Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Free Capitalist

Split: From Beauty

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The need to joke about something as serious as dating is most often an indicator of insecurity, and independent heroes are not insecure. Every woman here probably cringed, sighed, or chuckled when they read that last reply.
Umm, that is one enormously flawed piece of psychologizing. It's not over don's comment that I cringed, but over that pair of sentences. :confused: Edited by Free Capitalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, that is one enormously flawed piece of psychologizing. It's not over don's comment that I cringed, but over that pair of sentences. :dough:

Giving your reasoning would be nice, if not helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The need to joke about something as serious as dating
So nothing at all in relationship with dating can ever be made funny? That's ridiculous. Should there be no jokes about jobs, about sex, about one's pets? Should there never be jokes about anything one values? What kind of planet are we living on here?

is most often an indicator of insecurity
Where the heck does that come from? Even if we assume it is wrong to make jokes about relationships, what possible relationship can that have with insecurity? If he's saying that a joke about everything at all is wrong, then surely joking about everything is a mark of insecurity? Or what makes joking about relationships different? What possible basis can such a claim have?

Let's keep going with this very condensed treasure trove of errors:

independent heroes are not insecure
So being insecure is now a crime? Certainly it's not something to seek, but most everyone is insecure in at least some fashion, so it is certainly not a terribly huge point on which to condemn someone. Furthermore, what the heck do heroes have to do with any of this?

And finally, he says this:

Every woman here probably cringed, sighed, or chuckled when they read that last reply.
Contrary to TomL's assumption, women respond to sincerity, not repression. There was nothing but sincerity in dondigitalia's post.

Moderator: Edited to remove personal attacks.

Edited by TomL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So nothing at all in relationship with dating can ever be made funny? That's ridiculous. Should there be no jokes about jobs, about sex, about one's pets? Should there never be jokes about anything one values? What kind of planet are we living on here?

I think his statement needs to be viewed in a certain context, like the one Dondigitalia was posting in. I think if the joke is UNQUESTIONABLY DETRIMENTAL to one's own values, or one's self, then yes, it is inappropriate.

Let me put it another way: you need to be serious about relationships, and you need to be serious about joking about relationships.

I think the rest of your post follows on from the false assumption about what TomL's statement meant and implied. If I need to clarify further let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Umm, that is one enormously flawed piece of psychologizing. It's not over don's comment that I cringed, but over that pair of sentences. :dough:

Let's go over again, shall we, what constitutes psychologizing, and then I will show you how my statement is not psychologizing.

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence.
From The Voice of Reason pg. 24

In my statement I said that he was self-deprecating and consequently insecure. In this instance, the factual evidence we have is his statement:

Much to all you ladies' chagrin (j/k)

The first part of that statement says that it is the women's loss that he will be unavailable to them. Then, by saying "just kidding", he means that it is NOT the women's loss. If it is not their loss, then what alternatives do we have? It says to the women: I am not really someone who you would be chagrined not to be able to date. It says that he does not consider himself a proper valuer.

Women seek secure, stable men of self-esteem -- even in general i.e. not just among Objectivists. In general, the #1 quality of a man that women seek is "confidence". Confidence for a man means a man of self-esteem, one who is independent to the point of needing no one, and who can live on his own with no outside help from others whatsoever.

Such a man would never make such an obviously self-deprecating remark about himself. I would never, ever make this "joke".

My final point here will be that in a romantic relationship, the woman is the value being gained-kept. With that premise in mind -- what woman wants to be at the butt of someone's self-deprecating joke? A woman in a fullfulling romantic relationship is the most valuable thing a man can possess next to his own values: more valuable than gold, diamonds, or any amount of money, because those things cannot reflect his values, his world-view, or know his character -- and look up to it.

There is a proper time and place for humor. Inanimate objects cannot feel belittled by jokes made about them -- but women can.

If there is any woman here who does NOT think that dondigitalia's joke was self-deprecating and indicitive of some level of insecurity, please speak up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is any woman here who does NOT think that dondigitalia's joke was self-deprecating and indicitive of some level of insecurity, please speak up.
Here I am, speaking up!

