us to give up the hope of fulfillment in love forever.  We give up the dream.  So, a lots of negative responses have kept us from what we want.

Not getting what we desire is perhaps the biggest cause of pain, dissatisfaction, and shortened life.  We’re forced to bear the pain of not getting everything we want, and it’s this burden that makes us humans human, and not gods; for the gods never pine, since anything they desire is within their easy grasp.  A god does not know the pains of unfulfilled desires.  But we humans know it all too well. 

Chronic denial of our dreams, even when we’ve become resigned to the notion that our dreams will never come true, can sour our moods, make us overly sensitive and reactive to rejection, trigger weight gain born of apathy, and other symptoms of depression, interfere with sleep, and thus, sap our good health.  Constant deprivation can anger us and so, drive us to commit violent crimes in extreme situations.  Specifically, unrequited love needs remind us that we’re outside our desired social circles and that there are no places that accept us fully where we wish to dwell.  This cements the idea that we either do not deserve, or are just not good enough to love dream girls.  Since this article is written in the context of a love quest, what us love seekers want most is to date the ladies we most desire.  We most wish to win the love quest. 

But repeated refusals by our preferred women leave us drained, unhealthy, and thus, less productive in the game of life than we’d otherwise be if we were fully gratified.  Frequent rejection starves us physically and emotionally.  Also, we’re likely to encounter harsh judgments from women due to our resulting reduced economic efficiency; which further exacerbates the problem.  It’s harder to concentrate enough make lots of money when we’re reeling from frequent romantic rejection.  If they think we’re earning less than we should be, they reject us even more.   So, loneliness begets more loneliness, and we’re compelled to shun and hide our insecurities rather than embrace them.  It’s a repeating cycle that holds us down in the dumps, sometimes for entire life spans.  So clearly, lots of rejection can be a cumulative and bad thing. 

Ideally thus, we should avoid useless romantic rebuff where possible to protect our physical and mental welfare. While some refutation is probably unavoidable in dating, we’re only equipped to handle so much without long-term disappointment and perhaps depression setting in.  So, pursue dating in moderation; especially if you’re prone to receiving lots of romantic rejection. It’s a shame that we must go though the pains of romantic rebuff to secure happiness in love.  But if we’re smart about our love quests, we can reduce the severity of the injuries from romantic rebuff. 

Inspired by audio journal episode:  AJE-2010-05-06-11-12.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• More Rejection Means More Fear, Not Less
• The Positive Sides Of Love Rejection
• Romantic Rejection Causes Long-Term Harm

I’ve found that a fulfilling relationship starts with picking the best lovers.  But to do that, we should know what features she must and must not have to make us happy, in order to fall in love.  Our requirements of the right lovers (our dream girls) should be clear in our minds, and we should insist on them as gently but as firmly as possible.  If we do not, then we simply will not be fulfilled in the relationship.  One reason we may back down from insisting on our ideals being met, could be the   compassion   we feel for the lady.  But if we allow our sense of compassion to pull our heart strings in the wrong direction, we’ll end up picking the wrong women every time. While a noble trait in most other areas of life, allowing our compassion for her to bind us to her only leads to sadness and frustration.  It’s hard to choose wisely when compassion clouds your view. 

We should not compromise for the sake of the other because we feel sorry for her, when evaluating how attractive and thus, worth keeping we find her.  True.  We may feel sad that she’s lonely.  Indeed, her loneliness may be due to her lacking allure.  It probably is in fact.  That’s no one’s fault really; it’s just an unpleasant fact of the human condition.  So we may wish to ease her pain by spending time with her.  But allowing our pity for her to soften our resolve, to persuade us to ignore our preferences, and then go out with her anyway despite the missing attraction, is ill-advised.  It may please her in the short term.  But we’ll be miserable and unfulfilled all the while.  For every smile she aims at us as a result of our kindness, we’ll be frowning inside no mater how strong our kindly persuasions are.  In this scenario, her happiness would come at our expense; which is terrible soil for growing a fulfilling union that endures. Indeed, we have the best chances of picking a true dream girl when we’re least compassionate, and the most selfish.  Mating is a highly selfish pursuit; at least, healthy mating is anyhow.  You can’t afford to be kind when looking for a right girl to love. 

Generally speaking, there’s no room for pity in romance. The two rarely exist together because someone who is desirable is most likely not pitiable, and someone we pity, we commonly do not desire romantically. People in the main do not fall for folks that they believe to be lacking or needy (in need of pity or kindness beyond common courtesy).  Pity (or whatever it is that promotes it) extinguishes romantic love; particularly if the traits she lacks that make her pitiable in our eyes, are ones that we require in order to intensify our own passions (E.g. If a lady prefers to date taller men, then, though she may feel sorry for someone shorter, she’ll never feel in-love with him as long as she feels sorry for him).  By definition, if she feels sorry for his inadequate height, then though she may wish to be kind to brighten his days, she’ll always, deep down, think him inadequate.  He will never be “perfect” to her as long as she sees something about him to feel sorry for. 

