Secondhander, thank you for two fantastic posts. You have perfectly summed up everything I feel about dating and relationships but have been unable to adequately express. Great work.
Secondhander, thank you for two fantastic posts. You have perfectly summed up everything I feel about dating and relationships but have been unable to adequately express. Great work.
Thank you! This is not the only topic I’m interested in, I swear. 
But it is an important topic to me; one that I’ve given a lot of thought to, and these are principles and ideas that I have lived and know they’re true (but of course I’m not fallible, and you may find details here or there where you think I’m wrong. Of course, in all things, use your rationality and investigate these matters for yourself).
This turned into a longish rant. Take note that when I say “you,” I am not really referring to Kevin or anyone in particular; it’s a generic “you.”
Don’t misunderstand, by no means am I saying you ought to be a jerk. It’s good to be a courteous human being. That applies in most all situations, and applies when you’re spending time with someone you are, or may be, attracted to.
But to insist on opening the door for a woman because she is a woman and you’re playing some role, or insist on picking where you sit at in a restaurant, or to insist on driving, or to insist on opening the car door … or any other other special action that you would take on a “date” that you would not do for someone you are not on a date with (or aren’t attracted to, like a guy if you’re a guy and hetero), is not courteous. It’s presumptive and rude, and built solely on subjective (and faulty for various reasons) social conventions. That’s not to say all social conventions are bad. But some are.
These dating social conventions are bad, for the reasons I gave: They are presumptuous; they are implicitly sexist (not that all things some people label as “sexist” are actually sexist or bad, but we can talk about that later in more depth if you want); they treat women as a special case. Those misplaced conventions either cause you to relate to her as though she is a less-than-capable human being who shouldn’t have a say in where she sits in the restaurant (unless she absolutely insists) because you’re “the man,” or they cause you to relate to her as though she is some treasure to be placed above yourself, therefore lowering your own self-value in relation to her; by doing that you make yourself out to be a very unattractive and needy person in a pitiful way.
Let’s not go too far here. Kevin’s advice is bad for most of the reasons given in this thread and others, but absolutely there are special actions that you should take on a date that you wouldn’t take for one of your guy friends or just some random stranger. You treat your date as special because he or she is special, to you. She isn’t special because she’s a woman, she’s special for all the reasons that led you to ask her out. Now how you express that is more open; you could go along with social conventions like holding the door and paying for her meal (assuming you set up the date), or not. If she finds those sexist, that’s fine, the point isn’t to follow some rulebook, but just to communicate that she is special to you, not because she’s a woman but just because you like who she is. Treat your date like a ‘special case’ because she is. That means going beyond just courtesy stuff that you’d do for a stranger, because she means more to you than a stranger does. I’m speaking from the male perspective, but this goes for both sides of the date.
Now, some of the stuff recommended above can be used to convey to your date that she’s special, and others I just don’t see. Picking the table, for instance, seems like a pure dominance move. In the broader sense, taking the time and the initiative to plan out a date and set it up beforehand is a nice thing to do for your date (man or woman), but picking the table first? I just don’t see that, or the “no touching in public” thing. Wow. Now, not ignoring your date during the meal, having a two-sided conversation, and opening the door for her (if she doesn’t mind that) all seem like sound advice; not because of some leading man framework, but because of both common courtesy and the fact that you should go beyond common courtesy on a date.
2 Likes
However, you’re not going to connect sexually by holding the door or making easygoing eye contact.
You and I truly come from opposite ends of the universe.
Relaxed, easygoing eye contact of the kind I describe is one of the most essential elements of connecting sexually with a woman. Unless one or both partners are visually impaired to the point of blindness, I can’t conceive of establishing a sex connection of any meaning, depth or significance without it.
A man opening a door for a woman is an act of chivalry, just like his selecting a table inside a restaurant. Both demonstrate masculine competence and leadership, and allow a woman to feel cherished and cared for.
And if you don’t touch her the notion of sex is going to be rather awkward later on.
You’re a typical male. Eye contact is irrelevant, but you must put your hands on her!
I’m trying to help men understand the process of romance as a woman experiences it. First connect with her mentally and emotionally, then allow the physical aspects of the relationship to evolve naturally out of that.
My motto is: Relax, slow down, and stop being so typical!
You treat your date as special because he or she is special, to you. She isn’t special because she’s a woman, she’s special for all the reasons that led you to ask her out.
