Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Old-Time Romance

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Three days into our relationship, bold as brass I gave my girlfriend an expensive white gold necklace. At that point we'd gone out to one party and one dinner together. I was due to leave for basic training in less than a week.

By the prevalent reasoning here I should not have done it.

I went away to basic training and 10 weeks later was posted to my first unit, within traveling distance to "home". I came home to my girlfriend on weekends. 2 weekends after being posted back I asked her to marry me. Creepy huh?

We've been married for 22 years. :P

God thing I never read this topic all those years ago!

:dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the prevalent reasoning here I should not have done it.

Where are you *getting* this from? I don't see anyone prescribing specific actions or circumstances. In fact, everyone in the thread has said "it depends on the circumstances" in one form or another.

If you were dating *me*, for instance, that would have been a spectacularly bad gift simply because I don't wear jewelry--ever. But, if you were dating me, you would have known that.

It is the concrete-bound "women want flowers" or "women want jewelry" attitude that is being debunked in this thread. No one has said "don't get women extravagant gifts, ever, under any circumstances" because that would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are there any other objectivist women out there who do not find traditional romantic offerings to be a turn off?

I find traditional romantic offerings to be a turn off. I don’t think they are necessarily inappropriate. I agree that in the proper context they can be an effective way for a man to express himself. I simply find that I prefer a more direct display of masculinity. I have found flowers, romantic dinners, and other such things are perceived values. I watch a movie and think “aw wouldn’t that be nice,” but when men have given me gifts and treated me to pricey dinners I feel oddly disappointed. These are not the things I truly value. I value a man who demonstrates his feelings for me in his strong, confident interest.

For example, lets say I’ve just met a guy and we’re taking a break after hitting the dance floor. He asks “Hey what’s your favorite song to dance to?” I may put up a bit of a wall and casually say “ haha I don’t know, I guess there’s just too many to pick from.” He may agree and just try to keep the conversation going or he may hold me to it and respond jokingly, “Are you one of those girls who has difficulty making decisions?” The former response is neutral and boring, nothing that would spark my interest. On the other hand I am a bit taken back and offended by the latter response. I’m thinking “This guy hardly knows me how could say that?” He’s got my attention now. By calling me out on my lame answer in a good natured way he has shown confidence and interest. He wants to know if I can make a simple choice or not. This is what I find masculine and attractive. Of coarse, it needs to be genuine and not cocky or forced, as people have touched upon earlier in the thread. This part can be tricky, but after some practice it has become quit easy for me to distinguish the cocky form the confident.

I prefer this direct display of masculinity as the relationship progresses as well. For example if we are planning a Sunday afternoon date I may suggest snuggling up together and reading a good book then going out to a nice dinner. He shrugs and says “ On a day like this? That sounds lame. Lets go on a hike. You’ve been saying you need more exercise anyway.” Ooooh this one gets me. Is he trying to say I’m fat? Just as I am about to spit my rebuttal he smiles and says “Get dressed. Lets go!” I put up a little more of a fight, but he is determined. On the hike he points to a high peak and says, “We’re going to the top.” I’m questioning how I’ll ever be able to get up there, but his determination intrigues me. He loves to hike and climb and the energy he projects as we get climb higher is contagious and keeps me going. He pushes my limits and brings out my strength with playful dares. At the top we spend a long time talking, laughing and admiring what we accomplished together. This beets the pants off an affectionate afternoon and dinner. It shows he has the confidence to take control of the situation and wants to know how I would react to it.

These displays spark my attention and keep my interest unlike anything else. For me, the directness makes them the most effective. He is not using a gift as a symbol of his feelings, nor is he carrying out a convoluted scheme to trap my heart. It’s not that I find any other approach un-masculine. I simply prefer this one. I never wonder if he’s pacifying me with things to avoid an emotional investment or if he is truly interested in me. He is displaying himself as the strong confident man he is and I find this endlessly attractive. This raw masculinity is what I picture when I think of romance.

Actually that was my point, and this is a good example of it. If you force yourself to be a little more confident, than, technically, you are not being 'yourself' you are being someone else, someone exactly like you, but a little more confident than you are. When you say it's 'finally finding it' I read that as adopting an attitude that is more proper. If someone forces themselves to be a little more confident, than that means that they have a little less confidence than they feel they should, and doing that enough utlimately internalizes the new found confidence and the more confident behavior becomes your normal. When you are showing growth, you are changing, and you are choosing to change, but ultimately you must choose which direction you change in, and what your ultimate destination is. Saying something like 'just be yourself' is a little too close to 'living in the moment', just focusing on the immediacy of that very instance. I would say one should always strive for, or try to be, the person that they most want to be - having that right level of confidence, the right level of courage, the right level of deliberation, the right extent of an emotional reaction, etc. Determining WHAT is that right level is very difficult, and is no doubt different for every person, and could possibly shift through the contexts of various stages of your life.

