Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

secondhander

Regulars
  • Posts

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by secondhander

  1.  

    Careful readers will observe that my article references a man putting his hands on a woman, but suggests nothing about what one should do when a woman decides to initiate affection in public.

     

    A professional man in romance does not announce to a woman that he is a "professional." A rank amateur, on the other hand, might.

     

    I was joking. But, I put my hands on her too. (The shame.) We have been dating for awhile. She appreciates and likes it if I rub the back of her neck, or touch her shoulder, or touch the small of her back -- even in public. 

     

    Is there something wrong with that, even after we've been together for going on three years? When you described the couple in your original post, my first thought was how sweet and comfortable they seemed together, and that they may have been together as a couple for awhile, perhaps engaged or married. Do you see any distinction there? Or would a "professional man" still not rub a woman's neck in public, even if he were engaged or married to her?

     

    And to build on what DonAthos said, if it is "unprofessional" for a man to touch a woman, why wouldn't it be unprofessional for a woman to do the same? So in this one area of physical touch, the woman should lead and the man should follow? How do you draw these distinctions, and based on what objective standard?

     

    @exar: After reading through more of your posts, it seems to me that you think my position is that there is no difference between men and women, biologically or psychologically, except for physical traits and genitalia. That's incorrect. I absolutely believe, generally speaking, that there are differences between men and women in terms of psychology and hormones and built-in desires. 

     

    In fact, I watched the first 20 minutes of the video you suggested, from girlwriteswhat, and I didn't find anything I disagreed with. If you were familiar with what I've posted on before in this forum (not that you needed to be) you would have seen that I'm a proponent and defender of evolutionary-psychology, and have faced some probing questions and disagreement from others in this forum:

     

    http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25776&p=311109

     

    http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24912&p=307173

     

    So, my disagreement with Kevin is not over the fact that men and women are wired differently (again, speaking generally), due to evolutionary and sexual selection processes. My differences with him centers more on the prescriptions of how to deal with people.

     

    First, I'd say that while men and women are generally wired differently, they are both still humans first (in terms of ontology), and male or female second. Everyone is also an individual first. 

     

    Second, I'd say that Kevin might be committing the "is-ought problem." Ayn Rand gave a solution (the correct one) to the is-ought problem, but it's my opinion that many objectivists misunderstand her solution, and then believe that there is no natural-law fallacy whatsoever. That's incorrect. I think Kevin moves from a description of the differences that generally exist between men and women, to a prescription of how men and women should act. And then he mixes in some Western social relationship conventions as well. And what he is left with is an attempt to use a subjective value theory in terms of prescribing what's good or bad in relationships, instead of using an objective value theory.

     

    In the end, because he is prescribing what women and men should do based on the subjective social conventions that he has adopted, he both misunderstands what is (generally) sexually attractive for women and advocates beliefs that are essentially sexist.

     

    In summary: It is not sexist to describe the biological and psychological reality of men and women as we have evolved. But it is sexist to prescribe behaviors to women or men based on subjective social conventions. And many women will not find his methods appealing or attractive.

     

    I do very well in the area of relationships and sex, and it's precisely because of the viewpoints I tried to explain earlier, and because I approach women in a way that they don't get from most men, but wish they did. And I can tell you, just as bluecherry and other women who have commented here, that Kevin's suggestions will usually not go over well with most women (again, speaking generally -- there are all kinds of individuals and individual women who may like different things).

  2. I decided to embrace Kevin's suggestions, so last night when my girlfriend of three years put her head on my shoulder while we were waiting to be seated in the restaurant, I rebuffed her and asked her what kind of man did she think I was?! I'm a professional man, I said. She looked at me in a way that I normally would have interpreted as scorn, but I'm pretty sure now that it was actually sexual and romantic attraction, and admiration for my ability to be a MAN and lead the way.

     

    (Actually, she just laughed, because I told her all about the conversation we were having here.) ;)

  3. There is no Kevins way, No Kevin's formula or Kevin's Cult.

     

    Let's try to be precise here. I said "Kevin's way," not "Kevin's cult" or "Kevin's formula," although I think "formula" would have been appropriate too. Please don't accuse me of calling him and those who believe in his advice a "cult," or flippantly quote me as using phrases I didn't. Earlier you used quote marks around the phrase "fuck bud" as though I had said that. And I don't think I ever used that term. I prefer playmate. ;)

     

    And yes, there is a personal attack, your unedited post deserved far worse though.

