Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Keeping Romance Simple

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have to take issue with this... Psychology is not mysticism. Kevin is talking about the psychological dynamics and differences between the sexes - in particular, the dynamics of romance and how to create it.

It's 100% true that some people just don't "get it". It's because they are unaware of the differences between the male and female mind, or they choose to ignore it because it contradicts their platonic concept of romance which is divorced from/denies these psychological differences.

It is also rendered difficult when these "psychological" suppositions conflict with my actual experiences and additionally have no good evidence or arguments backing them. It is also rendered difficult when the argument boils down to "to those who don't 'get it', no argument is possible; to those who do, no argument is necessary."

Psychology is not mysticism, but the "arguments" advanced in this thread so far are mysticism and not psychology or any other kind of science.

If you want to talk about it rationally, you need to acknowledge the fact that there are psychological differences between men and women. And that these differences mean there is a particular dynamic and process by which they interact and get to know eachother, including how a woman comes to experience romantic feelings.

"Differences"? You provide evidence for a specific difference and then we can discuss that specific difference. But we cannot admit that the fact that there are two genders means that either 1) all genders therefore necessarily share specific psychologies when it comes to romance or anything else or that 2) Kevin Delaney, or anyone else here posting, has any clue as to what they are.

Though perhaps I mistake. Maybe Delaney or someone else posting in this thread is a hermaphrodite, and is possessed of such a mastery of introspection that "he" can isolate "his" "feminine" side from "his" "masculine," and thus speak with such confidence as to what women are like introspectively as opposed to a man's experience, and what they deeply desire, and etc.

A great example of how a woman can "confound and agitate" men is Dominique Francon. What did she do when she felt powerfully attracted to Roark? She smacked his face with a tree branch...(worked like a charm).

Dominique Francon is a great example of a fictional character who, probably, is similar to some other women. And dissimilar to others.

If a man wants to create a romantic dynamic with a woman, he should learn about how a women experiences romance... Which is exactly what Kevin is trying to teach I believe. Kudos for having the courage to call it like it is.

And if a man wants to learn about how a woman experiences romance, would he be better advised to listen to Mr. Delaney? (Or whatever "he" chooses to go by, if it's true that "he" is a hermaphrodite.) Or to the women in this thread? Or, should the man in question be me, should I rely on my actual dating past with actual women and current successful marriage? Or should I be scouring the Internet for blogged advice about how I should hold down women like Francon, apparently against their will, because that's what a manly man would do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play a devil's advocate, doesn't the existence and popularity of these books suggest that this is an aspect of many women? Would you say this aspect, if it exists, is chosen or not chosen? If chosen (even in the passive sense), would you consider it healthy or not? If not, is there a healthy version?

Yes, it's definitely true of some women. I mean I read the 50 shades series myself, and enjoyed it a lot. But to generalize and say that all heterosexual women want that sort of relationship (ie: to be submissive to a dominant man) is completely inaccurate. The parts that I enjoyed from 50 shades were entirely sexual. The storyline, not so much. If you've read it, you'll know that the main character (billionare christian gray) wasn't truly confident at all, it was an act. He was wounded in his past (which is why he was into all that crazy sex stuff) and Ana had to 'fix him.' (The reason he was being dominant in the first place was because of something that happened with his mother.) So this also feeds into the stereotype that women want to fix damaged men.

I (obviously) can't speak for all women, but these books are more like soft porn than anything else. They're like a fun fantasy you can open and close, or turn on and off. Would I want a relationship like the one in 50 shades? No thank you. I wouldn't even want a relationship like Dominique's and Roark's (remember they were apart for a number of years while she married some total losers?) Yeah, I'll pass on that.

I like confidence as much as the next person.. but I don't expect perfection from anyone. (Confidence is also something that you can't just 'get more of.' It develops as you do.) Not every guy is a Christian Gray or a John Galt. Being in CS, I know plenty of geeky guys who don't have a romantic bone in their body, and they're doing just fine. My advice is that you don't mold yourself into some fake stereotype to get laid. You don't need to be overly confident, rough, rude, or anything inbetween, to get someone's attention. Maybe some women want to be total submissives. They want you to pick out their outfits, order for them at dinner, show them what to do in bed, etc. But do most women? I don't think so. I think most women are just looking for a degree of normalcy and stability in their relationships.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, I'm not interested in advancing "arguments" on this topic, nor in logically proving or demonstrating anything.

