Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dan_edge

"Demoting" a Relationship

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

By Dan Edge from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I started listening to Peikoff's Love, Sex and Romance Q+ A session in my car this morning, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Peikoff makes many insightful points on subjects ranging from homosexuality to masturbation, fantasy to opposite-sex friendships. However, I disagree with Peikoff (and apparently Rand) on the possibility of "demoting" a relationship.

In his discussion of "menage a trois," Peikoff expresses his doubt that this is a healthy sexual practice, because including a stranger is problematic and including a friend would end the friendship. His reasoning for the latter is that relationships "cannot be demoted," they can only be "promoted." In other words, once you have had a romantic or sexual relationship with a person, you can never "demote" your relationship with her to a friendship again. Peikoff notes that Rand emphatically agreed.

I do not wish to deal with the "menage a trois" issue at this point, but I would like to take up the issue of "promotion" and "demotion" of relationships. This interests me because I have been able successfully to "demote" several romantic relationships -- I have remained good friends with most of my ex-girlfriends. I have also been in situations where I was in love with a woman who did not return my love, and I was able to forcefully revise my psychological perspective on the relationship so that I could preserve the friendship.

Please note: I am not a psychotherapist. I am speaking from my own experience. Apply any advice I offer in this article at your own risk!

Now that that's out of the way: I developed a method for "demoting" a relationship that has worked very well for me. The primary challenge, as I see it, is to force oneself to no longer experience his former lover as an object of sexual desire. Romance is intimately tied to sex. If you are close to a woman whom you do not desire sexually, that's a friendship. For me, much of the pain associated with being around a former lover is the unfulfilled desire to be physically close to her. Once that desire is (mostly) gone, then my love for her becomes purely platonic. Conditioning oneself not to think of a former lover in a sexual way can be exceedingly difficult. It is worth the effort only if the potential for an extraordinary friendship exists.

The first step is to temporarily cut off all communication with the former lover. No hanging out together, no phone calls, no e-mails, no instant messenger, nothing. The times I have done this, I made it very clear to the ex that I was doing it for the express purpose of reorienting my perspective on the relationship -- in order to preserve a friendship. This process can be very painful (but not, in my opinion, nearly as painful as continuing to have romantic feelings for a person with whom a romantic relationship is no longer possible).

During this "catharsis" period I allow myself to dwell on the tragedy of the failed relationship for a period of time, and I try to linger on the details long enough to determine if there are any unresolved internal conflicts I need to deal with. Once I am reasonably certain that there are no major internal conflicts that need resolving, I try to push thoughts of the former lover completely out of my mind for a while. Whenever I start to think of her, I stop myself, and force my consciousness to focus on something else. This is most emphatically not a form of evasion, but an honest recognition of the fact that it is no longer productive to dwell on the failed relationship. The time required to move from one step to the next is different for each person, and different for each relationship, but I have found that a few months is long enough for me to get through the roughest part of a break-up.

Once there is sufficient distance between us, we gradually begin to reform a relationship on a "just friends" basis. At this point, I allow my mind to think about the former lover in every way, with one important exception: no romantic or sexual thoughts. I resist the urge to think of her as a sexual being. I do not allow myself to fantasize about her sexually, particularly during masturbation. These kinds of thought always come up with a former lover, it's the nature of human consciousness, but I try to keep it to an absolute minimum. The reason I do this is that, as soon as I start to think of an ex in a sexual way, the romantic feelings immediately follow, no matter how many times I tell myself it's over. I may not realize the feelings are still there until I'm crushed by the news that she has taken a new lover.

If you think of someone sexually, particularly during masturbation, you are telling your subconscious that this person is an object of love, desire, and romance. It doesn't matter how many times or how emphatically you stress in your focal awareness that a romantic relationship with the person is no longer possible. If you think of her sexually, your subconscious will respond with romantic feelings. Most rational people see sex and romance as intimately related. There's no way to tell your subconscious, "In this one case, I want to separate love and sex." Unless you want to completely sunder the two, your subconscious will continue to respond to them as an interrelated pair.