Frankly, if a man ever *seriously* said that he was -- unfortunately for me -- unavailable for romance, I'd forever think him insufferably presumptous and disrespectful.

Such a comment would imply that I *ought* to want him -- as if he knows all about me already OR as if (claim to) virtue is sufficient for a good romantic relationship OR as if my own perferences in a romantic partner are illegitimate or unimportant.

It would also fail to respect the very, very important fact that I am already married -- and happily so, I might add! It suggests that I'd be willing to either leave my husband or commit adultery... if only this fabulous man (according to him) were available. Once I get done laughing at that stupidity, I'll be insulted.

In contrast, for a man to joke about such matters suggests to me that he recognizes that a serious comment to that effect would be insufferably presumptous and disrespectful. He would be making fun of men who do make such comments. (And yes, I've run into a few, all Objectivists, sadly.) Since I value a good sense of humor, that would be a virtue in my book, albeit a very small one.

For the record, I do not regard all self-deprecating humor as illegitimate. If I made fun of my virtues or values, that would be wrong. If I made fun of my vices as a way of deceiving myself about their seriousness, that would be wrong. But to make fun of my own silly, insignificant habits -- like the way that I have wholly invented conversations with my cats or sing terribly off-key songs about my dogs in the shower -- is certainly no vice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would also fail to respect the very, very important fact that I am already married -- and happily so, I might add!  It suggests that I'd be willing to either leave my husband or commit adultery... if only this fabulous man (according to him) were available.  Once I get done laughing at that stupidity, I'll be insulted.

I got the impression that his comment was only directed at single women. I thought that would go without saying. But who knows, maybe it was targeted ONLY at the married women? If you're going to assume he's that audacious, why not go all out on that line of thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First point:

Now that I come to think of it, was he being serious with his joke? If he had left it without the "j/k" We would have no way of knowing. The humour lies not in the truth or falsehood behind what he was saying, but the fact that he can unafraidly say it. But by then following up by clarifying that it is a joke - well, then his meaning is unmistakable - he is conveying uncertainty, the fear that he might be misinterpreted. The ultimate expression of the "non-JK" version is: "I'm sure of myself, and my reality, and I'll leave it to you to make of that what you will." The alternate, actual version is: "I just said something flip and I need to cover my [rear] in case it goes wrong, because I can't stand being unsure of what the reader will think of me. This way no one could think anything unnice about me while I take this otherwise huge risk of a joke."

Second point:

Frankly, if a man ever *seriously* said that he was -- unfortunately for me -- unavailable for romance, I'd forever think him insufferably presumptous and disrespectful.

Such a comment would imply that I *ought* to want him

No, it merely says that he is (considering himself to be) a high value (by his standards, as he goes by no other), and that you're missing out on that.

That's not presuming, that is self appreciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But to make fun of my own silly, insignificant habits -- like the way that I have wholly invented conversations with my cats or sing terribly off-key songs about my dogs in the shower -- is certainly no vice.

Fine. But the original comment in which he used :dough: wasn't a silly, insignificant habit. If it is, then she ought to be insulted, just as you would be if he had been serious with the "chagrined" comment.

The context in which the joke was made is important. He did in fact make an advance without knowing anything about her other than what her picture looks like. He did in fact acknowledge his error with "foiled again!", which is humorous itself and lets him off the hook without anything further. Given all that, they why the further "chagrined" comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He did in fact acknowledge his error with "foiled again!", which is humorous itself and lets him off the hook without anything further.  Given all that, they why the further "chagrined" comment?

It lets him off the hook... again.

EDIT: Typo correction.

Edited by iouswuoibev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try approaching this from a different angle. Instead of being assuming about personality, let's make the joke more physical.

"No man has man boobs as manly as mine."

Is this insufferably presumptious and disrespectful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to Free Capitalist's assumptions, my intent was not to condemn dondigitalia. My intent actually was to help him, and others reading this. I hope that he understands this, even if others don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contrary to Free Capitalist's assumptions, my intent was not to condemn dondigitalia.  My intent actually was to help him, and others reading this.  I hope that he understands this, even if others don't.

