ANOTHER SEGMENT OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP THERAPY. APPLYING THE MAMMALIAN WAY FOR SEX, ROMANCE, LOVE, & MORESunday, March 28th, 2010
Here is another segment of "Personal Relationship Therapy". A brief synopsis of the story of “Valentines Day Joe” who followed "The Mammalian Way", was able to read her behavior, temporarily shed his phobias, impress his love interest as only an independent man is able to do, in order to have his woman feel truly special,… and then be handsomely rewarded with the best sex of his life,….. and then receive a bonus to boot!
Listen to the 15 minute excerpt from the audio curriculum "The Mammalian Way"(TMW).
Men & Women learn that TMW can be seen as a "silent language for people who engage in relationships and the closest thing to communication via telepathy that humans possess in abundance"…..AND NOT ONLY FOR SEX, LOVE, AND ROMANCE…TMW can be applied to business or even a poker game….Tune in….listen & learn. The book can be acquired at www.themammalianway.com The audios can be acquired by direct contact, firstname.lastname@example.org "The Mammalian Way" will change your life for the better…More pleasure…Less Pain…I promise..
I do not encourage comments here. If you wish you can email me, email@example.com I am the only one who reads mail sent there.
Copyright (C) Gary James 2010 all rights reserved
You're at www.garyjamesblogs.com
OK, Big Ben Rothliesberger is the youngest NFL quarterback to win a super bowl. In fact he's has two Super Bowl rings. But amongst 20 year old women, who do you think they are most apt to recognize, Ben Rothliesberger or this other guy?
And this is a perfect example of how "The Mammalian Way" instincts influence human behavior. Rothliesberger has learned a little bit about the swager of an Alpha male. and he is considered so because 1) He's a successful jock and 2) All the other men who surround Ben see him as an Alpha male. These facts and others like it are what lull men into a "Perversions of honor" mind set. Meanwhile, I doubt that any of the women in the Atlanta club the night Ben Rothliesberger was accused of sexual assult (for the second time) by a 20 year old woman knew who he was.
What men do not get yet is the rules that constitute "The Mammalian Way" is not up for debate. It is a law of nature the same as Gravity. The number one rule is…WOMEN PICK MEN FOR SEX…MEN DO NOT PICK WOMEN. And that also goes for who is an alpha male. That is, if she does not see you as an alpha male worthy of sex with her it does not matter who YOU think you are….YOU ain't crap!
On the other hand, if the other guy (Robert Pattinson star of the Twilight Saga) would have walked into the Atlanta club behind Rothliesberger that night I would bet mortgage money that in less than a minute the 20 year old women would have recognized him…In less than five minutes Pattinson would have been surrounded by women like bees to honey.
Ben Rothliesberger has been bitten in the balls twice now because he either does not know or chooses to ignore the powerful influence "The Mammalian Way" instincts have over the social behavior between men & women…especially where sex can become a factor. And just like gravity, if you violate a law of nature you will usually pay the price even if you don't know the law exists. Ben (and millions of men like him) face many issues with women and they desperately need to read my book. In short order it can teach men how to treat women with the dignity they deserve without the risk of women seeing you as a clueless, classless, ass…or a whuss!
And when that happens men do not have to worry about how to meet women. Treat them right and women WILL pick you. That's "The mammalian Way". It's the unwritten communication between men & women…But that's another blog
I do not encourage comments here. If you wish to communicate with me try email, firstname.lastname@example.org I am the only one who reads mail sent there. I will answer back
copyright (C) Gary James 2010 all rights reserved.
In the process of reading their work I discovered the professional sexologists confirm and validate the theory known as, “The Mammalian Way”…. It’s a theory, a book & a curriculum that teaches men and women how to obtain what each of them in the relationship truly desrie from the same relationship especially if you’re the type who “wants it all”… So,
photo courtesy of Ryan McGinley
Sexologist Meredith Chivers
“WHAT DOES A WOMAN WANT”? SEXOLOGIST MEREDITH CHIVERS, LISA DIAMOND, AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS STILL STRUGGLE WITH SIGMUND FREUD’S PROVERBIAL QUESTION: From an article by Daniel Bergner, author of the book, “The Other Side of Desire”.