As I have mentioned several times through out the post, being genuine confidence is key. I don’t think that you’ll get very far in a relationship with out it. So if you don’t have it, get it. Do some thing that makes you feel confident like learning a new skill or perfecting an old one. Surround yourself with other confident people who help build you up. I think the best way to meet a significant other is to work on making yourself the best person you can be; confident, rational, talented, ect. If you keep pursuing this and meeting people you’ve got a good shot. I have a friend who started dancing about a year ago. After tons of lessons and practice he has become a phenomenal dancer. When he dances he just oozes confidence and feeling. He is not cocky about it, but he is proud and not afraid to use his talent. This has a tremendous effect on the ladies and is fun to watch.

Edited by megr.ferg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend who started dancing about a year ago. After tons of lessons and practice he has become a phenomenal dancer. When he dances he just oozes confidence and feeling. He is not cocky about it, but he is proud and not afraid to use his talent. This has a tremendous effect on the ladies and is fun to watch.

But dancing is already a romantic activity. I was learning how to dance Swing a few years ago, and just being close to self-confident women on the dance floor is very romantic. Of course, the guy has to learn how to lead and the woman to follow, for Swing dancing, and I think that dance attitude brushes off on those dancing, even when not dancing. One of my instructors quipped quite a few times that dancing was female training, but it is also male training, because having confidence on the dance floor transfers to being confident around women off the dance floor. And it is true that one can assess one's dance partner rather quickly as to their romance potential off the dance floor. There are some woman who resist being led, which makes dancing with them very awkward, but dancing with a girl who follows is very exciting. And for Swing dancing, she's never more than an arm's length away, as one uses one's left arm to signal to her as to what you want her to do.

I stopped dancing because I was learning how to dance for a particular girl, and that fell apart, so I gave it up. But I may decide to get back to it, as it was fun and encouraging. There is a kind of courtesy on the dance floor, and that is if someone asks you to dance, then dance; otherwise they might get offended. At least this was the "rules" for the Swing dancing I learned, where one does not stick with one partner all the time one is there. Don't know how that would work if I had a constant girlfriend, however. I kind of felt a little guilty pleasure dancing with other women while I was learning how to dance for that one girl, but I didn't want to disappoint her on the dance floor either, so I had to learn.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think women do want flowers, romance, and all that.

But there's such a thing as too much or too early.

I cherish the moments I get flowers...give them every day and it becomes passe. But give the special kind that's her favorite on a unique day to really make it special.

Getting flowers too early, before you've been able to assess whether the giver is virtuous or not, is kind of a turn-off. Flowers and romantic gestures say "Hey, everything you are is special to me". So when the person giving them hasn't had enough time to really know who you are, it's meaningless.

In the Fountainhead, Dominique has many men whisper sweet nothings to her, but she finds their freely-given words meaningless. However, when Roark says he loves her, it's much later in the relationship and at the exact right moment. And it means something to her.

Being romantic isn't a turn-off, but the timing and frequency and type of gesture is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Should" be? What do you mean, "should" be? Should be by what standards?

Being yourself means behaving in the way that lives up to *your own* standards without taking reference to anyone else's standards, real or imagined. Saying that you don't know what yourself should be means you don't know what your standards should be--i.e. that you, at present, have no standards. And if you have no standards, then you probably shouldn't be pursuing romantic relationships, because you have no clue what you want.

The way you "should be" according to your own standards, which is what you say, but this of course should make you ask what are your standards, what do you use to identify your standards and define them? Your standards are not automatically perfect so you should concern yourself with what your standards ought to be. Ought to be according to what? Your existing standards? No, because that is self referential. What is the standard by which you judge your standards by?

For example, how outgoing ought you be? What is the standard by which you judge how outgoing you should be - what constitutes making the most friends? What will help you make the most money? What will help you satisfy your curiosity about other people? Should you be completely outgoing, or completely introverted? Why?

but I can't *be* like that and don't want to--or, at least, not when I remember that it means I have to stop talking

Perfect example, you decided you didnt *want* your standard for outgoing behavior to be the 'fearsome ice-chick', so you changed your standard. But what standard did you base that change on? You wanted to talk more to people than that, so your standard at least partially includes conversing with others, which would exclude extremely introverted behavior. But you raised that standard to a certain level of outgoing-ness, and not any further, why not?

I'm not being pedantic here, just legitimately curious about this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have mentioned several times through out the post, being genuine confidence is key. I don’t think that you’ll get very far in a relationship with out it. So if you don’t have it, get it. Do some thing that makes you feel confident like learning a new skill or perfecting an old one. Surround yourself with other confident people who help build you up. I think the best way to meet a significant other is to work on making yourself the best person you can be; confident, rational, talented, ect. If you keep pursuing this and meeting people you’ve got a good shot. I have a friend who started dancing about a year ago. After tons of lessons and practice he has become a phenomenal dancer. When he dances he just oozes confidence and feeling. He is not cocky about it, but he is proud and not afraid to use his talent. This has a tremendous effect on the ladies and is fun to watch.