In fact, we don’t feel sorry for people we consider completely adequate.  No amount of good will on her part will cancel out her sense that while he’s a great guy, he still just doesn’t “do it” for her.  Her compassion for him in this case, confuses the issue of her finding the right man; it derails her in her search.

There are essential roles for compassion to be sure; such as when a child gets sick, or when a lover is hurting once true love has already been established.  But pity is a lousy reason to move forward in a relationship when there’s no romantic motivation to do so.  Misfortune is never a good reason to stay with someone, so don’t mistake sympathy you feel for true love.  While kindness may be a useful component in a relationship to get us through some rough patches, it should never be made the primary reason we stay involved with someone. A lover’s chronic need for special kindness can completely extinguish the fires of romantic love.   

Now when an already-existing attraction is suppressed due to  prejudices,  diagnosis biases, and ill-informed judgments, eliciting compassion might work to persuade someone to lower these barriers and allow their underlying feelings to come through.  But the joy of being kind is a poor substitute for the desires and gratifications of true love.  If there is no attraction, then pity for the other will never suffice to fulfill us as much as a deeper, truer love for them will.  So don’t go out with someone because you think they deserve it or that they need it; do so because you feel that you deserve it and that youdesire it.  Be selfish.  Being a do-gooder might score you some brownie points with God.  But in my experience, it will never net you the true love of your life. So in order to pick the right women, make your decisions without compassion’s noble influence. clouding your judgment.  There’ll be plenty of time to show your compassionate sides to her later, but not during the mate-selection process. 

Tom Hesley

Dear [Mentat],

Our culture could improve if people regarded one another with   more compassion,   and were happier with   less personal gain; at least, less money and material items. Sometimes, people become so obsessed with economic personal gain and getting ahead financially, that they treat others not as obsessed with disrespect; deeming them lazy and irrelevant. This creates many hurt feelings and disappointments throughout our work culture here in America. Instead, we should value people less for the opportunities to get ahead that they present for our own personal gains, and value them more just because of their unique personalities. Let’s worry less about how much we can get from somebody else and focus more on enjoying them for what they offer to us, without compelling them to offer it.

If we realized that we each achieve ultimate success differently, we might expect less from others that they’re not really capable of granting. What’s easier for one might be harder for another. Some people have much natural ability (talent). Others have somewhat less. Still others have still less, and a few have no talent whatsoever. Just because a discipline is easier for one person does not make it easier for all.

Yet those obsessed with personal gain (the overly greedy) treat others as a means to their own successful ends. When the others fail to deliver what the greedy think they should (or could), the greedy mutter and curse, humiliate, fire, and resent those who’s lacking talents and ambition (in the greedy person’s view), hold them back.

Still though, the idea that putting one’s nose to the grindstone as much as he can, and then much personal gain and success will come, is somewhat fallacious. After all, I built the good career and earned a fair amount of money, yet I did not achieve the success I wanted. This puritan work philosophy works for some to be sure; it will definitely feed you. But it will not make you happy, unless of course, it’s just the money that you need to be happy. I however, required more.

Laze-faire economics, material oriented trappings, and the whole Adam Smith philosophy that personal economic gain is best for a country, leaves many out in the cold. It rejects many more than it rewards, and offers fertile breeding grounds for prejudice, exploitation, and other unethical practices. So I just can’t accept the quest for personal financial gain as the right system for humanity, sorry to say. I’m not even sure that it’s the best system we’ve seen throughout the history of humanity.

Tom Hesley

Are we to accept that the lasting pleasure of finding true love   lasts only about as long as the temporary and uplifting effects that something trivial like winning the lottery does? Likewise, does the mood-elevating effects of finding true love compare to the depressing effects that happens with the loss of the legs after an accident? It may or may not. How would we know? There are few objective measures of psychological weight to apply to such   life-altering events   though clearly, they do have differing severities.

Again, those who claim that all desire gratification results in just short-lived good feelings, avoid these problems by not mentioning finding true love at all. In fact, they make no attempts to quantify the relative influences of such a profound life-altering event as finding true love, and seem to treat them as having the same impact on people’s moods. What a stretch!  Seems to me that different sorts of events would have differing degrees of effect on a person’s mood over the long term, with the pleasant feelings associated with finding true love lasting the longest of all, especially in those who really want to find true love. 