     

    Far worse than a personal attack? What would that be? A physical attack? You come across as extremely argumentative, and possibly bitter. I'd prefer conversations with people who aren't so emotionally charged in such a negative sort of way that leads to personal attacks.

     

    You don't make any sense to me.

     

    Well let's work on that. You seem to assume that the reason I don't make sense to you is my problem, not yours. The same way you are treating everyone else. Consider for a moment that maybe the reason why you think Kevin's advice is "golden" and "self-evidently" true without the need for a rational explanation or foundation, is because you are accepting social conventions that are part of the fabric of the society you have grown up in without actually questioning the foundation for those conventions.

     

    Let me ask you, is it self evident that women should keep their hair covered when they go outside? Is it self-evident that a woman shouldn't be alone with a man unless she is married to him? I bet it is in certain Muslim countries. So, as a thought experiment, entertain the idea that maybe some of those concepts that are "self-evident" to you and Kevin, such as insisting on making all the decisions and insisting on driving and paying for the meal, are not actually properly basic facts or axiomatic truths. 

     

    I'll have more to say tomorrow. I'm getting off of a long day at work and I'm heading home to be with my really sexy and hot and wonderful girlfriend. 

  4. Well, if those females see you as a "Fuck bud" and you're satisfied with that than you're doing everything in a very correct way qua yourself and your mates/mate.

     

    Sorry, I had to correct my comment because it wasn't clear. It now reads ... "and not just treating them like my "bud."

     

    However, I detect a hint of personal attack in your comment, and some assumptions that you are making about me, whether they are right or wrong. But you wouldn't really know, would you. I'll have to respond more later when I have time.

     

    I will say this however. Kevin's way is MUCH more sexless than my perspective and view and life, judging by what he's states in this forum.

  5. Imo Kevin's generalized advice makes more sense than all these watered down "be yourself, and maybe somewhat sexless" advices others give.

    Treating a woman during a romantic relationship like a woman and not like your bud is not a sweeping assumption, if anything that fact that you called it a sweeping assumption is a veiled adhom.

     

    Funny. I do very well in the sex category. i must be doing something that's not "sexless" and not just treating women like they're my "bud." ;)

  6. It's not terrible. It's just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It's a psychological visibility issue - I don't enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It's very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.

     

    I appreciate your responses, Bluecherry.

     

    I get a chuckle, and think it's rather telling, when I see guys saywhat women want, and then women speak up and say, "Uh ... no. That's not it at all." 

     

    Kevin, mind if I ask a few questions?

     

    Do you think that a woman can be a "leading woman," and if so, what that would mean to you. Or does her "womanness" preclude her from that?

     

    What do you consider "success" to be in terms of romantic/successful relationships? Is marriage the ultimate goal and mark of success? How are you doing yourself in terms of your standard of relationship success?

  7. Secondhander, thank you for two fantastic posts. You have perfectly summed up everything I feel about dating and relationships but have been unable to adequately express. Great work.

     

    Thank you! This is not the only topic I'm interested in, I swear. :) But it is an important topic to me; one that I've given a lot of thought to, and these are principles and ideas that I have lived and know they're true (but of course I'm not fallible, and you may find details here or there where you think I'm wrong. Of course, in all things, use your rationality and investigate these matters for yourself).

  8. This turned into a longish rant. Take note that when I say "you," I am not really referring to Kevin or anyone in particular; it's a generic "you."

     

    You can be a gentleman without dropping context . 

     

    Don't misunderstand, by no means am I saying you ought to be a jerk. It's good to be a courteous human being. That applies in most all situations, and applies when you're spending time with someone you are, or may be, attracted to. 

     

    But to insist on opening the door for a woman because she is a woman and you're playing some role, or insist on picking where you sit at in a restaurant, or to insist on driving, or to insist on opening the car door ... or any other other special action that you would take on a "date" that you would not do for someone you are not on a date with (or aren't attracted to, like a guy if you're a guy and hetero), is not courteous. It's presumptive and rude, and built solely on subjective (and faulty for various reasons) social conventions. That's not to say all social conventions are bad. But some are.

