Objectivist significant others

[Cogito]

Who here has an O'ist significant other? If you do, how did you meet? If you do (or even if you don't), would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

[Ifat Glassman]

would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

I did. I figured that good people who are not familiar with Objectivism must exist, so I gave it a shot.

Dated someone from my university...

We talked for a while before the date, the guy had a definite interest in philosophy, was atheist, smart, he did hold some very wrong philosophic ideas (that good and bad are subjective, and justice determined by laws) but I thought "naa, he couldnt possibly believe that. He must be living by his own convictions but just came to wrong philosophic conclusion. That's not a big problem, ideas can change. I know I have changed my ideas".

Turns out that his ideas composed his sense of life. Guy was a nihilist. Amazing what the idea of subjective good and bad can do to a man (From what I saw it caused him to look at his emotions as insignificant, since they were only a result of a subjective view of the world). The enthusiasm I thought I sensed in conversations must have only been because it was related to me.

Most of the date was about discussing the origin of good and evil. Was pretty cruppy because I have problems with this subject as well. Went back home feeling like shit. I was just glad to be out of there.

Food was good though.

Next: Had one date with this really smart dude whose ideal woman is a chubby tramp who would sleep with everyone. He had this idea that since sex is enjoyable it should be shared with everybody, at every possible chance. (Blah!).

After those two events I understood that intelligence, is definitely not <--> with good character.

However, I would still agree to date someone not Objectivist (not familiar with Objectivism, not someone who knows and rejected it). But I can't see myself with someone who does not accept basic principles of Objectivism (as the most basic demand).

Dating should be fun, however, I learn very fast what I like and what I don't like, so it kind of ruins possible dates for me. If I would only learn by the second date that I don't like someone, then I could have more first dates .

Anyway, why do you ask Cogito?

[Cogito]

Anyway, why do you ask Cogito?

Just wondering, really. My current girlfriend isn't an Objectivist, implicitly or explicitly, and it sometimes gets very frustrating (anyone remember that thread I posted about being frustrated after seeing Blood Diamond with a good friend? That was her). I do think a lot of her error stems from lack of knowledge as opposed to outright evasion (although that might be the optimist in me), and am considering at some point exchanging a book swap, where she gives me one of her favorite books to read and I give her one of mine. Having never met an Objectivist besides myself, I've never really had a chance to date one, but I do think it would make a big difference in the nature of the relationship. This is not to say that I'm unhappy with my current relationship; on the contrary, I'm extremely happy. It's just that I'm wondering what it would be like to not have a debate on global warming or whether or not values are objective all the time.

[IAmMetaphysical]

My GF and I discovered O'ism together so I met her when she and I were not, but we definately shared a pretty rational sense of life before that. It is amazing and it illustrates the idea that "there are no coflicts of interests among rational men" in that we hardly ever have any type of arguments. My previous relationship was the exact opposite and I had no idea an alternative existed.

[KevinD]

Here we go again. . . .

This is not to say that I'm unhappy with my current relationship; on the contrary, I'm extremely happy. It's just that I'm wondering what it would be like to not have a debate on global warming or whether or not values are objective all the time.

If your relationship is otherwise good, why are you even discussing these irrelevant, hot-button topics with her? Can't you both agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

[Cogito]

If your relationship is otherwise good, why are you even discussing these irrelevant, hot-button topics with her? Can't you both agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

We've since called a cease-fire on a lot of these topics, but we both really enjoy a good intellectual conversation. It really only gets frustrating when I don't have the time or the ability to fully articulate my position.

[Inspector]

Who here has an O'ist significant other? If you do, how did you meet? If you do (or even if you don't), would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

My wife and I are both Objectivists. We met at work. After driving each other positively up the wall with flirting, we went out on a date.

She was not an Objectivist at the time, but I knew right away that she would take to the ideas like a fish to water. The first few dates were like interviews: I wanted to know what she thought about anything and everything. I was looking for her sense of life, her character, her level of honesty, her sense of justice, her personality. I liked what I saw. We talked for hours and hours. It was a lot of fun. It was so exciting!

On the second date, I asked questions about ethics, politics, etc. When she gave conventional, altruist-influenced answers, I would ask questions like, "have you considered that the government forces people to..." and she would say "no." I smiled and asked, "does that change your answer?" to which she replied, "why, yes!"