It’s a journey and for Meredith Chivers a sexologist and well respected social scientist, Freud’s question, “What do women want” prevails in her life’s research because within the world of relationship issues where sex can become a factor, Chivers admits she still struggles to make sense of the data she collects with respect to women’s actual responses to sexual stimuli vs how women say they respond.
One report I read about her work seems to indicate Ms Chiver’s data supports the notion that regardless of what women say, and since there is a tendency for women to become wet between the legs whether they view sexual encounters between women & men, men & men, or women & women, that Ms Chiver’s therefore concludes, “all women have homo-sexual tendencies”.
Of course such a ridiculous statement only adds to the confusion about what women want and it does not come from Meredith Chivers or her peers. It’s merely journalists doing what they do best, that is, to report facts completely out of context with the truth.
What Chivers data actually turned up was that women regardless of what they predicted about how they would feel (behave) had a tendency to be aroused (as opposed to desire) by the connections depicted (perceived) between an amalgamation of two people in various visual images that were shown to women participating in Chiver’s study.
Be that as it may, still, as a professional Social Theorist I can understand the confusion journalists, sexologists, and plenty of other social scientists have with regard to what Ms Chivers along with a number of her colleagues have discovered. That is, women can be physiologically aroused by any number of stimuli (not just sexual) where a connection between two people seems to convey some sense of warmth (security) that reaches deep down into a woman’s physiological self and touches her insatiable need for safety.
However, such an arousal does not necessarily point to her true desire, let alone her true sexual desire. (such as homo sexual tendencies despite saying she is straight)
The story I read about Chiver's study was also used as a basis for the Daniel Bergner article I found in the New York Times magazine, where Bergner is a contributing writer.
Meanwhile, Chivers uses a device called a plethysmograph that attaches to the genitals and measures men’s erection and blood flow as well as a device that measures a woman’s secretions and blood flow. Chivers collects the data and then weighs the actual responses of the participants, against the subjective opinions from the same people who type their response on a key pad. The stimuli used to induce responses are various visuals of sexual content.
The overall results of the study:
For men, the results were painfully (and for me & my research as well) predictably standard. Men’s minds were in agreement with their genitals. Men actually got an erection when they typed that they got an erection on the keypad (subjective).
However, with the women, “mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord”. In other words the women reported (subjectively) less excitement than their vaginas indicated;
To which I say No kidding. No offense to my colleagues or the journalists but anyone who has even a modicum of understanding of my theory and book titled, “The mammalian Way” could tell you the responses that were recorded in the study are the typical responses to expect from each gender to produce, so long as we live in an imperfectly safe world. (See the book, “The mammalian Way” for further explanation)
Accordingly, it’s also nice to see that the academic world’s findings also hold the tenets of my theory to be true and accurate. Meanwhile, the Daniel Bergner interview of Meredith Chivers and others in her league such as Lisa Diamond, have once again validated much of my theory and frankly I am glad because it also gives me a number of recent studies to refer my readers to as a cross reference for further understanding of how “The Mammalian Way” operates and exercises great influence over even moment to moment decisions humans make in dealing with daily relationship issues, especially where sex can become a factor.
Out of sheer professional interest I suggest the following consideration with great respect for the challenges my colleagues face. The issue Chivers et. al. seem to face is,…While in the process of comparing arousal & desire in order to obtain predictable patterns of behavior, they all seem to have thus far completely failed to factor into their body of work (and studies) the other instinctive factors that often dramatically affect social-sexual behavior in addition to sex or sexual content. There are a number of instinctive needs to consider but the two that can be most volatile for social-sexual behavior are safety for women and honor for men.