     

    These dating social conventions are bad, for the reasons I gave: They are presumptuous; they are implicitly sexist (not that all things some people label as "sexist" are actually sexist or bad, but we can talk about that later in more depth if you want); they treat women as a special case. Those misplaced conventions either cause you to relate to her as though she is a less-than-capable human being who shouldn't have a say in where she sits in the restaurant (unless she absolutely insists) because you're "the man," or they cause you to relate to her as though she is some treasure to be placed above yourself, therefore lowering your own self-value in relation to her; by doing that you make yourself out to be a very unattractive and needy person in a pitiful way. 

     

    So at best, you come off needy and try-hard, trying to convince her to like you because of the driving and paying and opening doors and picking tables. At worst you are a pitiful, needy beggar who is also insulting with the special category in which you've placed her. You're not treating her like an equal human who happens to be a woman, you're treating her like a woman -- in the "you've got a special role in relation to me, a man, and I'll be in charge, and I'll be paying, and I'll be making all the important decisions, and all you have to do is sit there and be pretty and be taken care of. But don't forget that you're a prize and a princess, and maybe I'll claim you one day. See, doesn't that make it all better?"

     

    And the truth is (I know this will come across as mean-spirited, and I don't mean it to be) that after you're done paying for her meal and not touching her and opening the door and driving her to and fro, after all that, she's coming to my house, where she can help me pick out the movie that neither of us are really going to watch because we've started making out on the couch, before taking it to my bedroom to have plenty of carnal knowledge. And then she goes home to sleep and reflect on the tremendous fun that we both had, all the while you're at home deciding on how many days you should wait before calling her again for a second date, that she will probably turn down anyway. And yet guys like that continue to think that their gentlemanly "leading-man" romancing ways are helping them to "connect to her on a sexual level." I'm here to help you: They're not.

     

    At this point a lot of people will misunderstand me and think that I'm saying you need to be an asshole or jerk. No way, absolutely not. 

     

    It's ironic, in fact, because it's the very reason that I'm not a jerk that helps the attraction process for me. Here's the big surprise: you're the jerk.

     

    You're the jerk if you think that she must submit to a certain kind of relationship role as a woman, and that in order to be a woman of value in your estimation, she must do and not do certain things concerning sexual purity, or some other nonsense, in order to fit that role, lest you call her dirty names. You're the jerk if you think your role means that you have to make the important decisions and spend the money and drive and pick out the table (or whatever) and open the doors, etc. You're the jerk if you tell a never-ceasing string of lies to her and to yourself about your real intentions and feelings, because you're trying to say things that you think she wants to hear. And you're a jerk to yourself, too, if you belittle your own value as a person by lowering yourself to the role of a ever-ready-to-please-and-impress servant/beggar.

     

    I'm not the jerk, ironically, because I approach a woman (or anyone for that matter) as though she and I are equal humans on equal terms (while acknowledging the biological and physiological differences of the sexes). I offer her non-judgmental acceptance. I offer her a real experience, not a contrived or concocted one.

     

    It's so, so rare when a girl is approached or befriended by a guy who, while not afraid to admit his sexual drive as a man, talks to her like a human to a human, without the tryhard-to-impress while having low self-esteem conversation that they are used to getting. And it's rare for a woman to find a guy who is not threatened by the fact that she's a sexual being as well, and encourages it. And it's rare for her to find a guy who knows himself, and knows his own ethic, and will only be whom he is, and offers himself to anybody and everyone in a take-me-or-leave-me kind of way, without a shred of jealousy, bitterness, or contempt if she enjoys whom she wants to enjoy for whatever reason she wants.

     

    And this, among other reasons, is why Kevin's (and a lot of typical) advice is bad.

  9. Opening a door is a classical method of showing courtesy.  It's called manners and being a gentlemen.  You should also do it for the elderly or those who need the help, like the handicapped.

     

    Yes, it can be courteous. But we're talking about a different thing, here. When I walk through a door, if someone is behind me I will hold the door open for them. If I am behind them, they may hold the door open for me. It doesn't matter whom it is, or what gender they are (or what age, or anything else). It's just a small, courteous thing.

     

    But what Kevin is talking about specifically concerns dating and courtship conventions. He thinks that the man must always open the door for the woman, and not vice versa. And if a man doesn't do that, he fails in some degree to be a "leading man" or a "professional" or a gentleman, or whatever. 