Once I have automatized looking at my former lover in a purely platonic way, then a close friendship is possible. In some cases, it can be trouble to get too close, especially when neither person is in another romantic relationship. It's always easiest when both former lovers are in another relationship. But in any case, some kind of friendship is possible.

I have found these friendships to be very fruitful because a woman that has shared my bed knows me more intimately than a non-lover ever could. My ex-girlfriends are often the best friends to discuss current relationship issues with, and I serve that purpose for them. I know a lot about what they are looking for in a relationship, and sometimes it is easier for me to identify in what way their current lover is frustrating their needs. I have learned a lot about how to be a better boyfriend by consulting former lovers.

So, there you have it. I know it is possible to "demote" a relationship because I have done it, and I have friends who have done it. It is not only possible, it is often very desirable. Every woman I've ever fallen in love with was very special, and I fell in love with them for a reason. I saw great value in them. I always thought it peculiar to think that someone could fall in love with a woman, but not want to be friends with her. Not every woman I have dated is my ideal woman: that title belongs to Kelly alone. However, a woman does not have to be my ideal in order to have a wonderful, lifelong friendship with her.

I dedicate this article to the beautiful, intelligent, virtuous women whom I have loved in my life. Even though it didn't work out, part of me will always love you, and I will always value our friendship.

--Dan Edge

ObjectivismOnline?i=iDRRaEBu</img> ObjectivismOnline?i=H3Gb6RK7</img> ObjectivismOnline?i=yxlhlQZZ</img>

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, particularly as I am currently in a situation highly analogous to the topic... :P

[According to Peikoff] relationships "cannot be demoted," they can only be "promoted." In other words, once you have had a romantic or sexual relationship with a person, you can never "demote" your relationship with her to a friendship again. Peikoff notes that Rand emphatically agreed.
I'm not sure what he/she means by "demote" a relationship. I would offhand doubt Peikoff/Rand meant that you couldn't have a platonic relationship with someone you have romantic feelings for (e.g. Francisco and Dagny post-Galt) If he means that your romantic appraisal of another person doesn't just dissipate for no reason, I'd agree.

Sort of an example, if one of the "demoted" girlfriends begins to again have a romantic interest in you, you'd still have romantic feelings for her, right? The relationship may be "demoted" in a sense, but not likely the feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he means that your romantic appraisal of another person doesn't just dissipate for no reason, I'd agree.

You may be right, I'm not sure what Peikoff meant. I just assumed he meant that you could not be friends with someone after a love relationship with her.

Sort of an example, if one of the "demoted" girlfriends begins to again have a romantic interest in you, you'd still have romantic feelings for her, right? The relationship may be "demoted" in a sense, but not likely the feelings.

No, I no longer have romantic feelings for any of my ex-girlfriends. There have been a few instances when an ex expressed a romantic interest in me, and I was not interested. Sure, the memories of the relationship are still there, and some of those memories are emotionally charged, but once I reorient my relationship with the woman to a friendship, then it feels like a friendship.

Of course there have been situations when my former lover and I didn't let go of the relationship, and sexual tension remained. That was mostly a consequence of failing to put sufficient distance between us. We were both single and lonely for an extended period of time. But that's the exception to the rule.

Thanks for the feedback. I hate it for you if you're going through a rough time.

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only romantic relationships I've been in where I was able to continue being friends with the gentleman afterwards was one where the romance gradually died out as we drifted apart. I've been through the process Dan talks about when I realized someone was no good for me and I needed to "kill" my romantic feelings, but the reasons I needed to do that meant that friendship with them wasn't a really good idea, either. If I didn't realize that at the time, they certainly proved it to me shortly thereafter.

If you want someone that's inappropriate, doesn't this simply mean that your emotions are not fully integrated (I know mine aren't . . . yet)? Doesn't automatizing the suppression of an emotional state = repression? I'm not sure that's desirable even if it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you broke up in the first place, it must have been for a reason. Generally every girl I've ever seriously dated, I know exactly why we didn't work out. If you understood why, then it's easy to make evaluations regarding whether or not you'd want to continue.

To be honestly I've carried on sexual relations with ex-girlfriends a few times after we broke up. But to me that was all it was -- just sex (and yeah, I know how Objectivism view sex as borderline sacred and all that, but I don't consider myself an Objectivist).