Isn’t at least one of the reasons which lead you to ask her out the fact that she is a woman?
[T]he point isn’t to follow some rulebook, but just to communicate that she is special to you, not because she’s a woman but just because you like who she is.
“I love you as a human being, darling. Your womanness has nothing to do with it.”
Welcome to the sexless society.
You and I truly come from opposite ends of the universe.
Relaxed, easygoing eye contact of the kind I describe is one of the most essential elements of connecting sexually with a woman. Unless one or both partners are visually impaired to the point of blindness, I can’t conceive of establishing a sex connection of any meaning, depth or significance without it.
A man opening a door for a woman is an act of chivalry, just like his selecting a table inside a restaurant. Both demonstrate masculine competence and leadership, and allow a woman to feel cherished and cared for.
You’re a typical male. Eye contact is irrelevant, but you must put your hands on her!
I’m trying to help men understand the process of romance as a woman experiences it. First connect with her mentally and emotionally, then allow the physical aspects of the relationship to evolve naturally out of that.
My motto is: Relax, slow down, and stop being so typical!
It’s the easygoing eye contact that is asexual. It’s friendly, which is all fine. Most of the time you may want to keep it friendly when getting to know her. Sexy eye contact is intense and uncomfortable. That’s what you use to spark sexual tension.
Selecting tables is taking the lead, but opening a door… only if you physically lead her through the door.
No, i’m not a typical male. I say and do things others wouldn’t. I’m not afraid to touch her and play with her, and I look at her in ways she’s not used to. And the thing is… you don’t get that tension by being polite, holding the door, easy talk and easygoing eye contact. Those things are all fine… I prefer to joke and mess around myself, but sooner or later it’s time to get serious, and really ignite that spark.
A man opening a door for a woman is an act of chivalry, just like his selecting a table inside a restaurant.
And chivalry blows. 
It’s rooted in social views of a time and place that was very oppressive to women among many other severe flaws and I am very glad not to live in that time and place.
I’m trying to help men understand the process of romance as a woman experiences it.
And paying no heed to what actual females have to tell anybody else about how they experience the process of romance is a big part of why you are failing at your effort.
“I love you as a human being, darling. Your womanness has nothing to do with it.”
I’d like that very much actually.
Sexy eye contact is intense and uncomfortable.
I don’t know if it’s this way for everybody, but I’d say “uncomfortable” is about as counterproductive as it can get for a goal of creating sexual appeal.
“I love you as a human being, darling. Your womanness has nothing to do with it.”
I’d like that very much actually.
What is so terrible about being a woman, that you would prefer that a romantic partner not experience this aspect of you as a personal, pleasurable value?
What is so terrible about being a woman, that you would prefer that a romantic partner not experience this aspect of you as a personal, pleasurable value?
It’s not terrible. It’s just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It’s a psychological visibility issue - I don’t enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It’s very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.
It’s not terrible. It’s just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It’s a psychological visibility issue - I don’t enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It’s very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.
I appreciate your responses, Bluecherry.
I get a chuckle, and think it’s rather telling, when I see guys saywhat women want, and then women speak up and say, “Uh … no. That’s not it at all.”
Kevin, mind if I ask a few questions?
Do you think that a woman can be a “leading woman,” and if so, what that would mean to you. Or does her “womanness” preclude her from that?
What do you consider “success” to be in terms of romantic/successful relationships? Is marriage the ultimate goal and mark of success? How are you doing yourself in terms of your standard of relationship success?
And chivalry blows.
And paying no heed to what actual females have to tell anybody else about how they experience the process of romance is a big part of why you are failing at your effort.
I’d like that very much actually.
I don’t know if it’s this way for everybody, but I’d say “uncomfortable” is about as counterproductive as it can get for a goal of creating sexual appeal.
No, it’s not that way for everybody. It’s about creating tension and maintaining it. A look, touch, body language (like standing a wee bit too close), or saying something controversial/uncofortable/argumentative. That tension is uncofortable. Most people like to defuse the situation. Comofortably riding on it is very powerful.
It’s just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not.
It would be nice if people would identify these sorts of things about themselves before they excoriate me.
My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner’s) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!
You’re entitled to your perspective, bluecherry, but it’s little wonder that nothing I say has any value to you.
It’s very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.
Race is not fundamentally relevant to sex or romance. For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one’s identity as a man or woman is a “big deal.”