Or, to put it plainly, women’s innate need for safety and men’s innate need for honor greatly influence and at times even control sexual arousal and desire in a human being far more often and intensely than do mere visual cues of various types of sexual content. (Reference the book, "The Mammalian Way" for further understanding)
Similarly, Sexologist Lisa Diamond conducts studies similar to Chivers. Diamond’s conclusions concur with Chivers for the most part. However, it is interesting to note that during Bergner’s research for his book and the article I found in NY Times magazine that lead me to Chivers, Diamond, et al., at one point in Bergner’s interview with Diamond, in an effort to exemplify the physiological issues that Diamond believes still exist between men and women she showed Bergner “a photograph of two control panels, one representing the workings of male desire, the second, female, the first with only a simple on-off switch, the second with countless knobs”. If either of Chivers. Diamond, Bergner or the others of the group of professionals, were to read my theory chronicled in the book, “The Mammalian Way” where I describe men’s sex drive as, “SWITHED ON WHEN THEY WAKE AND AT FULL INTENSITY AND THEN OFF AGAIN WHEN MEN ARE ASLEEP (MAYBE)”, they could see there is no in between for men’s innate sex drive and this fact is the major reason why men are able to consistently view women as sex objects first and remain focused on behavior that is predictably the same during the studies conducted by Chivers, et al.
As for women’s “countless knobs” attached to their sex drive my theory sets forth that, “UNLIKE MEN, WOMEN ARE ABLE TO DIAL DOWN THE INTENSITY OF THEIR SEX DRIVE OR DIAL IT UP TO FULL INTENSITY OR PLACE IT ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN, AND KEEP IT AT HER OWN DESIRED INTENSITY INDEFINITELY”. This fact I also theorize is because just like other female mammals, Women instinctively pick men for sex men do not pick women and this inequality alone could therefore make it necessary for the genders to possess the precise sex drives they do, calibrated such the way they have been described in the Chivers, Diamond, et al. studies (as prime examples) that humans receive as part of a gender specific package of instincts given them at birth.
This I realize places "The Mammalian Way" theory squarely in the face of decades of accepted presumptions in the social sciences, one of which is that men and women's sex drives are basically the same. That notion could not be further from the truth.
Meanwhile, since women instinctively pick men for sex, a woman only needs to dial the intensity of her sex drive up when she is ready for sex, and men must have their sex drive on at full intensity all of the time when they are awake because they need to be ready for when they are signaled that she’s ready for sex. This is but one example of how “The Mammalian Way” instincts actually operate within the human species.
And once again my findings have been validated by the works of several colleagues’ third party study conclusions.
Conclusions that until my theory hit the streets are/were somewhat of an enigma for many social scientists, psychiatrists, etc. And this includes the late Sigmund Freud. My theory provides the world of social science with a more complete paradigm of “behavioral psychology-sociology” that helps to provide better care and understanding of our physiological and psychological selves such as, "What Women Want"! But that’s another blog…….
The importance of why you need to know the tenets of "The Mammalian Way" is embodied in the theory, the book, and curriculum by the same name. Learn to have more control over yourself & your relationships and achieve much more pleasure and far less pain in your quality of life. That's a given… Best to you…..Gary James…..
I do not encourage comments or questions on this blog. However, if you wish to contact me direct, you can email me at email@example.com I am the only one who reads mail sent to that location so privacy and your anonymity is far less an issue.
© Copyright Gary James 2010 all rights reserved.
You are at, www.garyjamesblogs.com
What does the late Yale student Annie Le, Raymond Clark, and “The Mammalian Way” have in common? Tons of instinctive behavior that’s what.
A recent comment made by one of my readers about my book titled, “The Mammalian Way (TMW)”™ was, “It’s a ground zero for everything in relationships”. And as word spreads about the merits of applying this knowledge into the everyday lives of an earth wide population I see now that is a great way to sum up “TMW”.
Unfortunately, no one told Yale student Annie Le or her alleged murderer Raymond Clark. Had either of them known even the least of the tenets of “TMW” that tend to control human instinctive behavior as they interact with each other throughout life it is more than possible that Annie Le would still be alive and Raymond Clark would not be headed to trial for murder.