I made sure that every moment of it was fun. I was never angry, condescending, or demeaning, or even frustrated about it. My approach and answers were as patient as they were thoughtful. I would merely present angles on things that she hadn't considered before. After a few questions, she started asking me what my philosophy was. So I explained it to her. She was positively intruiged. I made it very clear how important and personal this philosophy of Objectivism was to me and how it was part of the package that was "me." And she liked every part of that package: she had been looking desparately all of her life for a man like me. (and I a girl like her!) If those ideas were a part of a man like me, then that was all the more reason to be interested in those ideas. She also loved my passion for it; how seriously I take it.

So over time, I taught her the philosophy. I have an excellant speaking voice and narrative skill, so in addition to all the standard dating stuff, we had picnics in the park where I read aloud to her under the warm summer sun.

I still grin from ear to ear when I think of that time; (well, okay, any time I think of her I grin like that) it was a very wonderful experience that I will never forget.

The rest, as they say, is history.

This is how it worked for me. I'm a bit of an intellectual (perhaps some day I will be paid for it).

Is that what you wanted to know, Cogito?

[Scott_Connery]

My wife and I met before either of us were Objectivists. I read Atlas Shrugged at her suggestion, and then eventually got her to read it too. We became Objectivists fairly quickly after that. I

can't imagine being in a serious relationship with someone who wasn't at least very recptive to Objectivism and interested in learning more. I take my ideas very passionately and seriously, and I am sure I would end up in fights all the time with someone who wasn't an Objectivist, and what sort of relationship would that be?

[Cogito]

I read Atlas Shrugged at her suggestion, and then eventually got her to read it too.

She suggested it without reading it? Why?

[Mimpy]

If you do (or even if you don't), would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

I've dated guys that weren't Objectivists. I'm currently single, so it's obvious that those relationships did not work out. I wouldn't be opposed to dating guys who weren't Objectivists, though. I could never pursue a serious relationship with them if they did not hold the same values as I, but I'd definitely be willing to learn more about them and share what I believe. If we were diametrically opposite, I think a couple dates would be enough to figure it out.

Edited February 7, 2007 by Mimpy

[Scott_Connery]

She suggested it without reading it? Why?

I think someone had suggested it to her, but she was too busy to read it.

[stellavision]

Here we go again. . . .

If your relationship is otherwise good, why are you even discussing these irrelevant, hot-button topics with her? Can't you both agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

Because they aren't irrelevant, not in the long run. If your partner is the type to argue for a belief that flies in the face of evidence, say global warming or the existence of a god, and especially if your partner is not willing to reconsider the issue when presented with facts that contradict her stance, who's to say that such emotionalist thinking will not pervade other aspects of her life -- and thereby your life together? Today it's global warming, tomorrow it could be, "I know you've shown me that we don't have any extra money right now, but we HAVE to bail my brother out of his credit card debt because he's my brotherrrrrrrrrrr!" etc.

To answer the original question, I was not an Oist when I met my boyfriend of 3.5 years. He was. As he says, I was not a difficult convert -- precisely because, while I held some flawed ideas, I was willing to talk about them with him, and (this is key) I already applied reason in most areas of my life, there was not too much emotionalism to root out. As Inspector describes, when my boyfriend (always gently, always politely) pointed out facts that contradicted my position, I rethought how I had gotten to that position in the first place, realized that I was wrong, and gradually came to embrace Objectivist ideas.

So, would I date a non-Oist? No, because I'm not going to let go of the one I have. But if I were to be single again, I would consider a non-Oist man if I thought he was basically rational. Not if I could see that there was a lot of irrationalism to have to deal with, though.

[kufa]

I do think a lot of her error stems from lack of knowledge as opposed to outright evasion (although that might be the optimist in me), and am considering at some point exchanging a book swap, where she gives me one of her favorite books to read and I give her one of mine.

I did this with a guy I was interested in. He gave me some crap by kurt vonnegut with huge undertones about meaningless existence, while I gave him atlas shrugged. We did this in october and he still hasn't finished it. He definately is intelectuall, but it turned out that he was just as flaky.

[softwareNerd]

Cogito, I think you might find a couple of earlier thread on a related topic: "Marrying Non-Objectivists" and "Relationships with Religious People". They're long and contentious thread, but worth a read if you want to think this topic through.

In the first post you speak specifically about dating. In general, I cannot think for any reason why one would limit oneself to dating Objectivists, though I can imagine it could be relevant to someone in some contexts.