My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner’s) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!
But why *should* one regard their femaleness or maleness as extremely important? Yes, I get it, if someone wants what you propose, they should follow your advice perhaps. But is it good for one’s life? Apparently not. People have asked you before how this advice works for you. Your are posting to an audience that likes evidence, so I don’t think that’s an unfair question.
Actually, I don’t think heterosexuality really exists (preferences do, though), more like a cultural thing not based on any particular facts. The concept hasn’t existed through most of human history), so you might be right. The conclusions of what that *means* I think is exactly what you propose. But is it any good for life!? Careful though, it sounds like you’re insinuating that anyone who disagrees on “maleness” and “femaleness” being very important to romantic love is mentally unhealthy, or evading, or that non-heterosexuality is disordered thinking.
It’s interesting that I like these posts to the extent it seems like socratic dialogue, except with assertions instead of questions. The assertions are plausible, and opinions that I’ve seen, so it’s as though it’s getting me to think about assumptions others may have.
My writings are intended exclusively for men and women who do not regard their maleness or femaleness (or their partner’s) to be a negligible element of self. Not in general, and absolutely definitely not in romantic love and sex!
This does not change the fact that you are still making all kinds of assertions without providing backing of any sort for them. I’m also far from the only female whose input you’ve completely disregarded and forged on ahead in spite of. Other females have posted in your various threads and gotten the same treatment from you. You’ve also previously stated that you did this to all 5,000 females you asked about one other topic. Even putting aside the question of the benefit or lackthereof to this high emphasizing of people’s sex, you’ve not given cause to believe what you say is true about those people that do think it is a big deal and in fact ignored evidence to the contrary. Not that just a couple people would prove how an entire sex is, but you’ve not yet been able to find even a single female it seems who regards your claims about female psychology in relation to romance as even close to accurate to how they in particular work.
You’re entitled to your perspective, bluecherry . . .
Really now? Statements you’ve made here and elsewhere indicate that you intend your writings to apply much more universally and not just be something optional or a matter of perspective. For example:
For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one’s identity as a man or woman is a “big deal.”
or
This type of man embodies respectful, benevolent, romantic dominance, which every (good) heterosexual woman deeply craves.
But why *should* one regard their femaleness or maleness as extremely important?
There is no “should” about it. If you agree, then you might find what I have to say useful. If not, you’re on your own.
Actually, I don’t think heterosexuality really exists (preferences do, though), more like a cultural thing not based on any particular facts.
At times, participating in these discussions on Objectivism Online feels like I’ve wandered into a gender studies class at a leftist university — in some other dimension.
At times, participating in these discussions on Objectivism Online feels like I’ve wandered into a gender studies class at a leftist university — in some other dimension.
Why keep posting at all, then? OO.com is a forum, not a blog.
Given the subject and nature of your posts, I can’t imagine why studying gender wouldn’t be of interest to you.
For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one’s identity as a man or woman is a “big deal.”
Oh goodness. So while you refuse to provide any arguments or evidence for your claims, you have no trouble with denouncing those who disagree with them as not being “mentally healthy” or being evasive. People who have given you the (wholly unearned) courtesy of attempting to take you seriously and engage you. How loathsome.
Given the subject and nature of [Delaney’s] posts, I can’t imagine why studying gender wouldn’t be of interest to [him].
Can’t you?
If Delaney were to study gender seriously, or even admit that such a study was necessary to come to conclusions such as he does, it would mean that he could not carry on as he has, where he adopts his views on whim and attempts to build a reputation by them. That would be a lot harder, and he would then have the responsibility of trying to get things right according to a strict methodology. Then he would have to hold his ideas up to scrutiny, prepared to answer the hard questions, and he’s shown clearly how he feels about that sort of thing. As stands, he can just pontificate out of his ass, post here from his endless blogs, reject the need for argumentation or evidence, and cast aspersions upon the character of all those who disagree. It’s all of the glory of appearing to be someone doing something worthwhile with none of the troublesome “work” part.
I’d like to add some more to my reply.
It’s not terrible. It’s just not something that is a big part of who I am beyond medical contexts and the occasional stupid things other people do toward me becuase they think it entails things which it does not. It’s a psychological visibility issue - I don’t enjoy having things about me blown wildly out of proportion, especially when doing so leads to assuming incorrect things about me, over even worse, continuing to believe these incorrect assumptions about me inspite of evidence to the contrary. It doesn’t make me enjoy it either just because somebody may claim that they have assumptions that they would say were positive things rather than negative things. It’s very similar to me to having somebody make a big deal out of what race I am.