     

    What he seems to not properly consider is how things like a man insisting on opening a door for a woman communicates at least two very negative things. One, it communicates to the woman that you view her as being on a different level than you are as a man; often it comes across as though she's on an inferior level (i.e., "You're to be taken care of, as though you are unable take care of yourself even with little things like opening a door."). Of course, what the man is trying to communicate is that he views her on a higher level, as though she's a treasure and should be treated as such, so "let me put my coat over the puddle so you can walk over it," or "Let me pick you up, and drive you, and pull out the chair, and pay for your mean," because she's the "treasure." 

     

    But you know, it still comes across as belittling, and if it's not belittling to her, then it's belittling to you. And that's the second negative thing: By trying to put her on a higher level and treat her like a treasure (some stranger whom you hardly know, keep in mind), you actually make yourself less attractive as a person, and for good reason. You become the silly little peasant bowing down to the princess, trying to win her favor. Well, she may (and rightly so) let you pay for her meal, and if she's of weak character she may even enjoy the princess treatment for a night, or at least aspects of it. "Hey, pretty girls get dumb guys to pay for their meals, maybe I can get that to happen for me too sometimes." But it grows tiresome, and you will turn her on about as much as a coat lying in the mud.

     

    And in truth, it IS belittling, even if you think you're trying to treat her like a precious treasure. Because she's not in a different category than a regular human. She's a regular human. And she can actually open that door for herself, thank-you-very-much.

     

    But even if you do encounter that rare woman who insists on traditional courtship conventions, I ask you honestly, how can you live with yourself by entertaining them? By being a little bit sub-human, and a little bit of a clown, in order to treat her as a little bit superior-human?

     

    This does not mean you should treat her, or any person, rudely. Be a nice person. It's a good thing to do. But I view a woman as distinctly a woman, but also still a human just like me, on the same level. If she want's to be a princess, and expects me to be a pauper, and refuses to get out of the car until I run around and open it for her, then I hope she enjoys sitting inside my car and watching me eat in the restaurant through the window. I'm looking for a human, who views herself as an equal person to me. If we develop a deep romantic love after begin together for a long time and growing in love together, then I'll treat her like a princess sometimes in my own special ways. But that's something different, and something specific to people's specific relationships, and happens after you've been together for a while and grown in love with each other. 

     

    A guy dominating the conversation is boorish.

     

    Yeah, but that's true of anybody. A woman dominating the conversation is boorish. Conversation is about give and take, and enjoying the exchange. That goes for any two people talking to each other for any occasion. But on Kevin's dates, he is not really having a real conversation, and not really enjoying himself in a natural way, and not really connecting with the people he spends time with (if that person is a woman and he's on a "date"), it seems, because he's too preoccupied trying to make sure he gets to the door first before she does, make sure he says "let's sit over here" before she can get a chance, or opportunity, to suggest a table, and too preoccupied trying to eat at just the right, slow speed, while looking up at her and letting her talk mostly, keeping himself from talking "too much." 

     

    That just sounds like an awful time, particularly for his date. And there exists in all that ridiculous courtship-keeping ritual zero opportunity for an actual, real connection between two people without any pretense. And that's one of the main problems with Kevin's philosophy. In all his trying to be a "leading man," he has forgotten how to be a "real person." Not to mention that his philosophy at it's core wallows in sexism in the worst of ways.

     

    I am curious what Kevin's actual love life is like, and how his "leading man" philosophy goes over for him. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, I'm just honestly curious. I have no doubt that he may find, or maybe has already found, a woman who loves him for all his "leading man" goofiness. There are all types. But for me, the women I like are the ones who know they can open a door for themselves, and don't even flinch when you let them. (Because I don't even think about it either. It's whoever gets to the door first, obviously.)

     

    Taking this back to objectivism, I'd have to ask Kevin how his dating principles fit into the objectivist ethic. In other words, answer the "why" questions for me. You think that it's wrong for a guy to let a woman on a date open the door for you? Why? You think it's wrong for her to have input on where she might want to sit? Why? You think it's wrong to touch a woman in public? Why? You are presenting value statements (it is good to do this; it is bad to do this), but I'd like to know where those values derive their value. Explain the connection, in your view, of the principles you believe in to the objective value foundation that they rest upon.