You seem to be suggesting in response to my comment that if someone lacks confidence, then they ought to merely just do things which give them confidence, learn a new skill, etc. But some people might have accomplished something, but feel more confident than they ought to, or conversely, feel less confident and proud than they ought to, the dominant ethic promulgated in the US is christian altruism, christianity being the religion which celebrates meekness, passivity, and suffering, and in fact considers 'pride' a sin. For the latter, it is proper for them to 'force' or 'retrain' themselves to be more proud of themselves, some of that change will come merely through introspection and realization, but emotional adaptions are not always instantaneous and sometimes it makes sense to act how you think you ought to be acting (by your own standards, or what you think your standards should be, and not just for the sake of other people in a second handed manner) Aristotle wrote "It is easy to be angry, it is far more difficult to be angry to the right degree, for the right length of time, and at the right person" something similar could be said of all emotional reactions and behavioral attributes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you "should be" according to your own standards, which is what you say, but this of course should make you ask what are your standards, what do you use to identify your standards and define them? Your standards are not automatically perfect so you should concern yourself with what your standards ought to be. Ought to be according to what? Your existing standards? No, because that is self referential. What is the standard by which you judge your standards by?

Ah, I see, I think. The standard is always, look at reality--but don't do it by the "what sort of behavior lands me relationships?" because that means setting other people up as your standard. Instead, look at "what sort of behavior do I enjoy?" and "why?"

I like being talkative because I like exploring and considering and I prefer relationships that are based on a mutual enthusiasm for this practice. Yeah, I'm probably going to run off a lot of otherwise interesting people who don't like blither (in fact, I HAVE, and yes, it was distressing but I got over it), but that's their issue, not mine. I realized through this process that while it's not fun to be rejected, I'd rather be rejected than have someone sitting there bored while I blithered. I'd also rather be rejected than *not blither* because I'd be trying to contravene something that I consider an important part of a relationship.

This is an entirely optional-value arena, so people are going to have different standards for the types of behavior they enjoy, just as different people enjoy different careers. It's not a matter of discovering some optimal behavior standard, but of figuring out what's *your* optimal behavior standard given your personal likes, dislikes, and interests.

Now, mine are far from perfect, but I've realized that they are what they are and changing them requires changing some of my underlying assumptions. For instance, one of the reasons why I may talk *way* too much is that I get nervous around people and talking gives me the feeling that I'm exerting some control over the situation. But the way to fix that isn't to set my talking bar way down, it's to achieve real self-esteem so I get over being uncomfortable all the time. The excess chatter will gradually dry up that way.

That's the real reason why I place any value at all on the ice-chick persona--because I do talk *too much* from nervousness and she is definitely someone who *never* talks too much. However, she's also someone who doesn't talk *enough* for my purposes, and learning that took some time and thought on my part. I didn't need to reject chatter altogether (which only hurt my self-esteem more by setting an impossible standard), but to learn to be less nervous so I wouldn't talk way too much.

I know this is my problem and I'm not sure how many other people have this problem--treating their slight personality issues as out-of-context absolutes that must be corrected by embracing the complete opposite. So they set themselves an impossible standard which only makes them more unhappy because they can't *keep* that standard and still function. I do this with *everything*. I hate doing housework, but I also hate having a dirty house, so instead of compromising on a reasonable level of mess vs. work that suits my purposes, I vacillate between rejecting all housework and wanting to be some sort of superstar Martha Stewart type.

There's some psychology involved and I've found that I rarely have only *one* reason for the why I behave the way I do. I've found it's best to look only at the good reasons when you're setting your standards and work toward correcting the underlying fundamentals of the bad reasons. If you do that, you'll find yourself automatically settling into the way you want to behave and you won't find it necessary to ask "how should I behave?" any more. You'll *know*.

Okay, I'm going to wrap this post up. I know there are more things involved like the fact that you have to know your own value hierarchy to stop the vacillating and keep things like the fact that your house is a little messy in perspective (esp. in the face of people who will criticize you for it), but I don't want to keep going for four or five more pages. I think I got the gist in there.

Edited by JMeganSnow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your standards are not automatically perfect so you should concern yourself with what your standards ought to be. Ought to be according to what? Your existing standards? No, because that is self referential. What is the standard by which you judge your standards by?

In terms of what is appropriate behavior, I go by the standard of reason, common sense, and observable cause and effect. I have been interested in human behavior (and thus have been observing people trying to identify a principle when possible) for a while now. My advice to you is to make an effort to be more observing yourself and try not to repeat the same things if the outcome continues to be not what you want.