My writings can be taken, left, considered or ignored as each individual reader sees fit.

I'm happy to participate in friendly discussion about these ideas, but I will not engage in debates.

Also, I have not used the word "submissive" to describe a woman's position relative to man in a romantic relationship. It isn't my style, and it lends itself to certain implications which are not at all what I intend to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At minimum you'd provide anecdotes, ideally you'd have studies to back it up, with science explaining brain chemistry, along with any other up-to-date information available. If there's room for speculation or uncertainty, those caveats would be noted.

You did specify heterosexual relationships, but other than that, you haven't even tried to support your assertions concerning "every" woman. Why would anyone believe you or take any interest unless they've at least had some personal experience as a small base from which to draw that meshes with what you're saying?

Edited by JASKN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I don't believe that every discussion needs to be a "debate." And I think it's fine to simply offer ideas for consideration. But when a person makes claims about what they believe to be true, they should certainly expect, yes, calls for "evidence, "arguments," "proof," "demonstration," etc. And should they fail to provide these things, it shouldn't be surprising if their claims are dismissed.

Furthermore, if you're making "points" without being "aware of how one 'argues'" for them, then perhaps you haven't sufficiently thought these matters through such that you should be making the claims at all. Maybe you don't know how to argue for them because they cannot, in reason, be argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on past posts, it's more likely that Kevin just wants to be ambiguous for the sake of ambiguity. I just don't get your seeming desire to keep discussions purposefully enigmatic. Just say what you mean and why you mean it, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[W]hen a person makes claims about what they believe to be true, they should certainly expect, yes, calls for "evidence, "arguments," "proof," "demonstration," etc. And should they fail to provide these things, it shouldn't be surprising if their claims are dismissed.

This is what is always boils down to. "You cannot produce evidence or proof of your claims, therefore your ideas cannot be shown to have any merit. What you are saying, therefore, need not be considered by anyone."

I have no interest in "arguing" my ideas — but some people sure seem hell-bent on arguing, in any way they can, against them.

Edited by Kevin Delaney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what is always boils down to. "You cannot produce evidence or proof of your claims, therefore your ideas cannot be shown to have any merit. What you are saying, therefore, need not be considered by anyone."

Eh... it's close to that. It's more...

You make claims yet you refuse to produce evidence or proof or even argument to support them. Your claims seem to run contrary to my experience. Your claims seem to run contrary to the experience of others in this thread, or at least so they say. There seems to be no good reason to accept your ideas, and many good reasons to reject them.

Do you think there's typically merit in people making general claims about "what men are like" or "what women are like" or for any other group, and then refusing to back those claims up, and being petulant against any request for evidence or argument? Is that what you think intellectual discussion should look like?

But look, if you want your claims to be "considered," then why not just make the case for them? Explain why you think the things you're saying are true. Respond to the arguments people will undoubtedly make against your position. And then, so long as the readership are honest, they will be forced to "consider" the things you're saying. But your current strategy of arbitrary assertion does not merit consideration.

I have no interest in "arguing" my ideas — but some people sure seem hell-bent on arguing, in any way they can, against them.

Well sure. I've seen this happen in several other threads, when people come in and make claims for God or for socialism or whatever else. Some of those folks want to "argue," but I'm sure others would be content simply sharing their ideas without being challenged. Fortunately for people who value things like truth, reason, and reality, however, we do challenge ideas. And when no defense can be provided? When the idea runs contrary to experience. Then we're right to say so.

Or look, if you'd prefer? I could just say that my opinions about your posts in this thread amount to "my ideas," and that I have no further interest in "arguing them." Would that save me from the kind of analysis you seem to disdain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

". . . dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves."

XD If you really mean heterosexual and not just any case where a female is in a romantic relationship with a male, then I admit I'm disqualified from objecting on personal grounds. However, I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure there are lots of heterosexual women who would beg to differ with you.

---------------------------------------------

"I suspect most Objectivist men think this way: that women want to be 'dominated' and 'lead' by 'strong masculine men.'"

Actually, this seems to be a minority view in what observation I've had so far, that this is something that applies to all females sans lesbians/asexuals. :)

--------------------------------------------

"A great example of how a woman can 'confound and agitate' men is Dominique Francon."