Race is not fundamentally relevant to sex or romance. For mentally healthy, non-evading heterosexual adults, one’s identity as a man or woman is a “big deal.”
There’s a whole slew of stuff that has been said already about your protestations that there is no parallel to race which can be drawn here, and quite recently at that. This is all just from the last thread you made before this one:
There is always going to be an insuperable divide between those who insist on treating people according to their supposed “type,” and those who treat individuals as individuals.
Treat individuals as individuals — and relate to a woman as a woman in romance.
Fair enough. Treat individuals as individuals, and… a Jew as a Jew in business, and a black man as a black man in education, and so on down the line.
Doubleplusgood.
In society, human beings properly are recognized as individuals first, members of a class, group, or sex second. (To reverse this, does indeed result in the kind of bigotry that DonAthos implicitly accuses me of above.)
But romance is a personal relationship — specifically, an interpersonal one — and in many respects, it represents a grand exception.
In romance, a man must recognize and address himself to a woman’s feminine psychological nature. He sees her, relates to her, and above all experiences her, first and foremost , as a woman.
If he doesn’t, he fails in romance. He might make a fine friend, but he’ll be a lousy lover.
Femininity does not diminish or contradict a woman’s individuality — in fact it enhances it. An individual man is an individual man; he possesses a masculine psychology, yet no two men are “masculine” in exactly the same way.
Don’t fall prey to the ideas of those who would love to see you made miserable. To be aware that a woman is a woman in romance, and to conduct yourself appropriately as a man in relation to her, isn’t sexist — it means that you are cognizant of a basic, inescapable, and overwhelmingly positive aspect of reality.
“In society”? So pertaining to what, law, work, that sort of thing? But in contrast you think that it’s improper for an individual in an “interpersonal relationship” (meaning one-on-one?) to deal with another as an individual first? We rather should deal with each other, first, as “members of a class, group, or sex”? So… maybe the problem I’m having in understanding your arguments is down to the fact that I don’t know your ethnicity/nationality, your age, your socioeconomic status, etc…?
There is nothing different between what you routinely do and any garden variety bigot. You blend well-worn stereotypes together with some number of observations you’ve made about some of the people you’ve known, doubtless accounting to the bias of looking for that very thing to begin with, then pretend like it’s some general rule, and dismiss out of hand any supposed “exceptions.” You reject calls for evidence or proof or rationale, simply asserting that you know what you know… somehow! And then you call into question the character of anyone who questions your methodology or your conclusions.
So you claim to know what women are really like, despite the protestations of women who say that you’re wrong about them, and other men whose experiences do not match your own. Brilliant. It’s no better than those who talk in the same sorts of terms about what the homosexuals are like, or the Jews, or any other group you could imagine. You’ve pulled opinions out of your ass and pretend that you’ve found truth. The fact that this is bigotry is almost besides the point; it is a crime against reason.
If no two men are masculine in exactly the same way, and no two women are feminine in exactly the same way, and some men are masculine in such a way as to seem feminine, and some women are feminine in such a way as to appear masculine, then…
Then maybe there isn’t one size fits all advice that applies to a gender. Maybe we would need to deal with individuals as individuals.
And so, now, as to the “content” here? Sex is what makes romantic love an exception to how individuals should deal with one another (i.e. as individuals)? All right. And money is what makes business an exception, and ideas are what make education an exception, per my extrapolation of your argument (in which you found an implication that your ideas are bigoted, which they are.)
I get a chuckle, and think it’s rather telling, when I see guys saywhat women want, and then women speak up and say, “Uh … no. That’s not it at all.”
Speaking of which, here’s an interesting article on that subject:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/what_women_want_qRO8pvoSKeFcqrPSftoi6N/0
And an interesting book on womens sexual fantasies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Secret_Garden
The picture that emerges, when you take this and dating actual women into account, is not the sexless egalitarian version.
The picture that emerges, when you take this and dating actual women into account, is not the sexless egalitarian version.
…for some, anyway. And isn’t that what’s being discussed? Approaching women as individuals vs. making sweeping assumptions about them which aren’t actually so sweeping?