If it is true that he is in need of help, he may be squirming in his seat as you scrutinize and speculate about him (though it may also help him simultaneously). I don't think that's true, but I think anyone with even a small dash of insecurity will feel at least a little miffed at being the centre of a public discussion where an insecurity about him is being implied. I know I would.

With that in mind, shall we continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So nothing at all in relationship with dating can ever be made funny?

Only if one seeks the kind of relationship that would be the target of jokes.

Or what makes joking about relationships different? What possible basis can such a claim have?
What gives proper equivocation between romance and slap-stick comedy? Either women have to be inaminate objects, or at the very least unworthy of being valued. Pick your poison, and swallow.

So being insecure is now a crime?

Holy context dropping, Batman! Being insecure and seeking a romantic relationship is immoral.

Furthermore, what the heck do heroes have to do with any of this?
For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man.

From Lexicon pg. 166

There was nothing but sincerity in dondigitalia's post.

There was self-deprecation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like the idea of splitting tangential discussions into their own thread, would it be possible to include a bit more context when doing so (such as a few of the posts which led up to the split)? It's hard to evaluate TomG's comment, and to understand this thread, without knowing what he was replying to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TO SET THE STAGE:

Dond says this after Liberty says she's learned how to beautify herself despite lack of finances.

Judging by your picture, you're doing a good job, too! :wub:

Felipe agrees with Dond's comment above having seeing her in person, to which Dond replies:

Foiled again! :angry: 

Then Pony Girl steps in and quotes Dond saying all these things, telling him that's no way to hit on girls.

To which Dond replies:

I didn't really intend it as such - just a compliment.

Much to all you ladies' chagrin (j/k), I don't really do the online dating thing.

And bam, somehow we are overanalyzing such trifling comments.

Dond's little :wub: can't be, with certainty, interpreted as a "hit" on Liberty--especially on the internet in conjunction with what he said (if this was "real life," then we'd have facial and body language to go off as well, but we DON'T). If anything, it was merely showing physical attaction to the picture he saw. For all anyone knows (or I should say for those don't know Liberty outside the internet), that's not even her.

Now I'm not sure what he meant by "foiled again," other than maybe he didn't believe she was really that beautiful; but nonetheless, I won't try to interpret it further b/c there's nothing to really go off of.

As to his "chagrin" and "j/k" comment, he's simply JOKING about the fact that he's too good for any of the ladies on this board, which I find unequivocally funny in the way he stated this. And, in conclusion, I really doubt he does do the online dating thing, which adds to his joking manner knowing that he doesn't take it seriously.

Then, by saying "just kidding", he means that it is NOT the women's loss...It says that he does not consider himself a proper valuer.

I disagree. He's simply saying that girl's may or may not want to date him, what's wrong with that? In no way can we interpret his comment as a way of saying that's he's worthless of any women. (and this was made in relation to ONLINE dating, to which he seems to differentiate b/t that and non-online dating)

Why do I find the "chagrin and j/k" part funny? B/c for many women, they know nothing of Dond to even be attracted to him. It would be equivalent to a new member posting for the first time saying, "Much to the ladies' chagrins"etc.

Being insecure and seeking a romantic relationship is immoral.

How do you define insecurity?

For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship -- the desire to look up to man.

Where can anyone prove this? How did Ayn Rand substantiate this statement? Does the essence of femininity pertain only to women? If not, why the differentiation? Is it possible for men to have this quality? Does "the feminine" only pertain to women?

Also, what's the masculine? Is the masculine simply one to which a women can look up to?

Edited for the top addition: "TO SET THE STAGE"

Edited by Nxixcxk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I'm really sorry I said anything. I had no desire to start this kind of an argument. I think everything's been said that needs to be on the subject. The two opposing view points are clear, and only dondigitalia knows what he really meant. I'll leave it to him at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TO SET THE STAGE:

Where can anyone prove this? How did Ayn Rand substantiate this statement?