     

    I want to say more, but I don't have time at the moment. There is a much, much better way to understand and approach human relationships (including romantic relationships), where you can maintain your status as "real person" with proper self esteem, engaging in real connections with other real people. There is a way to avoid the oh-so-very-unattractive persona of being a relationship-fraudster; who tries to put on a facade or caricature of what he thinks he ought to be in order to impress someone; who (out of an extreme lack of self-esteem) treats himself as though he is either a higher being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a ass), or as a lower being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a needy weakling).

     

    I really, sincerely want to help you, Kevin, from the personal and social pitfalls that you unknowingly, warmly embrace, and to help other people who are confused and think that your advice is good advice. It isn't.

  10. I don't know what "social programming" is, secondhander, and you don't seem to explain.

     

    Don't interpret this as me trying to be snarky, but I assumed that the meaning of "social programming" is obvious and apparent. What I mean by it is social conventions -- things that you may have been told directly that "you should do this" by someone, or you might have just seen and heard other people doing it and accepted it as the norm for yourself without questioning it. For example, consider these questions (It doesn't matter how you personally answer them, just think about the questions and how they generally have been answered in our particular society in modern times): Do you think the guy should ask the girl out on a date? Do you think he should drive and he should pick her up, or that she should drive and she should pick him up? Do you think the guy should pay for the date, or that the girl should pay, or dutch? Do you wear a skirt, or see many guys wearing skirts? Do you wear makeup if you are a guy? Did anyone have to tell you all these things directly, or did you accept some concepts based on the sociology and what you saw everyone else doing? Why did you do what you saw the majority of people doing? To fit in? All this relates to social programming.

     

    Even the issue of altruism vs. rational self-interest, many people accept certain concepts of altruism, often uncritically. Why? Again, it's social programming. Certain concepts get spread around, and accepted by a majority with little argumentation, and you are predisposed to also accept them without much thought. So someone says something like "random acts of kindness are a good thing," and you accept it as true, or someone says "love is sacrifice," and you accept it as true. And then you begin to think that you have an obligation to give money to a charity and believe you are evil and bad if you don't. All this is social programming.

     

    Again, I thought the meaning would be apparent and obvious.

     

    So again to clarify with regard to the OP's question: Why do people feel jealousy? It's a combination of evolutionary psychology and social programming. 

  11. Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but I am not a believer in evolutionary psychology,

     

    Then I don't believe you're ever going to resolve the question you asked. Why don't you believe in evolutionary psychology? Do you believe in evolutionary biology? Is the brain in a completely different category from other parts of the body? Is it impervious to being shaped by evolution and sexual selection, whereas other parts of the body ARE shaped by evolution and sexual selection?

  12. It's due in large part to evolutionary psychology and social programming.

     

    As an organism, you have a hard-wired desire to procreate and spread your genetic information. This is where your desire for sex comes from, and a desire for parenthood comes from. But there are some noted differences between the sexes, and jealousy will be slightly different because of them for men and women. When a woman gets pregnant, the woman knows whom the mother is, because the pregnancy happens within her body. That leaves no question. When a woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't know 100 percent whom the father is. There is a chance he has been cuckolded, and if he has then he may end up spending his energy and resources insuring the survival of another man's genetic information, not his own. 

     

    Because of this, there has been a powerful motivation in human societies to have either monogamous relationship structures, with a strong sense of condemnation for women who are perceived to "sleep around," or a polyganous relationship structure, where there may be multiple women but still one man in a relationship structure. Either case helps increase the reasonable belief that you are the true father of the offspring, if you are the man.

     

    (This is why men are often much more jealous of their girlfriend/wife spending time with another man, and not so jealous with their girlfriend/wife spending time with another woman. She can't get pregnant from the other woman even if they do play sexually.)

     

    For women, jealousy centers more on emotional and resource allocation. For a long time in human societies, women were made to depend on men to help provide resources for the survival of themselves and their children. After-all, when you're a woman in early, tribal society and seven-, eight-, nine-months' pregnant, it's hard to do the work of surviving on your own, including gathering of food and water, and hunting, and shelter building. It continues to be difficult with an infant to nurse. You're at risk of predators. So it is beneficial for women to have someone(s) invested in them. If their mate begins to spend time with some other woman, and begins to have romantic feelings for another woman, then she fears that he may get her pregnant and would direct more of his resources toward the woman he is in love with more.