It's only really a problem I think if you're unable to distinguish between your feelings from your reasoning. I do agree however that generally when you come straight out of a relationship, you should cut off ties for a little while. How long it would take though really depends on each person. If I'm over someone romantically, I'm over them -- unless there's a reason why I think this time it would work out differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want someone that's inappropriate, doesn't this simply mean that your emotions are not fully integrated (I know mine aren't . . . yet)? Doesn't automatizing the suppression of an emotional state = repression?

Automatizing the suppression of an emotion does not necessarily mean repression if one is doing so to bring his emotional reactions in line with his value structure. That's a mouthful, so let me use an example.

Consider a situation in which one still loves a woman after their relationship has ended. Assume that he ended the relationship for a good reason, because things weren't working out. However, he doesn't consider his ex to be immoral and part of him still loves her, but she is simply not his ideal for whatever reason. In this situation, it is totally understandable to continue to experience romantic feelings for her, along with sexual desire. There's nothing irrational about these reactions -- they are automatized responses to values that still exist. When one's judgment leads him to the conclusion that the relationship must end, his emotions don't immediately follow suit. This doesn't mean that one is "disintegrated" emotionally, but it takes time to bring one's emotions around to such a dramatic change in value choices.

Again, it is natural for feelings of love to linger, but after a while, it becomes unhealthy. At some point, one has to accept the fact that the relationship is over and move on. If you've ever been in this situation, you probably know what I'm talking about. If you never force yourself to focus on something else, then you're not being honest with the reality of the situation: that the relationship is over. You cannot choose to "not feel," but you can choose where to focus your mind. If your feelings urge you to focus endlessly on thoughts that one knows are unproductive, then it is not repression to take charge of your mind and push the thoughts aside. If you do not take charge of your own consciousness in this way, then you are letting your emotions take control.

I have a lot more to say about the false alternative between emotionalism and repression, but that will have to wait for another blog entry.

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider a situation in which one still loves a woman after their relationship has ended. Assume that he ended the relationship for a good reason, because things weren't working out. However, he doesn't consider his ex to be immoral and part of him still loves her, but she is simply not his ideal for whatever reason. In this situation, it is totally understandable to continue to experience romantic feelings for her, along with sexual desire.

I'm relatively young, and I can honestly say that out of all the women I've ever dated, I've only ever loved one of them -- the one I am with right now. It's seems pretty improbably that one could truly FALL IN LOVE in the first place if the girl did not match her value system -- I mean, unless she did match it and then for whatever reason she changed (something that I have no personal experience with). The only other situation where I could see it happening is if you were confused about your values in the first place, or if somehow your values changed -- although in this case I don't see why you would still truly be in love with the girl once you've figured it out.

The latter situation is something that I've personally experienced. I dated my current girlfriend when I first started college. I had no idea what I looked for in a girl, and after dating her for a few months I decided to call it quits to play the field. After a couple of years, I grew and eventually figured out what I wanted. She matured during that time also, and when we met again I knew that this was a girl that I could really fall in love with -- and that's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(and yeah, I know how Objectivism view sex as borderline sacred and all that, but I don't consider myself an Objectivist).

Um, I don't mean to be rude, but then why should we care what you think on this topic? We're trying to figure out, based on Objectivist principles, what the right course of action is here . . . if you're not even using Objectivist principles or you don't subscribe to them, how are you going to contribute to this discussion? If you want to discuss romance in general there are plenty of other places on the net for this purpose. If you aren't and don't want to be an Objectivist, then why do you care what the Objectivist perspective is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider a situation in which one still loves a woman after their relationship has ended. Assume that he ended the relationship for a good reason, because things weren't working out. However, he doesn't consider his ex to be immoral and part of him still loves her, but she is simply not his ideal for whatever reason. In this situation, it is totally understandable to continue to experience romantic feelings for her, along with sexual desire.

I suspect that this may be a "guy thing", using that term to mean: the way I have observed many men in this culture approach relationships. (I'm not trying to insinuate that it's genetic, I don't have nearly enough knowledge to even begin to say something like that.) The reason is: I don't comprehend this hypothetical at all. I suspect a guy, however, would.