For example, how outgoing ought you be? What is the standard by which you judge how outgoing you should be - what constitutes making the most friends? What will help you make the most money? What will help you satisfy your curiosity about other people? Should you be completely outgoing, or completely introverted? Why?

I think this a bit different question because it deals with your personality (and not just how many emails should I write to this person without waiting for their response to me?). I don't think we can drastically alter our personality, drastically I mean from one side of the spectrum going completely to the other side. We can alter it somewhat and we can what I would call "make ourselves act in a slightly different way on occasion" (for example, putting an extroverted hat on when you are mostly an introvert).

When presenting yourself to the other person (and thinking how I ought to behave) you have to keep in mind what you will be able to maintain long term. It is important to be authentic. You want them to like you for YOU, don't you?

I have met a person who is an introvert (even more than me, I think) but makes himself act in a very extroverted and upbeat manner. He can do this very sucessfully for some time and I mean he can enthuse almost anyone (even those who are pretty upbeat themselves) but then he crashes. He goes from high highs to low lows. To some degree I even think that this affects his happiness because what most people like about him is his upbeat, very energetic side and I think inside he feels he is appreciated and admired for something that is really an act. It also sets expectations he then feels pressured to meet.

I will give you another example - myself. I can be quiet witty and funny (my close friends, co-workers, my son, people I have been in a close relationship with - think or thought so) but that is not predominanty my personality. Naturally, I am more of an observer and thinker than talker. The more extroverted side of me comes out when there some intimacy already established (with at least somebody if in a group) and it is off and on. (Complex _ I know :( ). Anyway, my point is that I don't try to act much more extrovertly than what I am most of the time. I did once - and it became something I felt pressured to keep up and it became a source of anxiety. My aim today is to present myself authentically and when in time I will become more fun to be around that will be a bonus and not an expectation I will be pressured to meet. Hope that my example, in terms of my reasoning - approaching the issue, will help you to make a decision for yourself (which maybe different for a good reason).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have met a person who is an introvert (even more than me, I think) but makes himself act in a very extroverted and upbeat manner. He can do this very sucessfully for some time and I mean he can enthuse almost anyone (even those who are pretty upbeat themselves) but then he crashes. He goes from high highs to low lows. To some degree I even think that this affects his happiness because what most people like about him is his upbeat, very energetic side and I think inside he feels he is appreciated and admired for something that is really an act. It also sets expectations he then feels pressured to meet.

Ooh, this sounds exactly like what I was talking about with the "vacillating" thing.

I'm not an introvert--it took me years to realize that--but I like to be constantly *engaged* in doing something, and people who know me in person generally think I'm introverted because when they meet me I'm very definitely engaged in doing something else (reading a book, playing a game, writing, whatever). It's very difficult for someone else to get me to switch tracks, so if you try to talk to me when I'm preoccupied you're going to get the cold shoulder.

Instead, I realized that I can only pay attention to one thing at a time because when I'm paying attention, I'm REALLY paying attention. I love interacting with people if they don't get impatient and demand my attention RIGHT NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue of how many emails or phone calls or letters a man writes to someone he is interested in without getting a reply is probably very important. But, if I'm interested, I'm interested, and if she doesn't reply I used to write and write telling her more and more about myself, thinking that would win her over. However, I can't say that ever worked; and I can't tell you why, since in some cases she indicated she might be interested in me. Is it overwhelming to receive many letters of interest? If she doesn't reply, how long do you give her and how often should one write or call without getting a reply? I always think that maybe she is busy and hasn't gotten back to me, but I think I'm going to change my policy. If she doesn't return the invite after I've made my intentions clear once or twice or maybe three times, and I don't get a reply....well, I guess it's off. Women always seem to think that the guy can read her mind, especially at a distance, and I just don't have that capability -- I don't think any guy does, unless he knows her well.

I'm curious about you gals who run blogs or who post here often, do you get guys interested in you by what you write; and if he writes telling you that, do you reply? So far, I have replied to all of my emails or PM's. In my whole Internet "career" I've only blocked one email recipient, and with Earthlink and my website addresses, I don't get much spam, so most of my email is legitimately written to me. Do you have a policy of not writing back to someone you don't know all that well? I can see not giving out personal information, especially where you live to a stranger or someone you may not have heard from in a while and maybe you don't know any longer, but I'm curious.

And if you say you can't really get to know someone based upon what they write online, then how are they supposed to approach you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about you gals who run blogs or who post here often, do you get guys interested in you by what you write; and if he writes telling you that, do you reply?

...

And if you say you can't really get to know someone based upon what they write online, then how are they supposed to approach you?

I occasionally get emails or PM's or instant messages from people who read something I wrote and are interested in meeting a new friend or (possibly) hooking up. In my case, once they get to know me they universally decide that they're just interested in being friends, but I still always reply. It's not their fault that they have no way of knowing I'm a fat chick.

