Keeping Romance Simple

Psychology and Self Improvement Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
21

mdegges: Thanks for sharing the link to the Leykis audio. He and his female callers make some great points about “nice guys” — i.e, weak men who beg women for permission and approval.

Aside from his shock-jock style of presentation, Leykis’ main problem is that he holds a fundamentally cynical view of man-woman relationships.

In Leykis’ world, there are two types of men: spineless wimps and antisocial jerks. Because women can’t stand weakness or subservience in men, a man must become an abrasive “bad boy” type if his goal is to attract women.

It’s a false dichotomy. There is a third option: A mature, responsible, confident gentleman, one with the self-esteem necessary to take a strong and positive lead in a relationship.

This type of man embodies respectful, benevolent, romantic dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves.

This is the kind of man whom I write about, and whom I seek to address.

(In his broadcast, Leykis uses the word “gentleman” several times, but he lumps this type of man in with the “nice guy.”)

22

Well, this has been perfectly lovely. Men telling women – against their protest in this very thread – what they supposedly are like, what they think and feel and want and that, among other things, “romance” requires them “to confound and agitate” men.

But if a woman finds that she does not conform to this description, a way out is offered. Perhaps she simply is not a “good heterosexual woman.”

Unbelievable.

1 Like
23

Men telling women – against their protest in this very thread – what they supposedly are like, what they think and feel and want and that, among other things, “romance” requires them “to confound and agitate” men.

I suspect most Objectivist men think this way: that women want to be ‘dominated’ and ‘lead’ by ‘strong masculine men.’ Afterall, that’s exactly what Ayn Rand’s fictional relationships were like with Dagny and Galt, Kira and Leo, Dominique and Roark. These women were swept off their feet by strong, attractive, dominant men. (You’ll find the same theme in less attractive stories, ie: harlequin romances, 50 shades of grey, and a bunch of other crap you can find for under a dollar at half price books. But in these stories, unlike in Rand’s novels, the female characters are weak and needy.)

24

(You’ll find the same theme in less attractive stories, ie: harlequin romances, 50 shades of grey, and a bunch of other crap you can find for under a dollar at half price books. But in these stories, unlike in Rand’s novels, the female characters are weak and needy.)

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?

1 Like
25

Mysticism is always hard to discuss rationally.

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.

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.

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).

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.

26

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?

27

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.

1 Like
28

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.

29

If you aren’t interested in arguing, why create a new thread on a forum that is essentially a platform for arguments?

30

JASKN: I posted my article because I think that it would be of interest to those who are familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas.

I’m not aware of how one “argues” points such as those made in my article.

31

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?

32

JASKN: It is extremely crucial that a person not accept anything I say, unless it jibes in some way with their own personal experience.

“Science explaining brain chemistry”???

33

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.

34

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.

35

[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.

36

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?

37

DonAthos, please reject every single one of my ideas, I implore you.

38

“. . . 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. :slight_smile:

“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.

1 Like
39

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.

40

“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.