Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
KevinD

Leading the Way in Romance

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Most men grossly underestimate their power to bring excitement into a woman’s life.

To make a woman ecstatically happy isn’t necessarily difficult — in fact, it can be astonishingly easy. It requires that a man take the time to cultivate his personality and character, and that he expand his awareness by making romance a course of study.

A woman isn’t so much impressed by what a man does for her per se; she is moved by the man he is — by whom and what she experiences when she is with him.

The only thing that matters to a woman in a romantic context, is the emotional impact that a man’s presence has upon her.

A woman falls in love with a man who inspires confidence in her.

The unspoken motto of the masculine man is: “I got it — I have this.” He exudes a core competence — at life in general, and in his ability to deal effectively with the opposite sex.

This type of confidence be extremely attractive to a woman. The feeling of being with a man who knows what he’s doing permits a woman to relax, and let down her guard.

Every woman longs for the experience, however momentary, of being able to set aside her burden — to temporarily abandon external focus, and lose her concern with the outside world — and turn inward, exploring and experiencing the feminine, feeling aspects of her soul.

When a man can communicate: “Tonight, I’m in charge of reality. Your only task is only to receive, respond and feel” — it can have the effect of lifting a psychological sandbag from her soul. It lightens her body, liberating her loving feelings.

I call this experience masculine leadership, because it involves a man accepting responsibility, taking charge, and literally leading the way, guiding both of them to ever-greater heights of intimacy and romantic enjoyment.

(This is an article I wrote for my new blog about romance & relationships, The Leading Man.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't this really about a certain kind of woman, not especially all women?

Well, he is definitely referring only to heterosexual women, not women in general. And even in this context of heterosexual relationships that he's operating in, he is generalizing when saying "women". He is referring to the concept women, and noting the presence of a characteristic. He is omitting the detail of how strong that characteristic is.

Just because, in every woman, the potential to behave in this way is there, it does not mean they will. Their capacity to do so can be developed, or it can be suppressed, through their lifetime, making them open to a romantic relationship with a man who developed his defining characteristic of being a leader (in a romantic context, not a political or social one, obviously), or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he is definitely referring only to heterosexual women, not women in general.

No. In bold letters, it says "every woman". But even if you are right and Kevin just should have edited more carefully, that is a massive generalization, so it is too strong to simply say heterosexual women. The generalization is too wide. This is only *a* concept of women, as a frozen abstraction: identifying a specific concrete which is within a concept, yet labeling the concept as that concrete. I don't know why this kind of woman would be desirable in the first place, that is, the woman who *wants* to be led by a man in a romantic context. If people as a whole should think and act for themselves, why would that suddenly change in a romantic context?

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1 and the linked-to blog read like what NB was saying in the mid-60s. I don't know if he'd endorse it today or not.

People have claimed that Freud overgeneralized from his own personality and familial/social milieu to all of human nature. Rand and Branden may have done the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When an article includes the word "romance" in its title, and begins with the sentence: "Most men grossly underestimate their power to bring excitement into a woman’s life," I think an intelligent reader can surmise that its author is addressing heterosexual relationships.

True enough, I generalize within that context. It's also true that — at least in the general sense — I happen to be right. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. In bold letters, it says "every woman". But even if you are right and Kevin just should have edited more carefully, that is a massive generalization, so it is too strong to simply say heterosexual women. The generalization is too wide. This is only *a* concept of women, as a frozen abstraction: identifying a specific concrete which is within a concept, yet labeling the concept as that concrete. I don't know why this kind of woman would be desirable in the first place, that is, the woman who *wants* to be led by a man in a romantic context. If people as a whole should think and act for themselves, why would that suddenly change in a romantic context?

By that logic, we shouldn't get on buses, because someone else is driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic, we shouldn't get on buses, because someone else is driving.

You misunderstand, I was speaking of independence. "Every woman longs for the experience, however momentary, of being able to set aside her burden — to temporarily abandon external focus, and lose her concern with the outside world — and turn inward, exploring and experiencing the feminine, feeling aspects of her soul." It's this line I'm speaking about. I see that as saying a woman who has given up her independence in a romantic context in a heterosexual relationship is attractive. I also see it as telling a woman "turn on, tune in, drop out." Now, it's one thing to suggest the line I quoted of Kevin's article for something sexual on occasion perhaps, but this the context of a total romantic relationship.