     

    This is the basic underlying evolutionary psychological structure of jealousy. What's interesting is, that even as society changes and there are solutions to many of these scenarios now, our brain is slow to adapt to them, so jealousy persists. 

  13. I think I need to re-read this and give it some more thought. But for now let me ask a crudely thought-out question, which may be too simplified and miss the mark of your argument.

     

    Firing off the cuff and without a lot of thought about this subject, it seems on the surface of things that there is a difference between, say, (1.) watching your neighbor create the first fishing net and copying his idea so that you can catch more fish yourself, and (2.) taking someone's book that they've written and printing out your own copies and selling it to people and pocketing all the revenue.

     

    Are either or both of those ideas protected as intellectual property? And how do those examples fit into your argument or Rand's argument?

  14. I understand why thought should be given to action with recognition of the possibilities of outcomes, but my question is why(or how) does the inclusion of term 'sex' change the dynamic of the process? What is there about 'sex' that makes it a separate category from all other forms of human interactions?

     

    I don't think the topic of "sex" changes the process at all, in terms of applying reason to human interactions. I think I am more in line with the side that doesn't consider sex to change the application of reason and human interactions. It's most everyone else, in my observation, who tend to treat sex as a wholly different category and begin to apply social conventions (and emotions like jealousy) to the interactions involving sex. 

  15. I think his assertions are not so much as to be considered seriously as examined, like a disease. But seriously, note his manner in calling you "dear"! That's him working his magic on you, no doubt... so perhaps you could describe how your inner-femininity is responding to this powerful display of masculinity on Delaney's part, as he condescends to you. Are you swooning yet?

     

    lol

  16. I agree that if your lover is interested in pursuing a serious sexual relationship with another person, breaking up is the right thing to do.

     

    I didn't say that breaking up is the right thing to do if your lover is interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with another person. I am all for non-monogamy. But both people in the relationship have to be on the same page. So if you don't want non-monogamy, and your partner does, then yes, breaking up may be the right thing to do.

     

    Now as for your assumption and mine, that's all they are: assumptions. Obviously none of us can say with certainty how Rand/Branden/their spouse's felt about the affair before and after it started.

     

    Absolutely. And forgive me, because I don't want to presume to say that I know what was going on in Rand and Branden and their spouses' relationships. I have no idea, other than knowing that they did agree to the arrangement. Whether it pained them or not, I don't know. I take Barbara at her word. Anything I said about Rand and Branden's relationship in a hypothetical way was meant to be just that -- hypothetical, as a way to examine possible ways of approaching the issue of non-monogamy.

     

    You can go on claiming that Rand was perfect in every way ...

     

    Gosh no. I definitely don't claim she was perfect in every way. In fact, I am probably more critical of her than many might be on this forum. And in fact, I am maybe most critical of her on this very topic. I think she got some things very wrong about sex and relationships. And even though she did have a non-monogamous relationship, I think she had some very confused and conflicted emotions and fundamental principles guiding her relationship with Branden. 

     

    In brief, I think she tacitly accepted ideas about relationships and love that have their genesis in religious and social conventions, and tried to hang on to some of those conventions while at the same time trying to incorporate her natural sexual desire for other people. What resulted was a confused mix of ideas on relationships that didn't really fit into an objectivist ethic. But I'm no Rand-basher. When considering all of her teaching and ideas, I'd say she got things absolutely right about 95 to 99 percent of the time. 

  17. I'd argue that casual intercourse between consenting adults is moral or immoral depending on objectivist ethics. In other words, just as the concept of "value" presupposes an answer to the questions "to whom" and "for what," and it also presupposes an alternative option. The fundamental moral value for a living being, then, is life, and the alternative is death. So, the "to whom" is yourself; the "for what" is to live (and live well); and the alternative is to die (whether totally or by a matter of degree).

     

    So how does that apply to sex? Just like any other action in your life, and any other relationship in your life, sex must not be "cut off from your code of values." Since you value life, you should be aware of STIs and practice safe sex. It would be unwise to have sex with some person with low value, like a moocher, or thief, or violent person, or mentally unstable person. Just like you might refrain from forming close friendships with those sorts of people, even more so should you refrain from sexual relationships from those sorts of people, because they may very well bring death to you, even if by matter of degree.

