Dating & Love

[Silent Bob]

I'd have to agree that you cannot have a loving relationship without all the aspects that are included in friendship. Your patrner is not only your lover, but your best friend if you have chosen to spend your entire life with them.

[DPW]

Why would you think that when I speak of "masculine strength," I mean ANYTHING other than strength of character?

First, please attribute your responses. Someone could mistake your first few comments as responses to something I wrote, which they are not.

Second, I can see why someone would think that when you speak of "masculine strength" you are speaking of something other than strength of character: that's because "strength of character" is not a distinctly masculine quality. Masculine strength can be differentiated from feminine strength, only by reference to physical strength. Ayn Rand was explicit on this point, and the relevant facts are clear.

Now, that's not to say this fact doesn't redound to male/female psychology, but that's a separate issue.

Perhaps you should start here: what specifically do you mean by "masculine strength" as distinguished from feminine strength?

[Spearmint]

You might also want to check AR's Introduction to the The Virtue of Selfishness, in which she states that she refuses to engage in debates -- with presumably anyone.

I just checked it and she says nothing of the sort.

[Spearmint]

Your definition seems to exclude the possibility of friends who have sex occasionally ("friends with benefits" to use a colloqualism), without engaging in the 'baggage' of a relationship.

[Betsy]

Notice how the positive traits are taken out of context, and the negative ones are evaded.  If you want a relationship with someone, remember who it is you are having the relationship with -- all their traits, good and bad.  If you can't live with the bad, then don't pursue a relationship. 

This is true whether you are choosing a girlfriend, or buying a car, or a house. With these high stakes, long-term decisions, it is very normal -- and not evasion -- to be overwhelmed by the things you like at first so that it crowds out the negatives. Unfortunately, once you make a commitment or an investment, the things you don't like can drive you crazy.

The best way of handling it is to be aware that negatives and disappointments are a possibility and that you owe it to yourself to take the time, and make the effort, to find out everything you can before you commit or invest.

[Betsy]

According to Edwin Locke, the number one trait that successful couples have in common is agreement with the statement, "My romantic partner is my best friend."  That jibes with my own experience as well.

Mine too.

I think a romantic partner, present or future, should be a "best friend" -- but never, never "just friends."

[Capitalism Forever]

Oh no no no.  You mis-understand me completely.  What I meant was that one should not take up a friendship with someone one has a romantic interest in if that person doesn't share those romantic feelings.

Thanks for clearing it up. I'm glad I misunderstood you.

[DPW]

I think a romantic partner, present or future, should be a "best friend" -- but never, never "just friends."

Yes! Exactly.

Spearmint writes:

Your definition seems to exclude the possibility of friends who have sex occasionally ("friends with benefits" to use a colloqualism), without engaging in the 'baggage' of a relationship. 

It's unclear which part of his post you are referring to: presumably his description of what a friend is. Kevin wrote:

"Friends" is an inherently non-sexual concept -- not just in the sense that is describes two people who are not romantically involved, but that their relationship is of a different category entirely from that of lovers. By definition, "friends" does not even indicate two people who are (or might be) in the early stages of a romance: the term excludes even the possibility of romantic involvement.

I don't see how that conflicts with two friends who have sex without what you call the "baggage" of a romantic relationship. Sex of that sort is not akin to romantic involvment.

I would add that while I don't have a problem with sex without love (under certain conditions), I despise this "friends with benefits" nonsense. If you sleep with a friend once, okay. But then it's time to decide: friend, or lover? But this idea that we will have regular sex but no romantic relationship is baffling to me, and I think, unjustifiable. Of course, I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

[AwakeAndFree]

Kevin,

Ayn Rand spent most of her time debating ideas, and it was one of her favorite activities (Read Leonard Peikoff's My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand). Next time you put words into her mouth, remember that most people here actually read her works.

Second - if you do find some quote of hers that supports your position - quote it exactly as written.

Third - I appologize if I misunderstood your words to mean a threat of physical force, but as DPW explained - the only different in strength between men and women IS physical. Running away from an argument is certainly NOT showing strength of character. It's one of the most cowardly things you could ever do. Especially with a loved one.

[DPW]

Third - I appologize if I misunderstood your words to mean a threat of physical force, but as DPW explained - the only different in strength between men and women IS physical. Running away from an argument is certainly NOT showing strength of character. It's one of the most cowardly things you could ever do. Especially with a loved one.

What I would call what he describes is not a display of masculine strength, but psychological manipulation.