A different question I can ask: Why would I want to follow Kevin's advice? I do not mean to appear rude by asking that, although I do view the premises in the OP as misogynistic. While I don't disagree with the idea that some women desire what Kevin describes, why would that be attractive? I see it like what PUAs do (except what a PUA suggests is manipulative): Sure, it may "work" on some women, but why would you want to be in a relationship with the type of woman it attracts? I should add that yes, self-confidence is important, but that is attractive to any psychologically healthy person.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing manipulative about what Kevin is suggesting. In fact it's an attitude and behavior that women identify much faster than men. It's what women call confidence, and it's probably the number one thing they openly identify as their favorite characteristic in a man. If anything, he's telling men something women already know.

He's not suggesting that we fake confidence using psychological tricks, he's suggesting that we achieve the actual thing, through experience, and proper thought and attention given to the subject of dating and romance in general (something that, again, women pay a lot more attention to than men).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the language in the OP is silly, and hides the true meaning behind what he is talking about, which is the natural give and take of dominance in any relationship, romantic or not. A certain kind of woman (or man?) may wish to be dominant in bed but may not care behind the wheel. I think the rule of dominance applies to all aspects of all relationships, and it is figured out in real time, over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain parts of this I think are pretty accurate, I said some related things in my post in Kevin's other thread in fact, but then things start to kind of veer off into "I don't really know where you are pulling this info from" territory.

"To make a woman ecstatically happy isn’t necessarily difficult — in fact, it can be astonishingly easy. It requires that a man take the time to cultivate his personality and character . . . "

"A woman isn’t so much impressed by what a man does for her per se; she is moved by the man he is — by whom and what she experiences when she is with him."

Those two bits I think are pretty accurate regardless of what pronouns are used. Although one certainly can and often does do many things for a romantic partner, one falls in love with a person, not a service.

"The only thing that matters to a woman in a romantic context, is the emotional impact that a man’s presence has upon her."

"Only" is exaggerating here, though it may be arguably the biggest factor in most cases. I suspect this applies at least often for males too. If not, I don't have much of a guess right now what the alternative is like.

"A woman falls in love with a man who inspires confidence in her."

This probably isn't so nearly universal as the prior things. It may be pretty common though depending on what you mean by "inspires confidence." For some I'm sure the "I got this" attitude thing is appealing, but I think more often the confidence comes not from a sense of any sort of handing over control but rather the impact that person's presence has on your view and attitude toward the world. The confidence inspired is one of a strengthened sense of the benevolent universe thing. You feel more confident in your own ability to handle reality because that person's presence provides very immediate, tangible confirmation that good in general and your values in particular can and do exist and function, everything isn't set up to fight against you and ensure your failure. It's not just exuding confidence and competence that will garner one romantic love (though it certainly doesn't hurt), it's existing and being there with particular qualities that somebody highly values that will generate the feelings of love and confidence. A feeling of safety and relaxation I think works similarly; it isn't that one feels safe because they think their partner is tough stuff necessarily and can protect them from onslaughts of dangers, it's that the world seems less menacing and thus protection isn't something one needs to be as concerned about. Basically, when you've got somebody you love the whole world looks better.

Edited by bluecherry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing manipulative about what Kevin is suggesting.

I said it reminded me of PUA *except* the manipulation. Remove all the aspects of referring *specifically* to men and women, and I'm fine with what Kevin is saying. What I mainly disagree on is the extremely strong generalizations.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand, I was speaking of independence. "Every woman longs for the experience, however momentary, of being able to set aside her burden — to temporarily abandon external focus, and lose her concern with the outside world — and turn inward, exploring and experiencing the feminine, feeling aspects of her soul." It's this line I'm speaking about. I see that as saying a woman who has given up her independence in a romantic context in a heterosexual relationship is attractive. I also see it as telling a woman "turn on, tune in, drop out." Now, it's one thing to suggest the line I quoted of Kevin's article for something sexual on occasion perhaps, but this the context of a total romantic relationship.

There's no dichotomy between independence and momentarily taking the passenger seat. Nicky's example illustrates that perfectly. You make the choice to get on that buss, and you choose when to get off.

What Kevin describes is a feminine sexual response. Women respond by letting go, which is very difficult to relate to for men because it's the opposite for us.

A different question I can ask: Why would I want to follow Kevin's advice? I do not mean to appear rude by asking that, although I do view the premises in the OP as misogynistic. While I don't disagree with the idea that some women desire what Kevin describes, why would that be attractive? I see it like what PUAs do (except what a PUA suggests is manipulative): Sure, it may "work" on some women, but why would you want to be in a relationship with the type of woman it attracts? I should add that yes, self-confidence is important, but that is attractive to any psychologically healthy person.

I would follow Kevin's advice because it's great when you get to fully experience male and female sexuality.