How do I know this? Let’s take Raymond Clark as an example. In my book I maintain that all heterosexual males have a very powerful instinctive need to be honored. This need is not something that can be controlled only dealt with through some sort of satiation of the need. This only becomes an issue because we live in a world that is imperfectly safe to a great degree and this also makes it near impossible for men to receive adequate honor to satiate the drive.
If a man happens to be in an environment not conducive to honor satiation he will automatically and instinctively deploy a psychological defense mechanism I call *“Perversions of Honor”. That is to say, a man will do things that might otherwise be deemed dishonorable in order to receive a form of false honor that will somewhat satiate his otherwise insatiable need to receive honor. And, if he does not get even a “perversion of honor” over a long enough time he can easily become a walking time bomb of pent up frustration.
So what is it that can set off this bomb? Why an untimely “dis” to his honor. And if that untimely dis comes from a woman it is tantamount to a *”Double Dis” and if there is even the slightest animosity between he and she at the time, this can easily send a man into a brief torrent frenzy of extreme aggressive behavior.
*[For a complete understanding of “Perversions of Honor” and “Double Dis” see the book titled, “The Mammalian Way”™]
Had Annie Le knew of these facts or if Raymond had been taught the type of circumstances that could occur that might make him susceptible to such aggressive then she/he could have instituted the simple measures outlined in the book to avoid & diffuse such situations in the first place.
There are many advantages to knowing “The Mammalian Way”. I recommend that everyone who routinely interacts with other people read my book and use the information there as a point of reference to optimize the benefits of every relationship you encounter no matter how insignificant that it may seem.
Meanwhile, I maintain that unless something changes in the way that men are currently being socialized and/or rehabilitated in our culture we can all expect a dramatic increase in outbursts of extreme aggressive behavior in relationships from men. CAVEAT!
I do not encourage comments here. However, you may email me privately at, firstname.lastname@example.org I am the only one who reads that mail.
copyright (C) Gary James 2009 all rights reserved.
You are at, www.garyjamesblogs.com
He’s moving too fast, he constantly talks about an ex, he’s reluctant to be seen with you in public. These are elements of a distinct pattern of social behavior in relationships between men and women that could lead to the cognitive conclusion, HE’S NOT THE ONE”!….But, then again, these behavior patterns might mean that maybe he is. Why the conflict?
It’s because these behavior patterns in a man* could mean he’s on the rebound (and you’re the re-bounder, and that alone could be a good or bad thing.) Or, it could mean he’s cheating on someone and using you as the cheating device. OR, it could be perfectly normal behavior for him as a part of his process to become socialized into another or even a more committed relationship. (*The same behavior patterns in a woman, often means something entirely different.)
So if you are a woman and the evident love interest of a man with such a pattern of behavior and you’re trying your best to discern the psychology of men or of women, does this mean you just shrug your shoulders, hope for the best and go along for the ride? Well, that is certainly one way to go. However, there is a much safer alternative.
Now days it is vital for someone who values their own heart & self esteem, who wants more pleasure and less pain out of everyday life, that they necessarily need to be able to drill down through the cognitive and be able to read a man or a woman’s instinctive behavior patterns known as, “The Mammalian Way”™.
The importance of this is because human instinctive behavior patterns, once you know how to read them are the ones that reveal the “truest” picture of human behavior, including gender specific issues, communication differences in interpersonal relationships, and the likes, for what they actually mean.
From Sigmund Freud to Dr. Phil, most people who use psychology as a part of their career will tell you that instinctive behavior has a tendency to be at the root of what controls human behavior. “The Mammalian Way”™ points out how to discern such behavior and what it means from the gender specific perspective, especially when it comes to social behavior between men and women in relationships.
In other words, the information conveyed in the pages of, “The Mammalian Way”™ will provide women with a tool to really get a sense for if the one you’re with or the one you want to be with, is he the one or not?
copyright (c) Gary James 2009 all rights reserved
You are at, www.garyjamesblogs.com
….when a woman verbally or even non verbally disses a man in the instinctive behavioral areas such as his sex drive and his drive for honor simultaneously, she can be putting herself at serious risk….