[Spearmint]

It's unclear which part of his post you are referring to: presumably his description of what a friend is.  Kevin wrote:

Well I was taking 'friends is inherantly non-sexual' to rule out the possibility of sexual relationships with friends. I'd argue that 2 friends who sleep together semi-regularly (or indeed a group of friends who do this) occupy a different category than either 'friends' or 'lovers'. In other words it sounds at best hideously oversimplified, and at worst a false dichotomy.

I would add that while I don't have a problem with sex without love (under certain conditions), I despise this "friends with benefits" nonsense.  If you sleep with a friend once, okay.  But then it's time to decide: friend, or lover?  But this idea that we will have regular sex but no romantic relationship is baffling to me, and I think, unjustifiable.  Of course, I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

I'm not sure why you feel the burden of proof should lie with others when it comes justifying their lifestyle. They are obviously doing the 'sleeping with friends' thing because they feel it brings them pleasure in some way. I think the onus would be on you to explain why it is unjustifiiable/destructive rather than vice versa (and I would treat any variant of "everyone should be either friends or lovers, ergo any relationship that does not fall into one of these clearly defined categories is bizarre" as a fallacy, for reasons outlined above)

[KevinD]

Kevin Delaney: You might also want to check AR's Introduction to the The Virtue of Selfishness, in which she states that she refuses to engage in debates -- with presumably anyone.

Spearmint: I just checked it and she says nothing of the sort.

It's in the original paperback edition, at the very end of the Introduction. She invites readers to submit questions to The Objectivist Newsletter, and says ". . . questions, not debates -- I have given those up long ago."

Sorry, I forgot that this part was omitted in later printings.

[AwakeAndFree]

It's in the original paperback edition, at the very end of the Introduction. She invites readers to submit questions to The Objectivist Newsletter, and says ". . . questions, not debates -- I have given those up long ago."

Sorry, I forgot that this part was omitted in later printings.

It doesn't really matter, since Ayn Rand is talking about a specific situation, in which readers she doesn't know or care about may start sending argumentative letters.

Is is 100% different than forbidding your spouse the possibility of intellectualy debating a subject with you.

[KevinD]

Kevin Delaney: "Friends" is an inherently non-sexual concept -- not just in the sense that it describes two people who are not romantically involved, but that their relationship is of a different category entirely from that of lovers.

Spearmint: Your definition seems to exclude the possibility of friends who have sex occasionally ("friends with benefits" to use a colloqualism), without engaging in the 'baggage' of a relationship. . . . I'd argue that 2 friends who sleep together semi-regularly (or indeed a group of friends who do this) occupy a different category than either 'friends' or 'lovers'. In other words it sounds at best hideously oversimplified, and at worst a false dichotomy.

My only concern was to make clear that the term "friends" excludes the possibility of sexual/romantic involvement. There may be many categories (or sub-categories) of people who are so involved.

That you must add a qualifier -- "friends with benefits" -- indicates that you mean something different from the original concept.

Part of my purpose was to show that someone can refer to their lover as their "best friend," without categorizing the relationship as a literal friendship. It expresses an idea (although in my opinion not too precisely) rather than naming the nature of the relationship.

I would say the same thing about "friends with benefits" -- which is really a euphemism for a casual sexual relationship.

If one refers to someone as "just a friend," he is emphasizing that there are no qualifiers on the term, and is making clear that he means a nonsexual relationship.

[DPW]

I'm not sure why you feel the burden of proof should lie with others when it comes justifying their lifestyle.

Who said it did? I just stated my view, and noted that it wasn't a settled view. My point was that sex has a certain effect on a relationship, and that this effect is not consonant with friendship. I think Kevin correctly identifies such a relationship: it's not a friendship, but a casual sexual relationship. I don't think, under normal circumstances, that sort of relationship is healthy.

When I said I'm open to arguments on this point, I meant it. I would love to hear an argument, in fact, because I'm very hesitant to condemn anyone for what they do in bed. Sex is too high a value to accept only under ideal conditions. But there are limits to what can be excused, and I'm saying I don't know if a casual sexual relationship can be.

They are obviously doing the 'sleeping with friends' thing because they feel it brings them pleasure in some way.

So what? One's feelings aren't a proper guide to action, nor is the mere fact that something gives one pleasure. The question is, is it rational? Does it serve one's best long term interests?

[AshRyan]

Sex is too high a value to accept only under ideal conditions.

That's like saying that art is too high a value to accept under only ideal circumstances, so if all you can get is the modern trash, it's better than nothing. Only sex is even more important than art. So I would say the exact opposite: sex is too high a value to accept under just any old circumstances.