If you "meet" someone online and want to approach them privately, just don't assume unwarranted familiarity. The fact that *you* feel close to them doesn't mean that *they* feel close to *you*. Just remember that they probably don't know nearly as much about you as you do about them, so you have to give them time to decide whether or not they're interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you "meet" someone online and want to approach them privately, just don't assume unwarranted familiarity. The fact that *you* feel close to them doesn't mean that *they* feel close to *you*. Just remember that they probably don't know nearly as much about you as you do about them, so you have to give them time to decide whether or not they're interested.

That's a valid point. Depending on which one is public, one or the other might be more open than the other, and maybe it can be difficult to understand someone's sense of life based on what they write anyhow. I know Ayn Rand didn't think her readers knew her well simply based on her writings.

And I guess it can come out of the blue, and any type of romance has to be more personal that what most people are will to say about themselves online anyhow. Can't say I'll ever do it again, but I went all out with a few via my emails and got no reply -- and not just talking about me, but going into why I found them attractive; to no avail.

So, it is definitely important to get to that personal interaction; and maybe one must gage how personal to get right off the bat, which is difficult via email or letters when one hasn't actually gotten that one on one feedback available in a face to face meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But dancing is already a romantic activity. I was learning how to dance Swing a few years ago, and just being close to self-confident women on the dance floor is very romantic. Of course, the guy has to learn how to lead and the woman to follow, for Swing dancing, and I think that dance attitude brushes off on those dancing, even when not dancing. One of my instructors quipped quite a few times that dancing was female training, but it is also male training, because having confidence on the dance floor transfers to being confident around women off the dance floor. And it is true that one can assess one's dance partner rather quickly as to their romance potential off the dance floor.

Yes, dancing is a very romantic activity. I don’t equate it with the traditional romantic gestures discussed in the OP. Like you said dancing is a great way for a man to display his confidence, and this is why I like it so much. The lead needs to be clear and confident with his movements or he will be unable to dance smoothly with his partner. Also, as you mentioned there are so many subtle things you can pick up about your dance partner on the floor. When you are connected with someone on the dance floor it’s like getting a little peek at who they are on the inside.

I stopped dancing because I was learning how to dance for a particular girl, and that fell apart, so I gave it up. But I may decide to get back to it, as it was fun and encouraging. There is a kind of courtesy on the dance floor, and that is if someone asks you to dance, then dance; otherwise they might get offended. At least this was the "rules" for the Swing dancing I learned, where one does not stick with one partner all the time one is there. Don't know how that would work if I had a constant girlfriend, however. I kind of felt a little guilty pleasure dancing with other women while I was learning how to dance for that one girl, but I didn't want to disappoint her on the dance floor either, so I had to learn.

That being said I think learning how to dance for someone is the wrong approach. She should like you because you dance. You shouldn’t dance so she will like you. Your value should be clear and enough for her. If you want to learn to dance that’s fine, but the motivation should be your own interest not to make yourself more desirable to her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue of how many emails or phone calls or letters a man writes to someone he is interested in without getting a reply is probably very important. But, if I'm interested, I'm interested, and if she doesn't reply I used to write and write telling her more and more about myself, thinking that would win her over. However, I can't say that ever worked; and I can't tell you why,

I can. when a woman doesn't respond right away it means she is not interested and any pursuit of her beyond that will not help your causes.

I used to have a 3 call rule in pre-internet days. If I got no response after the second I'd call a 3rd time to let her know I was throwing out her phone number. That quickly got reduced to a two call rule and eventually to a one call rule. And truthfully, a 0 call rule is probably best. Make her call you. If you meet someone and have any chemistry, don't ruin it by letting her know that. My experience....if a woman is interested, she'll let you know. I have never seen a reason to ask her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, lets say I’ve just met a guy and we’re taking a break after hitting the dance floor. He asks “Hey what’s your favorite song to dance to?” I may put up a bit of a wall and casually say “ haha I don’t know, I guess there’s just too many to pick from.” He may agree and just try to keep the conversation going or he may hold me to it and respond jokingly, “Are you one of those girls who has difficulty making decisions?” The former response is neutral and boring, nothing that would spark my interest. On the other hand I am a bit taken back and offended by the latter response. I’m thinking “This guy hardly knows me how could say that?” He’s got my attention now. By calling me out on my lame answer in a good natured way he has shown confidence and interest. He wants to know if I can make a simple choice or not. This is what I find masculine and attractive. Of coarse, it needs to be genuine and not cocky or forced, as people have touched upon earlier in the thread. This part can be tricky, but after some practice it has become quit easy for me to distinguish the cocky form the confident.