I would say it's attractive because it suggests that the woman is in touch with her own sexuality, which is healthy.

I would also warn against the opposite, letting the woman "drive".

There are some women who try to do that because they hate men and have no respect for them. They like to rule men and feel empowered when they do so. One would be wise to stay far away from such women.

Then there are more benevolent women who unconciously drift towards controlling and manipulative tendencies. Women test men to see what they're made of. It often happens subconciously. They want to see if you're strong, honest, trustworthy and all that. In order to do so they test you.

When a man fails a womans tests she looses attraction for him. Sometimes it's like bursting a hole in a bubble and it's game over right away. It can also happen over longer periods of time. In those relationships the woman starts to get more and more control, while often times the man invests more thinking it will make her happy. Over time such relationships tend to get abusive and nasty.

Failing her tests means she'll start losing respect for you. Women don't like that and often start to push harder, hoping you will step up, take charge and push back. If you don't, the relationship will be in serious trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfa, I don't see the need for specifically referencing men or women. Swap all the times you said woman and man, and for the most part, what you said is valid. I mean, if you swapped the words man and woman in your post, do you think anything would become invalid?

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no dichotomy between independence and momentarily taking the passenger seat. Nicky's example illustrates that perfectly. You make the choice to get on that buss, and you choose when to get off.

What Kevin describes is a feminine sexual response. Women respond by letting go, which is very difficult to relate to for men because it's the opposite for us.

I would follow Kevin's advice because it's great when you get to fully experience male and female sexuality.

I would say it's attractive because it suggests that the woman is in touch with her own sexuality, which is healthy.

I would also warn against the opposite, letting the woman "drive".

There are some women who try to do that because they hate men and have no respect for them. They like to rule men and feel empowered when they do so. One would be wise to stay far away from such women.

Then there are more benevolent women who unconciously drift towards controlling and manipulative tendencies. Women test men to see what they're made of. It often happens subconciously. They want to see if you're strong, honest, trustworthy and all that. In order to do so they test you.

When a man fails a womans tests she looses attraction for him. Sometimes it's like bursting a hole in a bubble and it's game over right away. It can also happen over longer periods of time. In those relationships the woman starts to get more and more control, while often times the man invests more thinking it will make her happy. Over time such relationships tend to get abusive and nasty.

Failing her tests means she'll start losing respect for you. Women don't like that and often start to push harder, hoping you will step up, take charge and push back. If you don't, the relationship will be in serious trouble.

Everything you've said right here is all 100% perfectly true and accurate.

Except for all of the times, people, and places where it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alfa, I don't see the need for specifically referencing men or women. Swap all the times you said woman and man, and for the most part, what you said is valid. I mean, if you swapped the words man and woman in your post, do you think anything would become invalid?

What you're missing is the psychological differences between men and women. Men don't test women the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like what PUAs do (except what a PUA suggests is manipulative):[...]

It may be worth noting that the PUA scene is very diverse with a mixed philosophy. There are some very good ideas there, some are so-so and others terrible. One thing all of the different approaches have in common though is the idea of a masculine and feminine polarity. That's also why the different approaches work so well in teaching men to attract women. Having that fundamental down it will work despite otherwise terrible ideas. Atleast if you by "work" mean being able to attract women. Quality of women and relationships may of course differ.

Edited by Alfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you're missing is the psychological differences between men and women. Men don't test women the same way.

I do not see why it is good for any person to "test" another person's character traits. Character can only be judged over a wide range of time, and what the other person chooses to do in various situations. No testing is required, because character traits become apparent during normal interactions. If this is what you meant by test, I'm fine with that word, and it certainly applies to anyone in social interactions, regardless of gender. But if by test you mean use contrived scenarios or questions for testing character traits, that is a poor way to figure out character, on top of being inaccurate if any conclusions are made. I know that Kevin is speaking of gender polarity in terms of romantic relationships like you are, but (most of) the points he makes, they apply to both genders in my own experience. That is, except the part I quoted in my post #8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Women don't need any guidance whatsoever when it comes to this topic"

Man, there are tons of advice columns and junk out there aimed at women who are highly unsuccesful in romantic relationships. Off the top of my head, the movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days is based on this kind of stuff from the perspective of how many things some women have a habit of screwing up. (The set up of the plot though involves some unusual reasons for people to put up with things they normally wouldn't.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bluecherry: I didn't say that women are incapable of screwing up their relationships; I said women don't need any help in understanding romance.

If men read 1/10th the number of relationship self-help books that women do, there would be a 0% divorce rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...