Let me work a little harder at introspecting here: If I discover that someone is non-ideal, I don't want them any more. The residual feelings I have are pain at this discovery, and the reason I have to go through a "separation period" is that there is a danger that pain will encourage me to attempt to lie myself into believing that the relationship is still viable. Once the pain fades I usually feel nothing for them any longer.

Falling in love (or becoming infatuated with, in my case) people that aren't very good for you is, I think, a problem of a conflict between your subconscious automatizations and your conscious mind. While it's certainly possible to remedy this situation by the method you suggest (or others, probably), is this really a state you want to pursue?

It might help me if you explained what it is that makes a woman your ideal and also what would make her somewhat sub-par, at least in general terms. I think I need to think on this some more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Dan Edge. I always immediately distanced myself from my exes after a break-up and they all told me I was being too cold, that I should try to preserve the friendship. I never understood why they couldn't just respect my wishes and leave me alone for a while. I really appreciate this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, I don't mean to be rude, but then why should we care what you think on this topic? We're trying to figure out, based on Objectivist principles, what the right course of action is here . . . if you're not even using Objectivist principles or you don't subscribe to them, how are you going to contribute to this discussion? If you want to discuss romance in general there are plenty of other places on the net for this purpose. If you aren't and don't want to be an Objectivist, then why do you care what the Objectivist perspective is?

I never said I didn't care. I agree with some parts of Objectivism and not others. As much as I consider it useful philosophically, if I don't agree with the Objectivism in its totality, that would make me NOT an Objectivist. I didn't realize you have to already be a complete and utter Objectivist to care about Objectivist perspectives.

I disagree, for example, that sex necessarily embody the highest of your values. But that's not really relevant to this thread, hence my disclaimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that this may be a "guy thing", using that term to mean: the way I have observed many men in this culture approach relationships. (I'm not trying to insinuate that it's genetic, I don't have nearly enough knowledge to even begin to say something like that.) The reason is: I don't comprehend this hypothetical at all. I suspect a guy, however, would.

Let me work a little harder at introspecting here: If I discover that someone is non-ideal, I don't want them any more. The residual feelings I have are pain at this discovery, and the reason I have to go through a "separation period" is that there is a danger that pain will encourage me to attempt to lie myself into believing that the relationship is still viable. Once the pain fades I usually feel nothing for them any longer.

It's not a guy thing. It's a people thing. Some people have more trouble than others separating the residual emotions from their rationality.

In any case my point is essentially identical to yours. If you knew what you want in a woman, and you find that it doesn't exist in the relationship, chances are you were never actually in love with that person in the first place. Or at least, I don't understand how you could be.

For a lot of people I know, breaking up is hard because they have become psychologically attached to that other person. They feel insecure about stepping out of their comfort zone. That's not really love, at least not in a romantic sense. Or perhaps they were the one that got dumped, so they are simply psychologically responding to the rejection. That's why for some people it's so devastating seeing their ex with a new partner.

Personally I've experienced pangs of jealousy before seeing an ex with a new man. But it's always on an extremely shallow level, mainly out of a sort of residual animalistic possessiveness -- the psychological version of being stung by a mosquito. If anything I'm more annoyed about the ex finding a new partner before me, but the annoyance only goes down to a point. Deep down it really doesn't matter to me because I know she isn't what I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Falling in love (or becoming infatuated with, in my case) people that aren't very good for you is, I think, a problem of a conflict between your subconscious automatizations and your conscious mind. While it's certainly possible to remedy this situation by the method you suggest (or others, probably), is this really a state you want to pursue?

Hey Jen,

You're late for work this morning! :)

Someone can be good for you and still not be your ideal. I have dated women that were beautiful, intelligent, and virtuous, but they still weren't my ideal. When I say a woman is my "ideal," I mean I could spend the rest of my life with her. For instance, a woman could be perfect in every way, but if she doesn't want to have children she can't be my ideal. That's an automatic disqualification for me. There are countless morally optional traits that can be more or less compatible with one another in a romantic relationship. Even if everyone in the world was 100% rational all of the time, not everyone would be your ideal.