The circumstances between model/actress Jasmine Fiore and the reality show contestant Ryan Jenkins are a prime example of how instinctive drives related to “The Mammalian Way”™ can work against the human condition when it fuels rage. However, in the case of behavior as extreme as murder-suicide, it always has a cognitive (learned behavior) connection as well. But it is also mostly due to a huge lack of understanding about “The Mammalian Way”™. Such is the basis for most of the conflict known as, “The War of the Sexes”.
Other than humans, all male mammals would never murder his female and then kill him self. Rather, he would run off all the other males who are after his female, and in the process he might kill one of them.
That is normal male mammal behavior. The drive to behave that way is wired into each and every human male born. Men can be quite volatile when some other guy tries to move in on a female he sees as “his own”. It’s natural mammalian instinctive behavior to do so. But to kill her in the process of running off the other males, that’s strictly learned behavior, and this volatile behavior is not uncommon between men and women in relationships, when they deal with relationships issues, although it usually does not end in death.
Meanwhile, the psychology of women, especially those who see themselves as “empowered women” tends to negate the fact that men are instinctively wired to behave very different than women when it comes to social behavior in relationships.
Unless you’ve read my book titled, “The Mammalian Way” it is easy to assume that a woman in a relationship can dis a man to the same degree that she might accept a dis and that her behavior is socially acceptable. And perhaps this is so. Believe it or not, like it or not, when a woman verbally or even non verbally disses a man in the instinctive behavioral areas such as his sex drive and his drive for honor simultaneously, she can be putting herself at serious risk. Case in point is the Jasmine Fiore-Ryan Jenkins matter. We’ve heard the psychatrists and other professionals analyze the behavior of the couple and even draw some conclusions.
But what if the professionals are all analyzing such behavior as murder-suicide using the same incomplete paradigm? What if the behavior between Jazmine Fiore & Ryan Jenkins, or, Steve McNair-Sahel Kazemi could have been predicted and/or averted? What if either one in either of the pairs knew how to discern the difference between a lovers quarrel and potential disaster, as well as where & how such behavior emanates? It’s very much about human psychological defense mechanisms (one for women, one for men) designed to protect us from harm, but because of certain circumstances the defense mechanism that helps us to contend with our instinctive behavior somehow goes awry. What then?…
You truly need to read the book “The Mammalian Way”. Do not be deceived. Know how to see the danger OR the love. Be safe AND happier.
copyright (c) Gary James 2009 all rights reserved
You are at www.garyjamesblogs.com
Men who overtly act out their mammalian selves how, where, and when they choose has been a human foregone fact of life for centuries. It’s only been over the last forty years where men have been forced to deal with the psychology of women doing essentially the same thing. For those who read my book you can now see that “The Mammalian Way”™ is alive and well in our culture. The fact is, as the world turned more and more unsafe, this elaborate psychological defense mechanism has become more and more prominent in controlling human behavior.
However, it’s only been in recent decades where men have had to face knowing “how and why” “The Mammalian Way”™ operates on each gender. Otherwise, they get screwed and they don’t get “nearly enough sex” in relationships (more pain-less pleasure) and this at least goes against the basic premise of the acclaimed, “Pleasure Principle”.
Even though a small portion of men can see how it affects their love life, intuitively, most men still choose to remain ignorant as to “The Mammalian Way’s” importance, and it shows, for example, in the increase in the number of men who clandestinely ask me for help.
“What do I say to a woman when I approach her”? This is still the number one question I get asked by men who find it ever increasingly difficult to find a mutually agreeable woman willing to have sex with him.
Men allow their mammalian selves to get completely out of control while at the same time they use their cognitive ability to lie to themselves, that they do not need to follow the mammalian rules of social behavior in relationships, especially when they do not even bother to know what the rules are. It’s like a man who goes on a hunt and all he takes with him is a gun and some bullets (analogous to his erection and his big mouth) but no proper clothing or, knowledge of the game he’s hunting, knowledge of the woods, rules related to the hunt, and any recent changes to those rules. How foolish is that? Meanwhile,
The answer to the rhetorical question, what do I say is, “If a man is smart he says nothing at all until she approaches you or gives you a sign that it’s OK to approach her”. Otherwise, a man should not approach a woman. Believe it or not, that is how it’s always been. It’s a part of the Mammalian Way and it always works. The reason men feel that they can use some “line” to “pick up a woman” is because of their own “Perversions of Honor” (See the book titled “The Mammalian Way”.)