Dominique also didn't want to admit for a while early on that she was attracted to Roark, which was when she was doing these things mostly, and she was trying to destroy him and herself. Especially earlier on Dominique is a really bad example to use for healthy female psychology even if this had been a true story rather than her being made up. I know Rand her female characters regularly being involved in romantic relationships where the guy was more in charge or something like that, but I don't even think she meant for Dominique to be used as an example of good mental health, not until near the veeeeery end at least, especially not when it came to her romantic involvements.

-------------------------------------------

"I have no interest in "arguing" my ideas — but some people sure seem hell-bent on arguing, in any way they can, against them."

Of course. You've done the equivalent of write up a post on how "All gay men are child molesters and how to keep your kids away from them." You've 1) taken a group with non-voluntary participation which has historically been looked down on and treated badly just due to membership in that group and assumptions about that whole group and sometimes still is, then 2) taken a charge against them of doing or wanting something they highly disapprove of and which they have been faced with numerous times before, then 3) provide no evidence, 4) accept no exceptions 5) ignore data that runs contrary to what you claim, and 6) encourage people to treat members of this group differently in accordance with what you've claimed about them.

This is something you should expect to not be allowed to slide quietly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychology is not mysticism, but the "arguments" advanced in this thread so far are mysticism and not psychology or any other kind of science.

Kevin isn't trying to sell himself as a scientist. Never seen him call himself that once.

That doesn't make him a mystic though. Not unless you're a mystic too, for failing to apply scientific standards to your posts.

I think there's plenty of logic behind, and evidence for, what he is saying. Most of it of the obvious variety, and pointless to explain to people who are only interested in getting offended by the suggestion that women aren't exactly like men in every conceivable way.

Perhaps if such people got out of the threads he's starting on the subject instead of repeating the same illogical points over and over again, he'd get around to discussing some of his ideas in detail.

You make claims yet you refuse to produce evidence or proof or even argument to support them.

Just because someone doesn't respond to a specific criticism, doesn't mean he can't and that the critic is therefor right. Could be that he just doesn't want to respond, because the criticism sucks too much to be worth it.

Your claims seem to run contrary to my experience. Your claims seem to run contrary to the experience of others in this thread, or at least so they say. There seems to be no good reason to accept your ideas, and many good reasons to reject them.

Way to completely miss the posts that agree with him. That takes effort.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Most of it of the obvious variety, and pointless to explain to people who are only interested in getting offended by the suggestion that women aren't exactly like men in every conceivable way."

This I see way too often for my liking around here, people refusing to explain or provide evidence because it's just "obvious" and implying or outright stating that anybody who has to ask is just stupid and/or immoral and beneath your requirements for considering meeting their requests. I'm half tempted to suggest this place get a new rule banning the word "obvious." :dough:

I don't deny there being ANY differences, including mental ones, between males and females, I just know for darned sure he's wrong on this one. I'm aware of and not looking to dispute brain scans showing different distributions of white and gray matter in male versus female brains, I'm also aware that females and males do better with different kinds of directions if you want them to get from point A to point B, I'm not contesting either that for males visuals are more important to arousal than they are for females, et cetera. Aside from that, what we've said is what one needs to address, not why we said it. If one doesn't respond to criticism though and nobody else does so either then there's no cause for anybody to change their mind and stop seeing these threads as a bunch of junk.

"Way to completely miss the posts that agree with him. That takes effort."

It doesn't say that nobody agreed with Kevin. He's making a statement that he claims applies to everybody in a certain category, so anybody in that group that it doesn't apply to meansthe original statement is at least flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin isn't trying to sell himself as a scientist. Never seen him call himself that once.

Nor did I accuse him of trying to sell himself as a scientist. I said that his arguments are not scientific in nature. Do you disagree?

That doesn't make him a mystic though. Not unless you're a mystic too, for failing to apply scientific standards to your posts.

If I were to advocate for some sort of knowledge and refuse to provide evidence for it, treat it as though it's just the kind of thing you either know or not, then of course we're discussing mysticism. A person doesn't actually need to don robes and wave a wand to be a mystic.

Those actually paying attention would notice that I was initially referring to someone other than Delaney when describing their argument as mysticism. Specifically this:

That's a huge problem when discussing these things. It's incredibly difficult to explain to someone who doesn't "get it". Alot of women are unaware of it and those who are aware rarely explain it to guys. For the guys not seeing whats going on the whole concept seems alien. What you're left with is explaining your own experiences and observations, plus a few insightful women who tell it like it is. Not to mention that the whole thing is supposed to go unnoticed!