     

    You should apply rationality to your relationships, sexual or otherwise. In the same way that you should practice safe sex, and utilize your rationality to know which methods of safe sex are best, you should also manage pregnancy (using the technology available) so that you do not become or get someone pregnant without meaning to. You may also decide not to have sex with someone who is anti-abortion, if you are in favor of abortion, just in case an accidental pregnancy happens. 

     

    These are not strict rules. But the principles should be heeded: Seek good life for yourself, and use your brain.

  18. Exactly. Wouldn't it seem cruel to string your spouse along while you build a relationship with someone else?

     

    You make the assumption that the spouse would be strung along. Or that in Rand's case, that's what happened. Your presupposition seems to be that it's impossible to have some kind of relationship with another new person without cruelly sacrificing the first. For all I know, Rand continued to love her husband every bit as much as she ever did.

     

    Do you sacrifice your love for your best friend if you meet another friend and spend some time with that person?  As though there is only so much love contained within you, and you might run out of it by spending it on some new friend? And when your best friend comes around, you have to say, "Oh sorry. I've just used up all my love for now; the well runs dry." 

     

    Of course not.

     

    Love and friendship doesn't have a limited quality. If you find someone else interesting and fun, it does not diminish whatsoever your love and enjoyment of your other friends. But for some reason, people seem to think that that's how it works when it comes to relationships. I reject that notion. 

  19. What Harrison said, and what Eiuol said.

     

    Also, I would say it this way: 

     

    Surely, when it comes to a relationship you want a partner who chooses you freely, even while having other options. If your partner, or potential partner, were to find someone else who fits them better than you do, then wouldn't you want them to go be with the person they love the most? Or would you want them to deny their own self-interest, and sacrifice in order to be with you instead? 

     

    When it comes to love (yes this is a tough pill to swallow but you MUST get it and accept it) there are only two options:

     

    1.) You let your partner socialize and meet people and continue to choose you freely, in the face of other options, because they value you and the relationship with you. This means, though, that if they find someone whom they would have a BETTER relationship with, then you let them go, and let them enjoy that. After all, you want real love -- which is when someone chooses YOU the most, maybe even abandoning some former relationship for you. If they don't accept you freely, then it isn't love. It does no good to try to force someone to commit to you like a slave when their heart isn't freely and truly in it. 

     

    2.) You try to manipulate your partner, or potential partner, into not socializing or meeting other people. You lock him/her in a closet, only letting them out when you are around, giving them strict rules on when and how to socialize with people, out of a fear that they might meet someone they like or someone to whom they are sexually attracted.

     

    The Irony is, the second option ends up causing the relationship to atrophy, and ends up making the insecure person seem less attractive, and pushes the other person away more. 

     

    I know it's a scary thing, but you have to open the cage door and leave it open, and let the little birdie fly back to you willingly, because that's their favorite place to be. That's the ONLY way love can actually work.

  20. Feather. I am not sure why I am being told this. I made a point to say, "I'm not saying this is the case for Rand." In fact, part of my reply was driven by frustration that thenelli01 was making statements about how Rand must have hurt Frank, when I'm not sure we can know that. 

     

    The only biographical fact I said for sure about their relationship is that they agreed to non-monogamy, and I don't think that's contested. 

     
  21. Yep - even in the case where the women is sincerely interested in being your friend.

     

    No. That's not actually what women want. In fact, it sucks for women that men who would otherwise have been good friends can't seem to get over the denial of their advances, and then tuck their tail between their legs and severe bridges and are never seen from again. 

     

    Yes. If you can't seem to get over your "love" for the girl, then it's probably best to not be a creeper and to stay away from her. But here's a better suggestion: Don't, for cripes' sake, fall in love so easily, for people who you don't know very well to begin with. Just be friends -- actual, real friends. If real love is there, then it will be mutual and you both will know it and grow into it. But it's really sad that guys destroy good friendships because they "fall" into love, get denied, and end the relationship. All it demonstrates is that your "friendship" wasn't real in the first place. It was a ruse. It was contingent on some hope that she would be attracted to you, and when you finally accept that she's not, your true colors are shown -- your friendship was a facade.

     

    That's what women hate. And if that's what's really going on, then sure, do women a favor an stay away from them.

     

    Then you steam and fume over those mean girls, when in reality you should do some work on yourself.

  22. If you value someone enough to marry them, consider them your next highest value (below yourself), and want to stay in a relationship with them (as Rand did Frank), how would it be in your long-term self interest to damage the relationship and hurt your highest value for short-term sexual gratification?