And you can't always tell from the first date whether or not someone is your ideal. I dated a girl for 2 years before I realized that I didn't want to marry her. I still loved her, but I had to end it. There are no internally automatized conflicts here, it's a process of learning what you want in a lover and identifying it over time.

And yes, this is a "state I really want to pursue," because it is truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. If you never open your heart to romance, you will never learn how to identify your ideal when he comes along. I recommend to those without much romantic experience to put yourself on the market and date different people, even those you know are not your ideal. But that's for another blog post.

Cheers,

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you never open your heart to romance, you will never learn how to identify your ideal when he comes along.

Hmm. This strikes me as an almost empirical approach to dating, along the lines of "you don't know whether X will bug you enough to make you want to end the relationship until you try it". I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm just saying that's how it strikes me.

I suppose that what I don't understand is how you know that X trait isn't bugging you enough *yet* (you're still in love with her) but it will in the future so you're ending the relationship *now*. I can sort of understand with the "not wanting to have children" example, but that's a big thing! How can you date someone for 2 years and not know that they don't want kids?

Okay, let me try to clarify that with an example: suppose you meet a girl that you think is just fantastic, so you ask her out. Everything is going well so you start dating. About 3 months into the relationship you discover that she, um, really hates online chat, which is one of your major hobbies. At this point, I see (broadly-speaking) 3 possibilities:

a.) you already know that you can't put up with a girl that hates online chat, so you feel hurt, stop wanting her, and drop the relationship

b.) you know that online chat isn't that important to you so you drop or semi-drop it and stick with the girl

b.) you don't know whether or not you can put up with a girl that hates online chat, so you decide to wait and see, at which point either you gradually lose feeling for her and break off the relationship or you find a new hobby.

It may be that I'm over-simplifying here, but I'm not sure I grasp how you can know that X trait bugs you enough and still have feelings for someone that possesses X trait. The way you find out that the trait bugs you is by losing your affection for someone that possesses it, right? For me, if a given trait gets blacklisted and I meet someone that shows evidence of that trait my reaction is usually along the lines of: "game over, man." It kills any burgeoning romantic feelings I may be experiencing.

So, the first time you discover a problem, you discover it because you don't love someone any more and this is the cause, and later on you don't enter into relationships where it might come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said I didn't care. I agree with some parts of Objectivism and not others. As much as I consider it useful philosophically, if I don't agree with the Objectivism in its totality, that would make me NOT an Objectivist. I didn't realize you have to already be a complete and utter Objectivist to care about Objectivist perspectives.

No, it's just that you may come to a totally different conclusion on an issue because it matters less to you whether that conclusion squares with Objectivism. The difference is that an Objectivist has decided that Objectivism is true, so if they find something that contradicts Objectivism, they will throw it out, whereas you will probably throw out the Objectivism instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's just that you may come to a totally different conclusion on an issue because it matters less to you whether that conclusion squares with Objectivism. The difference is that an Objectivist has decided that Objectivism is true, so if they find something that contradicts Objectivism, they will throw it out, whereas you will probably throw out the Objectivism instead.

Er, what?

If I find some fact in reality that really does contradict an Objectivist principle, then the principle is wrong and *should* be thrown out. Objectivity is the volitional adherence *to reality*. This is different from the case where I experience some short-term desire whose fulfillment would violate an Objectivist principle, which is what I suspect you were talking about, but the way you formulated your point makes it sound like you're advocating ignoring reality if it conflicts with anything Rand said. That would be absurd and dogmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it's just that you may come to a totally different conclusion on an issue because it matters less to you whether that conclusion squares with Objectivism. The difference is that an Objectivist has decided that Objectivism is true, so if they find something that contradicts Objectivism, they will throw it out, whereas you will probably throw out the Objectivism instead.

Should the event arise, I will let my rationality decide which one I throw out.

Edited by Moebius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be absurd and dogmatic.

Yes. If, however, you've already concluded that Objectivism squares with reality (which is not too hard for the fundamental principles) and then you're working on a theory in another area, if you realize it contradicts with Objectivism you have to throw it out (or modify it) because ergo, it contradicts with reality.