This is not to say it's wrong to question the idea, it's just that the nature of it makes it a very tough debate.

But here, Nicky. Why don't we just proceed as Delaney and Alfa would have us do? I mean seriously, why not?

Nicky is wrong about this and many other things. It's a huge problem discussing why, though. Incredibly difficult to explain to those who don't "get it." For whose who don't see what's going on with Nicky's arguments, the whole concept seems alien. What you're left with is explaining your own experiences and observations, plus a few insightful posters who tell it like it is.

See? I just happen to know this stuff. I'm just sharing my knowledge. And no, don't bother asking me for things like "proof" or whatever; like Delaney, I wouldn't even know how to "argue" that you're wrong, and I have no interest in "arguing" it. I just know that it's true... somehow.

I think there's plenty of logic behind, and evidence for, what he is saying.

Do you? Brilliant! Why not use your valuable posting time providing that? Because that -- logic and evidence -- is really what this thread needs (what this board needs) and not what we're currently engaged in.

Most of it of the obvious variety, and pointless to explain to people who are only interested in getting offended by the suggestion that women aren't exactly like men in every conceivable way.

Oh drat. Reason and conversation fail us again.

Perhaps if such people got out of the threads he's starting on the subject instead of repeating the same illogical points over and over again, he'd get around to discussing some of his ideas in detail.

We should all just "get out of the threads" Delaney's making because he can't stand people questioning his views?

Are the "illogical points" you're referring to... the women saying that Delaney is wrong about their inner experience and desires and mannerisms?

But anyways, this is a discussion board. And if Delaney wants to put his views here, they're going to be challenged. Sure, it's true, some of the challenges he's likely to receive will be more logical, or otherwise better, than others. But that's life in the big city. Perhaps he just needs to "man up" about it. I've heard women like that.

Just because someone doesn't respond to a specific criticism, doesn't mean he can't and that the critic is therefor right. Could be that he just doesn't want to respond, because the criticism sucks too much to be worth it.

Of course that could be it, generally speaking. But I don't think it applies in this case. Actually, if you read back you'll find Delaney saying that he doesn't even know how to argue for his points, so...

Anyways, if there's ever a time and a place where I don't respond to any specific criticism you make of my posts, you may rest assured that this is the actual reason -- your criticisms just suck too much to be worth a response.

By the way, I've seen you do this forever, but here's an opportunity to correct. "Therefore" has an 'e'.

Way to completely miss the posts that agree with him. That takes effort.

You are so often a douche, Nicky. You put so much effort into your hostility and general bullheadedness that I've wondered if you're actually a troll account -- and way more effort than whatever it is you think you're accusing me of right here.

As to content, bluecherry's already handled this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to advocate for some sort of knowledge and refuse to provide evidence for it, treat it as though it's just the kind of thing you either know or not, then of course we're discussing mysticism.

I think the Earth is round (or square, or insert any shape you want here, doesn't matter whether my claim is true or not). I refuse to provide any evidence for it.

Does that mean I'm suggesting that the shape of the Earth is something we either know or not? Does it make me a mystic? Of course not. There are plenty of reasons why someone would refuse to provide you with evidence, most of them don't imply that he thinks there is no evidence.

The subject of this thread has nothing to do with mysticism. Of course Kevin thinks that women are physical beings subject to observation, and therefor all claims about women can be evaluated based on evidence. He just doesn't see it fit to provide you with evidence for some reason (I'm guessing it's because he's annoyed, that's usually the reason why I cut conversations short with people on the Internet). Mysticism is a specific thing, you can't just call anything you don't like mysticism.

And should they fail to provide these things, it shouldn't be surprising if their claims are dismissed.

I'm not surprised. I just disapprove of doing that.

His behavior (i.e. refusal to provide evidence) has no logical effect on the validity of his claims. Those claims have the same exact truth value now that he refused to provide evidence for them as they had when he first posted them.

A logical person should still evaluate those claims based not on Kevin's decision to not accommodate critics, but on pertinent facts available to him from elsewhere. There is plenty of pertinent knowledge available on this. Most of it is, however, comes from personal experience and nowhere near exact enough to be presented as definitive proof. Not without a lot of research, which a single person who isn't even a scientist, writing a blog as a hobby, can't do.