     

    I mentioned my relationship simply to argue that the presupposition that you are always "damaging" your partner if you have sex with other people is not true, or doesn't have to be true.

     

    It seems though that you believe that Ayn did in fact do damage to Frank. But presumably she and he talked about it and agreed to it, and he could have asked for it to end, or left the relationship, if he had wanted to. So again, I would say that if he was doing something, or agreed to something, that goes against his own self-interest, then it would be he who is at fault, not Rand, since it was open and not hidden, and talked about and agreed to.

     

    Ideally, if a person knows that they believe in non-monogamy, then they will potential partners that before they get into a relationship, and they will only seek out partners who share the desire for a non-monogamous relationship.

     

    But let's say that a person comes to realize that she believes in and wants a non-monogamous relationship after she is already married and in a monogamous one. (I'm not saying this is the case for Rand. I have no idea when they came to that decision.) Then what options are open to that person? Well, she could just stick with monogamy, because that's what she agreed to and she doesn't want to hurt the person she values the most. But, that doesn't erase the feelings she has. She has to face a decision on what is in her own best self-interest, weighing the happiness that non-monogamy brings with the loss of her partner against the happiness her partner brings with the loss of non-monogamy. But she has to face that decision even if she told her spouse, and he adamantly refused. Likewise, he would have to make a decision, and they would have to talk about it. 

     

    Not telling him anything may protect his feelings on one hand, but at the cost of hiding emotions and not being honest with your partner. That might hurt everyone more, in the long run. 

     

    The main point with regard to Rand's relationship is that they did have that conversation, they did agree to non-monogamy; I am not sure that Frank was hurt by it or was against it. Maybe he had another playmate as well, maybe not. I haven't read much about his specific feelings about the issue.

     

    But you are assuming that she gave him some sort of ultimatum, and he begrudgingly stayed with her and was forced to let her have a relationship with Branden. If that's the case, then I have to assume that either he realized it was in HIS own self-interest to agree to that, and that overall he was pursuing his rational values, or I have to assume that he failed to pursue his own self-interest in the matter, and he "sacrificed" for Rand. Ultimately though, if they agreed to it, and it was in the open and not cheating, then I don't see how you could hold Rand at fault for anything at all.

  23. What about the damage it did to Frank? It had to have been an insult to him for Rand to even ask for consent. I.E. "I find this person sexually attractive and mentally compatible, would you consent to a sexual relationship between us." If their relationship was great, then I don't see why Rand would even think of possibly engaging in another sexual relationship. To do so is to attack the essence of her and Frank's relationship: the connection of the mind and the body. It had to have made Frank feel insecure about his ability to satisfy Rand's sexual needs and insecure in their mental connection.

     

    You'd have to be naive to think that once you are in a relationship with someone, or married to someone, that your partner is so enamored with you for life that they never feel sexually attracted to another person, ever. And you'd have to have low self-esteem and let jealousy cloud your thinking to believe that just because they are attracted to someone else, then they are no longer capable of being attracted to you, or that it's some competition, as though there is only so much sexual attraction to go around and it can be used up eventually. 

     

    Maybe Frank did struggle with those emotions, but I'd say that that was his problem to work through.

     

    I have a fantastic relationship with a girl I absolutely love, and she absolutely loves me, and we are non-monogamous -- both of us play with other people from time to time -- and it does not diminish our feelings and attraction for each other one bit. 

     

    But go ahead, and keep demanding that your partner just stay quiet about being turned on by other people, and pretend it doesn't happen, and you pretend that you aren't attracted to other people. And continue to demand that your partner never enjoy someone else in anyway, because you certainly want them to sequester themselves from other people and stay with you out of contractual duty; you don't want them to to stay with you because they actually WANT to stay with you more than anyone else, do you?

     

    Edit: I'm sorry for being snarky. I could have put that a little more straightforward and less annoying. I don't mean it as an attack on you in any way. I'm only hoping to emphasize what love really is: The choosing of someone freely because you freely want to in the face of other options. When people get afraid that they will lose someone they love if that person spends time or plays sexually with another person, I can understand that emotion and fear. But the response of trying to ban that activity is not love -- it's the fear of real love; the fear of letting someone make a free choice.

×
×
  • Create New...