Edited February 8, 2007 by softwareNerd
Removed personal remark made in reference to deleted post

[MisterSwig]

Who here has an O'ist significant other? If you do, how did you meet? If you do (or even if you don't), would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

I met my girlfriend at work. She was sort of Christian when we met, and I converted her to Objectivism.

I wholeheartedly endorse dating people who are not Objectivists, as long as they don't regularly attend church or regularly lament the destruction of the ozone layer. If you are dating someone who does both, then I suggest ending it now, before you do something you will regret.

Edited February 8, 2007 by MisterSwig

[realitycheck44]

I did this with a guy I was interested in. He gave me some crap by kurt vonnegut with huge undertones about meaningless existence, while I gave him atlas shrugged. We did this in october and he still hasn't finished it. He definately is intelectuall, but it turned out that he was just as flaky.

I'm sorry to say this, kufa, but you're probably going to have to get used to this. Of the 6 or so friends of mine that I've given either AS or TF to, only one (to my knowledge) has actually finished. (I don't know how many of the others actually started.) Anyway, don't hold your breath- if you do, you'd better like the color blue.

[Inspector]

To be explicit, I also wholeheartedly endorse dating non-Objectivists, but with the caveat that you understand this must be a temporary state. You must be very clear how important and personal Objectivism is to you and how it is part of the package that is "you." And I agree with Misterswig that if they regularly attend church or regularly lament the destruction of the ozone layer, it's probably not a good idea.

[JennA]

...

She was not an Objectivist at the time, but I knew right away that she would take to the ideas like a fish to water. The first few dates were like interviews: I wanted to know what she thought about anything and everything. I was looking for her sense of life, her character, her level of honesty, her sense of justice, her personality. I liked what I saw. We talked for hours and hours. It was a lot of fun. It was so exciting!

...

It sounds like you have a very happy marriage, Inspector--which is wonderful. I have to take issue with this part of what you wrote though. Any time I have been on a date that seemed like an interview, the date was the complete opposite of fun.

I enjoy being asked about my beliefs and talking about the things I enjoy, but not in the style of an "interview".

What if you find out you aren't really right for each other? Then the date will seem pointless. If you are just going out to have an enjoyable time with someone new, it should still be fun and seem worthwhile, even if it doesn't lead to more.

[Inspector]

I enjoy being asked about my beliefs and talking about the things I enjoy, but not in the style of an "interview".

What if you find out you aren't really right for each other? Then the date will seem pointless. If you are just going out to have an enjoyable time with someone new, it should still be fun and seem worthwhile, even if it doesn't lead to more.

My purpose in dating was to find a soulmate. If we weren't right for each other, then the date would indeed be pointless (and if the date is pointless, then of course it would also seem pointless!). I wanted to find this out as soon as possible, so that I wouldn't be wasting my time or building up false hope, from which I would eventually have to come down. It's a very honest way to go about things, which I recommend. Why would you want it to seem worthwhile if it isn't in fact worthwhile? What value is there in kidding yourself? What value is there to be gained by holding false hope about someone by not seeking to know their character and values? None I say! Life is too short!

As to it being fun, well, if you are compatable then it will be great fun! Maybe interview is a tricky word to use, because it sounds so formal; it wasn't that I had a desk with a nametag or something... just that I was finding out all that I could about her. I didn't mean it was dry and dull like an interview; quite the opposite: I was so exited that after I went home I literally jumped for joy and danced around the room! I can see how that could be confusing so I'm sorry if I implied the wrong thing.

[softwareNerd]

I realise I didn't answer the original question in my previous post...

Who here has an O'ist significant other? If you do, how did you meet? If you do (or even if you don't), would you date someone who wasn't O'ist?

I don't remember if my wife had even read any of Rand's novels when I first met her. In the context of the time and place, it never struck me to look for an Objectivist. We worked together, and I was impressed by her "work-ethic" and maturity; but, I confess, that my predominant thought was that there were flecks of laughter sparkling in her eyes (to put it in philosophic terms ). That was more than enough to date and to build a serious friendship.

If I were to speculate and imagine myself being at that age in today and living in the US, I'm pretty sure I'd spend a little more time thinking along the lines of where one could meet girls who're interested in Objectivism. However, that would not be the only place I'd be looking. Also, if -- in that imaginary context -- I were to meet my (now) wife, I would do exactly what I did before.

[backformystuff]

Being a gay Objectivist presents sort of a double-whammy: in addition to living in an irrational society, a gay person is usually subject to the irrationality of the gay sub-culture as well.