Regarding the idea of friends with benefits--while there may be exceptions, and there is much more that can be said about it psychologically, I think sex outside of the context of a romantic relationship is precisely what Ayn Rand identified it to be in Atlas Shrugged: an attempt to reverse the relevant causal relationship and use sex as a means of faking self-esteem.

[FaSheezy]

Ok, I agree with the statement, "Less conflict, More love." But, some close aquaintances of mine had that same idea, and we are no longer close. Instead of commenting on a particular idea I had at the time, they just never mentioned it, and I never knew there was ever a problem, but there was always tension, and they ended up holding in some secret animosity towards me which they would never tell me about. When I asked them why they never just confronted the conflict so we could get it over with they said, "I just didnt want to start an argument with you." Well, now we see where that ends, to the deterioration of a friendship. Imagine what the consequences would be if that were to happen in a romantic relationship. Nothing good can come from evading an issue. If a conflict arises it is to the mutual benefit of those involved to face it and deal with it, and then move on. That is how you end up with 'less conflict and more love.' Not by avoiding the conflict all together.

And no, I dont take pleasure in the wondering, I take pleasure in the knowing.

[AshRyan]

...Nothing good can come from evading an issue.  If a conflict arises it is to the mutual benefit of those involved to face it and deal with it, and then move on.  That is how you end up with 'less conflict and more love.'  Not by avoiding the conflict all together.

This is so true. Most of the problems in my last relationship were caused by not heeding this advice.

[DPW]

That's like saying that art is too high a value to accept under only ideal circumstances, so if all you can get is the modern trash, it's better than nothing.  Only sex is even more important than art.  So I would say the exact opposite: sex is too high a value to accept under just any old circumstances.

No, what I wrote is like saying, "I'd rather eat a fine meal than gnaw on a bone, but I'd rather gnaw on a bone than starve to death." Sex is as real a human need as food, only its not as immediate a need. Please note I was precise: I did not say sex was good "under just any old circumstances." Do not put words in my mouth. I said sex was too high a value to reserve only for ideal circumstances.

Here's Rand on the question:

"The basic fact about sex - its overpowering necessity - is the same [as the need for food]... Now, of course, his means of satisfaction are not as simple as in the matter of food. But still, he is in control of them. The thing that seems to terrify your hero is the fact taht his satisfaction depends upon another human being, upon some woman. There is nothing so dreadful in that. Not if he found the right woman. It can appear terrible to him - only until he does find her. But if he doesn't - well, as he matures and grasps the subject, he would learn that he can find a second-best substitute. Let's say, not a wife, but an attractive mistress. It would not be sex at its best and highest - not the perfect union of the spiritual and the physical - but it would not be terrifying or degrading or enslaving."

-The Letters of Ayn Rand, 146

Now, what would be the limits, below which I would say sex would be wrong? I more or less agree with these comments by from Diana Hsieh.

One further point: the modern trash you refer to isn't art, bad or otherwise, so even to that extent your metaphor is wrong.

[AshRyan]

Fine, but I would still say that sex is so high a value that it should be accepted under less than ideal circumstances only if there is no reasonable hope of ever attaining it under ideal circumstances. And in today's day and age, where it is easier than ever to meet like-minded individuals using the internet, I'd say that that situation hardly ever exists. And the Ayn Rand quote you provided out of context doesn't contradict any of this.

[DPW]

And the Ayn Rand quote you provided out of context doesn't contradict any of this.

Out of context? What part of the context would have changed the relevant meaning? You'd better be very clear on this point because I don't take such accusations lightly.

[AshRyan]

I could be mistaken, but isn't the context of that letter to offer advice to a writer about a specific story he's writing?

[DPW]

I could be mistaken, but isn't the context of that letter to offer advice to a writer about a specific story he's writing?

Don't you think you should have made sure you were not mistaken [i.e., identified the context of the quote] before you accused me of quoting Rand out of context? Don't you think you should be more careful making such accusations? Isn't one aspect of justice making sure that one takes into account all the relevant evidence before passing judgments?

You are correct, however, that Rand's letter was an attempt to help an author with a story he was writing, a fact I didn't try to hide when I quoted her, and which does not change the meaning or relavance of the quote in the present context. Here's the quote once again:

"The basic fact about sex - its overpowering necessity - is the same [as the need for food]... Now, of course, his means of satisfaction are not as simple as in the matter of food. But still, he is in control of them. The thing that seems to terrify your hero is the fact that his satisfaction depends upon another human being, upon some woman. There is nothing so dreadful in that. Not if he found the right woman. It can appear terrible to him - only until he does find her. But if he doesn't - well, as he matures and grasps the subject, he would learn that he can find a second-best substitute. Let's say, not a wife, but an attractive mistress. It would not be sex at its best and highest - not the perfect union of the spiritual and the physical - but it would not be terrifying or degrading or enslaving."