Most of what Moebius has contributed at this point has been data from his own experiences and introspection, which is great: it's a wider field to work from. However, I don't know what of Objectivism he does and doesn't agree with so I have no idea what sort of methodology he uses for attacking the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.s. I agree that you can be friends with your ex's. I didn't mean to get this so far off track. Now I'm wondering exactly how this ties back in with the menage a trois.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jen,

The "menage a trois" issue was just the topic Peikoff was dealing with when he brought up the issue of "Demoting" a relationship. I included the context for anyone who was trying to find his comments on the tape.

"Refer to the 'menage a trois' section of Peikoff's Q+A." I may be the only human being ever to use that combination of words. :D

--Dan Edge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jen,

The "menage a trois" issue was just the topic Peikoff was dealing with when he brought up the issue of "Demoting" a relationship. I included the context for anyone who was trying to find his comments on the tape.

"Refer to the 'menage a trois' section of Peikoff's Q+A." I may be the only human being ever to use that combination of words. :D

--Dan Edge

So then my buddy Dan Edge said: "Refer to the 'menage a trois' section of Peikoff's Q+A."

Ooops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that by demoting a relationship was meant was that it was impossible for Dagny to do so in her lifetime, as a grand example. We're not talking about a threesome. So in the first stage of her life Dagny has Francisco, and he represents her highest embodiment of her values. If Francisco didn't turn out to be a rational egoist, then perhaps you can demote it, but then that would be fraud and it annuls the previous relationship. Then she finds a man better for her, and for her specifically, because it is on Rearden's rails that her beloved line will travel on. It's a very intimate dependency. And then Rearden ends up giving away his metal to the looters and she has met Galt. Rearden seems lost to her because she is still fighting against Galt. And then she realizes she wants Galt, or rather, she names what she felt in Atlantis. The stature of her three relationships has grown in scope with each subsequent man. Each, in the context of her values, is a greater man than the other, within the class of men who are good and great. Merely remaining friends with Francisco is not the demotion of the relationship. They will never have sex again but they will still have what they had, have achieved the relationship that they achieved, because what they experienced in those woods was real after all. With Rearden she achieves even more. With Galt the ultimate. But she's still friends with both Frisco and Hank.

What man could she possibly bring into a menage a trois--the only way she could have sex with another man is if he was greater, or perhaps equal to Galt? This whole scenario is preposterous but it illustrates the point. Let's assume she's confused and wants to have a relationship with both Ragnar and Galt separately and within the same time period. If Ragnar proves greater than Galt, then I she would chose Ragnar, and he would leave his wife for Dagny which is better. But then Dagny and Ragnar have the highest achieved romantic love. And yet there's room for Ragnar's ex to achieve her greatest; and Galt too; there is no sorrow essentially; she and he will reach their best too (and not the platonic best, but best within a context).

Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of what Moebius has contributed at this point has been data from his own experiences and introspection, which is great: it's a wider field to work from. However, I don't know what of Objectivism he does and doesn't agree with so I have no idea what sort of methodology he uses for attacking the data.

I have already expressed what I disagree or have questions about regarding Objectivism in several other more relevant threads. If you want, feel free to look it up. I don't really want to go off on a tangent explaining my personal view of Objectivism every single time I post.

Just take as a given that I believe in rationality, and I conduct and interpret my personal experiences as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What always fascinates me is when I hear something that Ayn Rand or Dr. Peikoff said (on a controversial issue) that I've always actually believed in my life. This normally leads me to defend them aggressively (and makes me look like a "Randroid"!) On further integration, my conclusion now is that I probably agree with these two philosophers completely on the subject of sex and romance.

I have always believed you can't demote a relationship, and this has also been the belief of almost all my male friends (most of whom don't really know anything about Objectivism). The last thing we want to hear from a girl who is breaking up with you is, "can we still be friends?" Gosh, no! We won't be enemies, but we won't be friends either. We'll have no relationship at all even though we'll still be able to talk when we meet and so on. Just because I can talk to someone (amicably) does not mean there is any relationship between us. The ex properly belongs to the "no relationship" stage.

Now for the argument.

Dan Edge: (I'll do this in steps): The "position" of wife is higher than that of girlfriend, right? Can you ever "demote" your woman from a position of wife to a position of girlfriend/fiance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...