Fortunately, I have found a rational, intelligent (although not Objectivist) guy, whom I've been dating for about 7 months now. I think if you find and admire genuine values in another person, they needn't be an Objectivist for you to have a romantic relationship with them.

[Dorian]

I had hope with my last girlfriend. Too much hope, we were together for over a year.

She claimed herself to be a catholic, but that she did not practice. My first warning sign was that she said she would like to go back. I shrugged it off after talking to her a long time about the issues of Catholicism, she claimed to agree. I talked to her a long time on why I'm agnostic (weighted towards atheism) and she claimed to agree.

After dating a while I asked her to read the Fountainhead. She has read tons of books, very thick and boring books, but she could not finish the Fountainhead. That was my second warning. I shrugged it off.

Shortly after that she started despising me. Calling me cold, heartless, and unemotional. She started having lots of break downs. Talking about how she was never getting anywhere in life, she expected to be born with talent. I told her people are not born with talent, they learn it. It didn't seem to help her.

She started talking about going back to Church more frequently. We started arguing constantly. Eventually this resulted in us separating.

So I've decided to never date a religious person. I'd rather be lonely than be with someone who I pity and makes me feel miserable.

Edited March 3, 2007 by Dorian

[Inspector]

I talked to her a long time on why I'm agnostic (weighted towards atheism) and she claimed to agree.

Dorian,

Just so you know, Objectivism is completely athiest and not just agnostic.

[url=http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=3330&pid=102708&st=220&#entry102708]here is a topic on it.

I think you'll find that once you hear the Objectivist position you'll feel a lot more certain on it.

The best explanation is in OPAR, if you can get ahold of it.

And sorry to hear about your ex. But I've seen that is pretty much to be expected with religious people, unfortunately.

I think if you find and admire genuine values in another person, they needn't be an Objectivist for you to have a romantic relationship with them.

Peter, it depends on what you mean by that. As I said:

...I also wholeheartedly endorse dating non-Objectivists, but with the caveat that you understand this must be a temporary state. You must be very clear how important and personal Objectivism is to you and how it is part of the package that is "you." And I agree with Misterswig that if they regularly attend church or regularly lament the destruction of the ozone layer, it's probably not a good idea.

(bold added)

It's perfectly fine to start dating a non-Objectivist, but I do not think it will work in the long run unless they become one. Not if you take ideas seriously (and to be an Objectivist, you have to) I appreciate the fact that, since you're gay you have a lot smaller dating pool, but that won't change the reality of this fact. Wishing won't make it so, no matter how unfortunate your juxtaposition, so it is in your self-interest (and the interest of your relationship) to bear this in mind.

[Ramare]

I have and will continue to date non-Objectivist men. In fact, I’d almost go so far as to say I prefer it, given the general selection of Objectivists.

The large majority of Objectivist men I’ve met (of which there are many) are both repressed and rationalistic. They have a lot of trouble knowing how to treat a woman in the context of romance.

In addition, many of them have the idea that Objectivism is all or even most of what matters. They are looking for their “Dagny,” and as soon as a reasonably attractive Objectivist woman walks into their lives, they want to take her out—regardless of what her personality and interests are. If things like dancing in goth clubs, talking dirty, and bondage make you uncomfortable, most likely you’re not going to be romantically compatible with a girl who likes those things—no matter how long she’s been an Objectivist.

There are a huge number of things that can/should be a priority in a relationship (is he a cat person? does he like Asian food? does he wake up at five AM to play golf on weekends when I want to sleep in with him?), and what those things are can, quite rationally, be different for everyone. I think you should figure out whether you think he or she is honest (in the full sense of the word); aside from that, go with what you like. There are a lot of great people in the world who’ve never heard of Ayn Rand (and a lot of “Objectivists” who are really horrible people . . . but that’s another topic). Don’t forget that romantic relationships are about feeling good—the icing on the cake of your life, so to speak.

Just as a sidenote: My two most down-to-earth male Objectivist friends are both in long-term relationships (one is married) with non-Objectivist women. I think part of the reason they are both successful relationships is that the guys respect their women and don’t go around trying to change them.

[aequalsa]

I have and will continue to date non-Objectivist men. In fact, I’d almost go so far as to say I prefer it, given the general selection of Objectivists.

Yeah...I'm sorta the same way. I don't date objectivist women because they are mostly fat, ugly and butch. I prefer dainty christian women in their sunday dresses.