The pleasure of winning the lottery, even a notably big pot of a couple hundred million dollars, dwarfs the typically long-lasting pleasure of finding true love I think. Of course, individual preference drives this, because, unlike me, a person who loves making money more than finding true love would have a different take. It’s easy to imagine the gold digger being more thrilled with a big bank account than with the blessing of true love. For gold diggers, living on Easy Street would likely produce longer-term and higher mood upsurges than living poorly but living with abundant true love.  I concede this.

On the other hand, there are those who care very little about money, and seek only to find true love. For these types, winning the lottery would   not   be so mood-elevating, while finding true love   would. It seems then that the personalities and deeply embedded desires of the individual (which are markedly diverse) would strongly influence just how changeable their average moods would be. And, how changeable their moods would be, would also be largely driven by the particular life-altering events that happen to them. Different people respond differently to different life-changing events. Thus, I’m leery of inferring that every person’s mood set points can be altered (or not) by the same life-altering events. Indeed, what one person would consider a major life-changing event, another would take as a normal part of ho-hum living.

Thus, while finding true love may not have the same long-lived positive effects on mood in some people, my hunch is that most people however would feel forever gifted if their destinies were to grant them true love.  Why?  Because on the whole, finding true love gives lasting pleasure to most everyone lucky enough to obtain it.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Find True Love For Lasting Happiness
• Only True Love Truly Cures True Love Desire
• True Beauty, Not Makeup, Wins True Love

It appears that the Christian   church ignores Maslow’s hierarchy of needs work  (specifically, the  Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs) as they continue insisting on abstinence and celibacy for gays and priests respectively.  Though Maslow’s work suggests that   unrequited love needs   indeed keep a person from realizing his full potential, the Christian church nonetheless, forces its clergy to do without forever.  It relentlessly campaigns against sexual gratification to eliminate these needs, hinting that said needs are unclean and distracting. In spite of the wide-spread difficulties priests have with keeping their sex-starved hands off of defenseless young parishioners, the Christian church still dogmatically demands lifelong celibacy from them. 

Further, given the intense feelings of isolation and dejection that gays suffer from going without love, the church still holds that they have no business fulfilling their love desires; commanding that gays should devote themselves to God to rid themselves of a basic human need.  It’s only now, after several decades of public scandal, that the church has even acknowledged the issue with its own priests, much less begun the attempt to address it.  They still have yet to grant Christian gays any leeway to quench the thirst of their love lust. 

True.  A person can indeed survive without sex while carrying around his   unrequited love needs   according to Maslow.  But life is a heck of a lot more fulfilling with the physical affection, closeness, and sharing when you have love.  Men especially are likely to be not completely satisfied without physical intimacy; just as most women will not be fully gratified without having their own children.  Indeed, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs hints that to achieve maximal fulfillment at the higher levels (esteem and self actualization as well as Frankl’s transcendence level), one would do so most effectively when his love and sex needs (at level three) are already met.

Finally, life is not always about (nor should it be) resisting our natural tendencies.  The church however, all-too-often, pits people (needlessly in my opinion) against their innate desires; even when seeking to fulfill said desires endemically harms nobody (as in the case of gays and their homosexuality).

Infidelity may have become more overt in this age of more open sexual expression. However, such desires or lacking morality were around way before people ever came out of the closet. So I’d suggest that the sexual revolution did not create the infidelity of the heart as much as it revealed an already-existing version of it deep inside. People cheated in their minds before they did it in the flesh. They simply kept it quiet however.

Now if you have no love needs to requite, then that’s a different story.  You’d probably do better in your life without physical involvements in that case.  Besides, you’d make a fine priest or homosexual in the eyes of the church at least.  But the vast majority of people feel empty, sad, depressed, and a whole slew of other negative emotions without physical affection.  The burdens of   unrequited love needs   have been heavy throughout human history.  So it baffles me that the church, even after all the centuries since the fall of Rome, continues beating the celibacy drum for priests, and the abstinence drum for gays.  It’s hard to be a good anything without a reliable supply of good loving, especially if you really want it.  So I think the church should support love needs gratification among both its parishioners as well as its clergy, both gay and straight alike. 

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Celibacy Turns Priests Into Dangerous Lustful Predators
• Church Teaches Gay Inequality
• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love

References

• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs   definition on Wikipedia
• Unrequited Love   definition on Wikipedia

better workers, effective managers, love and happiness

Dear [Mentat],

There is indeed a strong connection between   love and happiness.  This person at least, cannot be completely happy without love in his life, and the happiest people most often have a reliable source of love in theirs.  Love and happiness indeed make better workers, and a deep understanding of basic human needs makes more effective managers as well.