Edited for the top addition: "TO SET THE STAGE"

Yes, Ayn Rand did say exactly that, in "Answer to Readers (About a Woman President)" in The Objectivist. You can also find an excerpt on page 166 of the Lexicon.

As an Objectivist woman who frequently receives the same kind of comments as LibertyK, I can also say that when I read the series of posts, I chuckled, rolled my eyes, and sighed - exactly what Tom said. See my post in the "Dating - Any Objective Guidelines?" thread on pursuing women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holy context dropping, Batman!  Being insecure and seeking a romantic relationship is immoral.

When I was in college, I had some mild acne problems. As a result, I was insecure about my appearance. Was it IMMORAL for me to date because of that?

If so: Holy Acontextual Rationalistic Deduction, Batman!

If not: Holy Absurd Overbroad Generalization, Batman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it merely says that he is (considering himself to be) a high value (by his standards, as he goes by no other), and that you're missing out on that.

That's not presuming, that is self appreciation.

It *is* presumptuous. Without knowing me (or any of the many other women toward whom such a comment is directed), such a man claims that he would be of value to me (and them) -- of romantic value, no less. That's false: a person is not a good romantic partner solely in virtue of being a virtuous Objectivist. As such, it shows a serious disrespect for the legitimate optional values of every woman in earshot. It tells her that she -- who she is and what she wants in a man -- is not important to him. He's some kind of acontextual value to all women.

In any case, a truly self-confident man has no need to publicly declare his personal value to strangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Contrary to Free Capitalist's assumptions, my intent was not to condemn dondigitalia.  My intent actually was to help him, and others reading this.  I hope that he understands this, even if others don't.

Whatever your intentions, publicly castigating him in such a fashion was highly inappropriate. Since you don't know him, you have neither the requisite knowledge nor the standing to offer such personal criticisms. And to offer your analysis publicly rather than privately was cruel and embarassing (if right) and unjust and defamatory (if wrong). If I were dondigitalia, I'd be furious.

Oh, and you quoted me totally out of context in saying that "the original comment in which he used wub.gif wasn't a silly, insignificant habit." I never said that; my reference to silly habits concerned a general point about legitimate self-deprecating humor. My analysis of the legitimacy of the joke in question was just above that aside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here I am, speaking up!

And I too, am speaking up. I agree with everything Diana said, so I won't go too into detail as it seems this is a bit out of proportion in scale at this point, but I am glad Free Capitalist brought this up and started the thread because when I read TomL's comments I thought it was wholly rude and would have said so myself but decided to not get involved and let don handle his own battle if he so chose. Being that there is a thread now though I must voice my opinion.

I saw nothing in don's post to make me roll my eyes or cringe, but TomL's post certainly made me not just cringe but recoil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever your intentions, publicly castigating him in such a fashion was highly inappropriate.  Since you don't know him, you have neither the requisite knowledge nor the standing to offer such personal criticisms.  And to offer your analysis publicly rather than privately was cruel and embarassing (if right) and unjust and defamatory (if wrong).  If I were dondigitalia, I'd be furious. 

Absolutely.

I have nothing to add but a strong *second* to that statement right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was in college, I had some mild acne problems.  As a result, I was insecure about my appearance.  Was it IMMORAL for me to date because of that?

Of course it is not. It was an oversight on my part to think that everyone would know that I did not mean insecurity in any sense imaginable. I meant "insecure" in regard to the efficacy with which one lives.

My post was not intended to publicly castigate him personally, but the implicit ideas behind his statements. I publicly apolgize to him for any misunderstanding about the nature of my replies.

I do not think I took your quote out of context. You were saying that self-deprecating humor was appropriate and under what circumstances, with the possible implication that this may have been such a time. I wanted to refute that.

We do, however, agree that a truly self-confident man has no need to publicly declare his personal value to strangers. I wouldn't do that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I publicly apolgize to him for any misunderstanding about the nature of my replies.

I think that's appropriate. If I was you I would PM him also if you haven't already.

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...