I prefer this direct display of masculinity as the relationship progresses as well. For example if we are planning a Sunday afternoon date I may suggest snuggling up together and reading a good book then going out to a nice dinner. He shrugs and says “ On a day like this? That sounds lame. Lets go on a hike. You’ve been saying you need more exercise anyway.” Ooooh this one gets me. Is he trying to say I’m fat? Just as I am about to spit my rebuttal he smiles and says “Get dressed. Lets go!” I put up a little more of a fight, but he is determined. On the hike he points to a high peak and says, “We’re going to the top.” I’m questioning how I’ll ever be able to get up there, but his determination intrigues me. He loves to hike and climb and the energy he projects as we get climb higher is contagious and keeps me going. He pushes my limits and brings out my strength with playful dares. At the top we spend a long time talking, laughing and admiring what we accomplished together. This beets the pants off an affectionate afternoon and dinner. It shows he has the confidence to take control of the situation and wants to know how I would react to it.

I'm interested in what you think of this from the man's perspective. In the first example, for instance, you could easily just come off as not interested or wishy-washy. If he is showing confidence and interest by getting you to make a choice about what kind of music you like, are you not showing insecurity or lack of sincere interest by being evasive and or non-committal?

Similarly, in your second example, he has to push you into doing something you don't initially want to do. While you might find that an attractive quality in him (helping you be / do what you think you should be) I can't imagine how he would find that an attractive quality in you (needing to be coaxed and pushed all the time)

Presumably, if your relationship was of long duration and of this type, you would eventually get closer and closer to that person that you want to be, and in doing so, he would need to do less and less coaxing and pushing, so would he be less masculine then? If so, in the same way that basing happiness on helping people actually requires other people to suffer, being masculine requires women to always stay below their desired state. It's not getting there that's the goal, it's being helped to try to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can. when a woman doesn't respond right away it means she is not interested and any pursuit of her beyond that will not help your causes.

I used to have a 3 call rule in pre-internet days. If I got no response after the second I'd call a 3rd time to let her know I was throwing out her phone number. That quickly got reduced to a two call rule and eventually to a one call rule. And truthfully, a 0 call rule is probably best. Make her call you. If you meet someone and have any chemistry, don't ruin it by letting her know that. My experience....if a woman is interested, she'll let you know. I have never seen a reason to ask her.

Perhaps she is thinking that if you're interested, then you'd call. Thus you are both sitting there waiting for the other to call, assuming the other is not interested. That's almost a classic prisoners dilemma game. And why would you suggest that acknowledging you are interested in someone some how 'ruins' it. That is borne of the exploitative zero-sum competitive attitude in life, and that comes from all the mystical or deterministic interpretations of love, which celebrate it as something great for it's own sake, that you have no control over, etc. In those case, revealing you like someone gives them a power over you, hence the silly dance and games we go through to avoid it, because you are supposed to love them 'unconditionally' etc. If you reveal your interest in someone, and they turn out to try to abuse you or take advantage of you because of your like for them, then it demonstrates a quality of their character that ought to make you simply not like them anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see, I think. The standard is always, look at reality--but don't do it by the "what sort of behavior lands me relationships?" because that means setting other people up as your standard. Instead, look at "what sort of behavior do I enjoy?" and "why?"

I don't think it's that easy. Consider, what sort of behavior ought you enjoy? For instance, should you enjoy torturing small animals? Playing practical jokes on people? Manipulating people to get your way? Obviously adopting an ethical standard based on life gives us a good indication of what's proper here, but in other areas it's more vague. When someone is hurt or used, it's easy to know your standard and how you ought to behave, but when no one is being hurt or assaulted, what's the standard after that. You can say, the standard is what makes you happy, what you enjoy, but the things you enjoy now have come from the choices you have made throughout life and the influences of your environment and genetics. Just as it's wrong to automatically think an emotional reaction is right just because it's an emotion, it's wrong to think the things you fine joy in are automatically the things you should find joy in merely because you find joy in them. You can make new choices and come to enjoy things differently or new things.

This is an entirely optional-value arena, so people are going to have different standards for the types of behavior they enjoy, just as different people enjoy different careers. It's not a matter of discovering some optimal behavior standard, but of figuring out what's *your* optimal behavior standard given your personal likes, dislikes, and interests.

Absolutely. I think at the first level, the standard is life, as in the mere mechanical perpetuation of your existence, because enjoying all other values is dependent on existing. But life is not an end of it's own, it's a means to your end, your happiness and joy. Everyone who adopts a life centered ethics would share similiar values regarding existing, but beyond that, your career choice, your friends, your other interests, etc, there is of course no 'objective' standard that is applicable to everyone. But, would you say it's objectively wrong to make a career out of ... manufacturing bombs that look like toys? There is no objective right career, but there are ones that are objectively wrong. That's where you have to start thinking about your standard for your likes and interests, not just what you like and how to go after that, but why you like it and what should you like.