You tell me: which sentence here means something other than what it plainly says simply because Rand was discussing this issue in order to help the author write his story? Which point do you think would she not have agreed with had she been speaking of this issue in our present context? In what specific way did I take her comments out of context, i.e., change their intended meaning?

[Kellymeg80]

Don: I'm not saying that women are fragile creatures who can't handle arguments or debates, nor am I saying that arguments and debates cannot be of great value in certain contexts. I'm saying that arguments and debates are not romantic -- and that they serve no positive purpose in dating or in a relationship.

You may think that your arguing and debating is not about trying to change her; that you're only attacking her ideas, not her as a person. But what you intend and the way your message is received are likely very, very different.

We as men tend to be highly competitive with one another. It's one of the ways in which we bond: We jokingly insult each other, we wrestle and fight, we argue and debate -- about everything -- and it's not only not a big deal to us, we respect each other more afterward. It brings us closer together.

This behavior is often mystifying to women. They don't do it with each other, and they sure as hell don't want us to do it with them.

Whatever it is that's so important that you need to impress upon her, I guarantee it's not nearly as important in her eyes as how well you listen to and respect her words and opinion.

Ladies, do you agree?

I don't understand this statement at all. You can't learn from the other person if you accept that they are as they are?

Of course there is a tremendous amount that we can learn from a romantic relationship. But there's a difference between what can be learned and what can be taught.

Megan: I'm a little confused about what you're asking. I think that neither men nor women should try to change each other. It's one of the few truly "uni-sex" principles which I would say applies equally to men and women. How do you see it?

I agree. I enjoy a good intellectual debate, but was recently caught in the middle of two of my male friends arguing about a fairly small philosophical point...FOR 3 HOURS. I thought I was going to pull my hair out, especially when my female friend and I tried to put our two or three cents in and had insults such as "intrinsicist" and "rationalist" thrown at us. The one guy was defending his point to the death even when it was obvious he was wrong. It was all about his self-esteem and him being right. It had almost nothing to do with what was actually right once he got all tied up in "winning"

[Kellymeg80]

Don: I'm not saying that women are fragile creatures who can't handle arguments or debates, nor am I saying that arguments and debates cannot be of great value in certain contexts. I'm saying that arguments and debates are not romantic -- and that they serve no positive purpose in dating or in a relationship.

You may think that your arguing and debating is not about trying to change her; that you're only attacking her ideas, not her as a person. But what you intend and the way your message is received are likely very, very different.

We as men tend to be highly competitive with one another. It's one of the ways in which we bond: We jokingly insult each other, we wrestle and fight, we argue and debate -- about everything -- and it's not only not a big deal to us, we respect each other more afterward. It brings us closer together.

This behavior is often mystifying to women. They don't do it with each other, and they sure as hell don't want us to do it with them.

Whatever it is that's so important that you need to impress upon her, I guarantee it's not nearly as important in her eyes as how well you listen to and respect her words and opinion.

Ladies, do you agree?

I agree. I enjoy a good intellectual debate, but was recently caught in the middle of two of my friends arguing about a fairly small philosophical point...FOR 3 HOURS. I thought I was going to pull my hair out, especially when my female friend and I tried to put our two or three cents in and had insults such as "intrinsicist" and "rationalist" thrown at us. The one guy participating was defending his point to the death even when it was obvious he was wrong. It was all about his self-esteem and him being right. It had almost nothing to do with what was actually right once he got all tied up in "winning". I almost politely got up and walked out before the guy realized what he was doing.

As a woman (and moreover as myself, though this point carries for most women I know), I am not competetive in debate. I am willing to have a discussion of ideas and I often do. There is a point, though, at which the there is going to be no agreement. At that point you just decide if it's an important enough issue to walk away from the friendship/relationship for or you just put it behind you and stay friends. In most cases, it's been the latter for me. In the case I mentioned above, I would have been more than happy to just put the disagreement behind us and stay friends, except that I was being verbally assaulted with "Objectivist swear words" such as "intrisicist" and "rationalist" without any backup whatsoever. I wanted to say "What is this, Objectivist middle school"? It just got immature! I didn't really feel attacked as a person (mostly, I think, because my self-esteem is high enough to not really care about some random guy calling me an intrisicist), I was just annoyed and disgusted!