So long as a man does not know what “Perversions of Honor” means and how to work his life around it, in this day and age he is not likely to have nearly the sex he could have, and this includes committed relationships between men and women such as marriage. WHY? Because most of the instinctive behavioral elements of “The Mammalian way”™ that have remained dormant or suppressed within women for centuries is now becoming more and more manifest in their daily lives.
Essentially, the changes men now see in women’s empowered behavior is, a woman’s Mammalian Way coming of age. And so long as we live in an imperfectly safe world the gusto of what that means, ala, more sex, more pleasure-less pain, will go to the men and women who know about and how to contend with the attributes related to “The Mammalian Way”™.
In other words, with respect to meeting a woman willing to have sex with them, men screw themselves through ignorance of “The Mammalian Way”™ and as a consequence they also do not have sex with a woman nearly as much as they could. To learn more click the book cover below.
I do not encourage commenst here. If you wish you may email me, email@example.com I am the only one who reads mail sent there.
Copyright (c) Gary James 2009 all rights reserved
You are at, www.garyjamesblogs.com
….later I posed the question to CEO, “What if I had been the one to sneak up behind you and gave both of your breasts a good squeeze? How shocked would SEC likely have been then”?….
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Mad Men, the AMC TV series is the fact as we take a trip back in time a few decades to be entertained by how things were between men and women as relationships go, we are also enlightened that even by today’s “standards” what the genders are attracted to in each other really has not changed much at all. There in lies the timelessness of the knowledge about and how to apply “The Mammalian Way”™.
One of my readers asked point blank, “Do I think things have changed between then (The 1960’s where the Mad Men mini series is set) and now”? The reader is a woman in her twenty’s and has been acclimated to a new profile in the work place where political correct language & behavior is the rule and any conversation related to sex can be construed as sexual harassment.
As for the work place, I say that a change in men’s acceptable behavior was long over due. This is chiefly because for centuries or even longer men have been free to behave overtly sexual in front of women and they were able to do so with little or no risk of reprisal for behavior that might be construed by women as unacceptable. This is also a big part of the sociological persona rendered to/by the characters portrayed in “Mad Men” who work for the Sterling-Cooper Ad agency.
Has behavior like that changed? Again, it’s all in who you speak with. For example,
Not long ago I was running my operation out of an office inside a photography studio, one of a group of offices located inside a convention center that over looked an atrium. This typically made it easier to see people as they walked to and from office to office.
Four doors down from me was a small IT company who’s 41 years old female CEO became a dear friend and sex buddy to me who I will call CEO. Her company had 3 employees. Two part time techies and a 23 years old female secretary I will call SEC.
SEC is very shy and quite politically correct in her behavior toward others and expects as much in return as well. CEO is similar to me in that she is more about letting others teach her how to treat them so political correctness is something she uses as a communications tool if and when others need to interact via complete politically correct behavior in order to feel safe and comfortable. This is also to say, politically correct behavior is more cognitive learned behavior and will therefore at times come into direct conflict with the more natural behavior indicative of “The Mammalian Way”™. Meanwhile,
One day I walked into CEO’s front office looking for a cup of coffee. No one was there so I just proceeded to pour a cup. However, CEO who had been there all along hiding behind a door snuck up behind me and got so close she literally placed her breasts directly in the middle of my back. Given that this was indeed unusual office behavior (and something that might occur in the show “Mad Men”) I sensed that my friend and sex buddy wanted something.