I know this is my problem and I'm not sure how many other people have this problem--treating their slight personality issues as out-of-context absolutes that must be corrected by embracing the complete opposite. So they set themselves an impossible standard which only makes them more unhappy because they can't *keep* that standard and still function. I do this with *everything*. I hate doing housework, but I also hate having a dirty house, so instead of compromising on a reasonable level of mess vs. work that suits my purposes, I vacillate between rejecting all housework and wanting to be some sort of superstar Martha Stewart type.

I have a similar attitude on many things, but came to some useful realizations on it. For the last few years I've been designing and building a motorcycle, with a few new functional improvements over conventional bikes. But nearly everything I've had to design, from the over all frame geometry to merely the way to mount a bearing in the hub of a wheel, I can easily get obsessive about figuring out the perfect way to do it, many times, on principle, I just *know* there is a better way that I can figure out. The result was that many things I would spend more time designing and refining then actually building it, or I'd start building it, then in the process come up with a new better way, and start over or modify it. After alot of consideration I think that ultimately this attitude comes from some kind of implicit platonic idealism, that i know there is just some perfect design out there somewhere and if I try hard enough I can maybe figure it out. And I think this is the same kind of thing that makes it hard for people to pick the right color to paint a wall, or what meal to order at dinner, because there is always the 'perfect' one that if you thing hard enough you could get close to, maybe even reach. We see it popular in media today to attack 'too much choice' or 'the paradox of choice' which are just thinly veiled attempts by wannabe social tyrants to control people under the guise that they are protecting them from too much choice. Simply adopting a 'good enough' or a 'best case guess' or a cut off time for deliberation is enough to get rid of the 'suffering' that allegedly comes from too much choice. All of that is basically working the presumption that we are omniscient and omnipotent, because there is no way to know what the best choice is in some absolute metaphysical abstract sense, there is only what is best for you, right now, based on your goals and your hierarchy of values. So now I give myself 3 and only 3 design iterations and a cut off day, whether or not I really think I can figure out something better is irrelevant, what's important is making salient progress toward a good enough achievement of a goal, not the absolutely perfect platonic idealistic achievement of it. Thinking your place must be perfectly clean, or you won't bother cleaning seems like an example of that. I felt the same way but now focus on a 'good enough' standard.

Edited by Matus1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had my reasons for learning how to dance for this one particular girl -- I had sent her an ecard referring to dancing, for getting that she was nearly a professional dancer and that she would take it as a dance date invitation. After a while and thinking it through, I decided that I had better learn how to dance, and it was fun, anyhow, so I don't want to say "no pain no gain" because it wasn't painful. Unfortunately, our communication lines got crossed and she thought I already knew how to dance. And guys, don't ever ask a girl out to dance if you don't know how to dance already -- she won't like it if you back down until you learn how to dance :lol: No...don't ever do that :lol:

Regarding doing something for another, I agree in general not to do that, unless it is something you really want to do with her and need to learn that skill. Normally, she has to like you and you have to like her for what you already are, not what you can do in the future. And keep those lines of communication open. It is very easy to misinterpret a non-reply as a not interested message, but that isn't always true, either.

I don't know, can't say I'm an expert on women at all, but one reason I write here and put up my website was to find that special someone. It can happen, though I'm amazed at how little email I get in relation to my writing, especially my website. I get about a thousand hits per month, but I have no idea what my readers think of it due to no feedback. I have made a few friends from my website and writing here, so maybe that is just the way it is; but I'm not even making money from the ads on my website, so I might refurbish it.

I do think it is important not to come across as too desperate regarding women; and sometimes I think a man can come across that way if he writes and writes and she doesn't reply. Sometimes, you just don't get a reply right away, though wondering about them in the silence can drive you crazy! I think I agree with Agrippa that the best policy is to show her you are interested, and then back off. I'm not sure having her come to you will work well. It did for Howard Roark, but Dominique fell in love with him (after the first encounter) after she discovered his buildings. Of course, he knew about her column as well, so it was an interesting relationship ;) I think John Galt had the right policy -- if you are with me, then be with me; otherwise, you are on your own. Not that a woman should give into a man who makes that kind of statement because he makes that statement; but he has to know what he wants and not let his emotions sway him from being rational. Love is like oxygen, but you can't live on love alone and there needs to be the appropriate facts to back up the emotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's that easy. Consider, what sort of behavior ought you enjoy? For instance, should you enjoy torturing small animals? Playing practical jokes on people? Manipulating people to get your way? Obviously adopting an ethical standard based on life gives us a good indication of what's proper here, but in other areas it's more vague. When someone is hurt or used, it's easy to know your standard and how you ought to behave, but when no one is being hurt or assaulted, what's the standard after that. You can say, the standard is what makes you happy, what you enjoy, but the things you enjoy now have come from the choices you have made throughout life and the influences of your environment and genetics. Just as it's wrong to automatically think an emotional reaction is right just because it's an emotion, it's wrong to think the things you fine joy in are automatically the things you should find joy in merely because you find joy in them. You can make new choices and come to enjoy things differently or new things.