In a situation like this, your best bet is to evaluate what he's saying based on your own knowledge, and take it or leave it. Don't expect scientific studies as evidence, there aren't any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps if such people got out of the threads he's starting on the subject instead of repeating the same illogical points over and over again, he'd get around to discussing some of his ideas in detail.

He can dive right into his ideas of he wishes. He doesn't have to object to every single point, he only needs to throw in some concrete examples for the original post. That is, where have you or Kevin *seen* the type of behavior in the OP? I actually get the impression you will see it in bars a lot, but no where else. I can't say I've observed that anywhere else, except in movies.

I don't deny there being ANY differences, including mental ones, between males and females, I just know for darned sure he's wrong on this one.

Minor point thing to add to this, the science on those differences is questionable because of the methodology used, and even if the science is valid, the differences might not be all that significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so often a douche, Nicky.

I'm sarcastic a lot, sure. Not sure why that would make me "a douche" though. I think that when it comes to responding to dishonesty or stupidity, sarcasm is the least douchey option (short of ignoring it, which is what I'm gonna do now).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuff.

You've missed the most important thing of my post. So here it is again:

Do you? Brilliant! Why not use your valuable posting time providing that? Because that -- logic and evidence -- is really what this thread needs (what this board needs) and not what we're currently engaged in.

What we need here are: logic and evidence.

You lay claim to having the logic and evidence to support Delaney's claims, do you not?

If so, please let's stop wasting time and get to the heart of the matter. Just lay your logic and evidence out so we can sort this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying that I just happen to know this stuff and that people should just accept it. I was pointing out how difficult it is to navigate through a subject like this because it's based on observations from interacting with people, and what's subcommunicated. A much easier way would be to observe real world interactions and simply point out what's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also rendered difficult when the argument boils down to "to those who don't 'get it', no argument is possible; to those who do, no argument is necessary."

Strawman. I explained why these people might not “get it”, and I did not say it is beyond argument. It is only beyond argument when they dogmatically deny psychological differences between men and women, specifically the differences in how they come to experience sexual attraction/feelings of romance. I know this BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT!!! Just look at the way men and women dress differently, what the focus is on, how they accentuate certain features… this is across all cultures.

No, that doesn’t mean every woman wants the exact same thing concretely, since we can all choose our own values. However, the way in which we discover those values is the same – through testing via "dominance" games (call it whatever makes you feel comfortable) such as the way described by the OP.

In my opinion (no, I do not have a scientific study), the dominance game played between the sexes are typically played in the beginning, when the two people involved are just getting to know each other. I know this through general observation, discussion with female friends, and my own personal experience.

There is no official study that I know of. This is just something you know from observation, which involves trusting the evidence of the senses.. AKA common sense.

Psychology is not mysticism, but the "arguments" advanced in this thread so far are mysticism and not psychology or any other kind of science.

No one here is a certified psychologist/scientist (correct me if I’m wrong). But that doesn’t mean any conversation or thoughts on the subject are straight up mysticism. NO!

That is completely lazy, use your brain independently. Honestly think about the claims, then test against your own experiences (not your preconceived idea of romance) and then decide for yourself if it’s true or not. By the way, people can be wrong - that does not make their thoughts mysticism. It means that they are trying to make sense of the big picture, using what they know from personal experience and observation. A mistake means that they have missed or misjudged certain data - but the process of trying to find a pattern, finding “the one in the many” vast observations and interactions they’ve had with other people... is completely legitimate… it is not mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly think about the claims, then test against your own experiences (not your preconceived idea of romance) and then decide for yourself if it’s true or not.

Great.

I've done all of this. I've said numerous times that Delaney's claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.

I've done all of this. I've said numerous times that Delaney's claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

Have you never had a woman not call you back, suddenly change plans or stop responding? No distancing behaviours once you're starting to get close? No picking fights or jealousy plots? No creating challenges for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great.

I've done all of this. I've said numerous times that Delaney's claims run afoul of my own experiences, and others here have said the same thing. His claims are not true.

Good - I'm glad you are using your brain! That's fine to reject it. There are still many things unknown about psychology - it is not at the level of other subjects like physics or math.

But I think you owe an apology to Kevin and others in this thread of whom you've irresponsibly accused of mysticism... this is an honest discussion about the nature of men and women. No one here has asked anyone to take something on faith.

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...