So, without spilling a drop of coffee I slowly turned around, looked at CEO in the eyes and asked sheepishly, “What do you want”? She smiled, I smiled, then CEO said, “I need some photos shot to finish a project and I’m nearly out of money for it”. I interrupted her and said, “So you’re bribing me with breasts”. CEO answered, “Yes”! Then I asked as I pointed to her chest, “And I suppose all the rest of you goes along with these beauties”? CEO answered, “Oh my yes”! …As I was about to say “fine” I noticed SEC who had been away from the office to get the mail and who neither CEO nor I saw walk in had also been standing there long enough to have seen and heard everything.
It dramatically changed the mood in that SEC was so visibly shocked by our behavior she set the mail on her desk and went for a walk. This also lead to her leaving early for the day. Since appropriateness and productivity had been affected by our behavior it prompted CEO and I to apologize to SEC the next day.
Frankly, we were a little surprised that SEC seemed as psychologically shocked as she appeared to be by our behavior. Still, even though our behavior was deemed inappropriate for a standard business environment it’s how CEO & I behaved with each other and SEC basically knew that.
SEC eventually seemed to have recovered from what she saw and CEO & I employed a bit more discretion in our behavior during “office hours”. Beyond that nothing came of it. Although I suspect that SEC began to realize that in the real world, even with rules that amounts to social norms or mores’ humans tend to treat each other as individuals, and in that, “The Mammalian Way”™ tends to prevail. In fact, that’s the actual social norm that I find works best for all psyche’s considered. Meanwhile,
A couple days later I posed the question to CEO, “What if I had been the one to sneak up behind you and gave both of your breasts a good squeeze? How shocked would SEC likely have been then”? At that CEO just rolled her eyes and we bust out laughing.
The point is “Mad Men esque” behavior is still alive and well in and out of the work place, and will probably always be that way because it plays to our most basic mammalian instincts. The source to further understand this and related matters is the book titled, “The Mammalian Way”™. It’s a book that everyone past puberty needs to read if you intend to survive in the real world of people, especially if you desire more pleasure-less pain in your everyday relationships in “this” day and age.
Copyright © Gary James 2009 all rights reserved
STEVE MCNAIR-SAHEL KAZEMI: MURDER-SUICIDE, THE ULTIMATE DOWNSIDE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING “THE MAMMALIAN WAY”Thursday, July 9th, 2009
You are at, www.garyjamesblogs.com
From what I’ve read thus far, the Steve McNair-Sahel Kazemi story is a prime example of “The Mammalian Way” instincts gone haywire. The problem is it is very unlikely that either Steve McNair or Sahel Kazemi were even slightly aware that “The Mammalian Way” instincts might be working against them. And now they never will.
If either of them would have had just a general understanding of how the mammalian way instincts operate it is possible they could have resolved their issues instead of how they exploded in their lives.
“The Mammalian Way” instincts are in part elaborate psychological defense mechanisms that can manifest in someone’s life to protect them in a situation where their environment is perceived to be imperfectly safe.
Men and women instinctively react to these various environments quite differently and unless you are aware of how to read it (which is a relatively simple thing to do) it can cause an implosion of the psychological mechanism and that can lead to extreme volatile behavior.
In their case, evidently, a man’s honor was dissed or even double dissed (See “The Mammalian Way” for an explanation of double dis) and he became defensive. This reaction created a sense of insecurity in the woman that likely reached both poles of her insecurity pendulum swing. (See “The Mammalian Way” for an understanding of “The Pendulum swing of Insecurity”.)
This can often become a closed trap, or cycle of behavior but instead of the two defense mechanisms working in concert (i.e., for the benefit of the relationship) it can work against a relationship by perpetually escalating the negative aspects of human mammalian behavior. I have seen this phenomena occur in relationships many times.
And this can lead to violence such as the apparent murder-suicide of the pair.
My book “The Mammalian Way” is an interesting read. The information conveyed is greatly needed by professionals and everyday folk alike, who engage in any type of relationship. It can help perfect’ relationships you forge and they can help you survive “day to day” living in an imperfectly safe world.
My prayers go out to the Mcnair and Kazemi families.
I do not encourage comments here. If you have input or questions you can email me, firstname.lastname@example.org I am the only one who reads that mail.
Copyright © Gary James 2009 all rights reserved.