Yes, I know, that's the "why?" part of that sentence. You *can't* leave out the why when you're examining what you like and dislike. For optional stuff it doesn't have to be a really *strong* why, which might require a Ph.D. in psychology and neurobiology, but my experience with introspection has shown that I can *tell* when my "I prefer this to that" is actually an evasion based on things like "I'm afraid there might be a lot of work involved". I can't really explain *how* I can tell any more than I can explain *how* I can tell that object A is blue instead of purple. It's base-level perception (by introspection instead of extrospection) so the only advice I can really give on *how* to discover a standard it to *practice examining what triggers your emotions and what you find yourself wanting to do as a result*. Once you do that, you'll be able to figure out the "why" in each case and thus define what your standards are and should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps she is thinking that if you're interested, then you'd call. Thus you are both sitting there waiting for the other to call, assuming the other is not interested. That's almost a classic prisoners dilemma game. And why would you suggest that acknowledging you are interested in someone some how 'ruins' it. That is borne of the exploitative zero-sum competitive attitude in life, and that comes from all the mystical or deterministic interpretations of love, which celebrate it as something great for it's own sake, that you have no control over, etc. In those case, revealing you like someone gives them a power over you, hence the silly dance and games we go through to avoid it, because you are supposed to love them 'unconditionally' etc. If you reveal your interest in someone, and they turn out to try to abuse you or take advantage of you because of your like for them, then it demonstrates a quality of their character that ought to make you simply not like them anymore.

I am not sure that I understand the nature of your disagreement with me. I make an assumption that you have already met or contacted the gal originally. Women have very good facial recognition capacities. They usually know that you are interested in them before you say a word. Writing and writing with no response is a little creepy. It's implies clingyness or if the girl is particularly sensitive, borderline stalking.

Just talk to her the one time. If she wants to know more she'll make an attempt to see you or contact you. That's been my experience, at least.

I don't see how what I said implied "acknowledging you are interested in someone some how 'ruins' it." Being opaque and repetitious is what ruins it. You don't need to be a master of human behaviour to realize when you have chemistry with someone. They usually make it really easy to know when they make as much of an effort to be with you as you do with them. There is no reason to send a note that says: "Do you like me? yes_ No__" What could possibly be intriguing about that?

If you ask someone out or contact them, just forget about it. If they're interested they'll call back. Otherwise move on with your life. That's all I am saying. This isn't about playing a "zero-sum exploitative game," or whatever. I making what I thought was a pretty obvious point, that you can't make someone like you by trying to talk them into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ask someone out or contact them, just forget about it. If they're interested they'll call back. Otherwise move on with your life. That's all I am saying. This isn't about playing a "zero-sum exploitative game," or whatever. I making what I thought was a pretty obvious point, that you can't make someone like you by trying to talk them into it.

This is probably a really good policy. When I wrote multiple times without getting a reply, I certainly wasn't trying to be creepy or stalking, but I suppose the girl could be wondering why the guy keeps writing and writing without her replying. And I don't know if I was being manipulated or not -- like please say more and more, keep telling me you love me -- but in the future, I will reign in my passion for her if she doesn't reply. And I agree that you cannot talk someone into liking you; they either do or they don't; but getting the facts to make a rational assessment is very important so that one's desire doesn't override one's rationality.

By the way, if you want to read a really good novel about a guy who goes all out to get the girl's attention, I would highly recommend Toilers of the Sea by Victor Hugo. I mean, what Gilliat did to try to win over a woman he loved probably cannot be surpassed; unless you take into account what John Galt did to try to win over Dagny. In real life, I guess it can go either way -- you either get the girl or you don't, no matter what you do.

The Ayn Rand Bookstore has Toilers of the Sea, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, if you want to read a really good novel about a guy who goes all out to get the girl's attention, I would highly recommend Toilers of the Sea by Victor Hugo. I mean, what Gilliat did to try to win over a woman he loved probably cannot be surpassed; unless you take into account what John Galt did to try to win over Dagny. In real life, I guess it can go either way -- you either get the girl or you don't, no matter what you do.

That's my favorite novel. :) And I'll note, that despite his Herculean efforts to "get the girl," he failed miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but getting the facts to make a rational assessment is very important so that one's desire doesn't override one's rationality.

I have been only infrequently so fortunate as to get the facts from a girl regarding her interest in me. So the only other method I have left is to regard a clear yes as a yes and everything else as a no. As a corollary, I find that this approach works as a great filter in that only the ones who are the most honest with me and themselves will hold any significant amount of my attention.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...