Since September of 2005 when I first wrote this letter to you, I’ve read Maslow’s hierarchy of needs work directly.  I also remember studying it at work in numerous workshop handouts, geared toward making us more effective managers and better workers overall. The bigwigs felt that understanding peoples’ needs would make us more efficient team leaders in that we could better fill the needs of our subordinates if we give them the attention that they’re due. The trick to getting better workers, they said, is to assure that all team members get as close to what they want as practical.

Then, they explained how some workers look to fulfill level three needs (in reference to Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs), some level four, and some level five, while many workers have a unique combination of all three. The bosses said that the most effective managers identify the individual needs of the workers they manage within Maslow’s hierarchy of needs triangle.  Armed with this knowledge, they can then better address those needs and thus, keep said workers happy while increasing per-person output. Come to think of it, if the company I worked for had found my dream girl for me and had thus assured that my love and happiness needs at level three were fulfilled, I’d probably still be working there today, singing their praises.  I’d be well on my way to a happy middle age and retirement. But unfortunately, after nearly fifteen years of employment there, love and happiness still eluded me and I realized that the traditional make-lots-of-money-and-your-dream-girl-will-come approach to life was not working out for me.  After over a decade of working many extra hours, I could no longer get excited about being thought of as one of the better workers there, when loneliness and solitude was all that awaited me each night when I got home.

In the last performance appraisal meeting before I quit, my manager said, “Tom, I just don’t feel any sense of urgency from you to get things done.” She was right of course. It was difficult to continue motivating myself to work extra hard to increase the company’s bottom line,  when so much of the more basic me was longing for love and happiness.  I left the domain of the better workers there and joined the ranks of the merely mediocre.  I could ignore my love and happiness needs no longer.

In addition to that crushing, chronic emptiness and loneliness, lacking promotions and raises further sapped my interest in working there.  I stopped caring about that job a year earlier when it became clear that no matter how hard I worked, that promotion I wanted would just not come. Another gaping realization was that the job probably would not bring my dream girl, whether I got the promotion or not. If it had – if I would have found a love relationship to focus on and lift my spirits – then maybe either I wouldn’t have cared about that promotion being withheld, or I might have been better able to secure it. I don’t know. What I do know is (let me qualify this more) that it was foolish   for me   to work so hard at levels four and five with my level three love and happiness needs almost completely unfulfilled. You have you own, equally valid rules, and perhaps for you, a whole different set of experiences, and thus rationale, applies.

As discussed above, unlike you, I believe just a tiny few of the well-known spiritual leaders to actually have been self-actualized, because high achievement and self-actualization don’t always come together. I agree that mere appearances would show many folks achieving much at level five while wanting for love. But how many of these achievers would you say suffered from the workaholic syndrome? People today use long hours and high-powered career goals and victories, as escapes from the blues of their wanting sides (their love and happiness needs). For this reason, world-class accomplishment could denote a   lack of   self-actualization, rather than an abundance of it.  I found that I could not realize my full potential at work and become fully self-actualized, without the the love and happiness needs at level three being fulfilled first.

In 2000 (Y2K), which was my best year at work, senior directors recognized me as a renowned software systems authority.  I have the performance appraisals to prove it. But nowhere near self-actualized was I. In those days, working hard and being rewarded as one of the better workers there effectively shrouded my loneliness.  Spending ten to twelve hours a day buried in manuals and code listings was my alcohol if you will.  I numbed myself woth lots of work because those extreme challenges though difficult, were still easier to meet than finding a quality lover to love me back and secure love and happiness at level three.

But my objective in all of this was not to benefit the company.  I thought much less of the company then, and much more about dodging that cold draft at home, that reminder that though by current standards I was doing well, I still wasn’t doing what I really had to do to secure love and happiness. The point is that what really matters is our   motives   for doing the greatness, and not so much the good deeds themselves. Motives, though a better measure of the degree of self-actualization than visible accomplishment, can themselves neither be easily nor objectively measured as of yet. But I knew that my true motives were to find love and happiness, and not as much to maintain the level of professionalism and good reputation that the better workers were known for.

I found that you can work all the long hours you like and fill your walls with as many awards and plaques as you can.  But none of that will fill the level three need of love and happiness if you don’t already have it.  We need that love much more than the hard work we escape into, to be totally happy.  Without it, the better workers will sense that our hearts just aren’t into the job, and that can create it’s own problems; problems that we avoid if we can avoid becoming thirsty in love.  Love and happiness indeed make for better workers.

Tom Hesley

References

• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs   definition on Wikipedia

Related Posts

• Effects Of Unrequited Love Needs
• The Lovelorn, Antisocial?
• Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs
• We Don’t Live Happily Without Love
• What Makes an Effective Manager?