Well apparently the poster does have a website, so…
You need much more than information about a person to decide whether or not they should become your exclusive romantic partner. You need a strong sense of who they are as a human being.
What is their basic character and sense of life? Are they moral? How do they conduct themselves generally?
Are they sweet, supportive, benevolent, kind — or is there nastiness and spite bubbling beneath the surface?
Perhaps most important: How do their values & personality mesh with yours?
These questions can only be answered by getting to know a person across time, and by the two of you interacting on a number of different occasions.
It’s kind of incredible that anyone would have to make the case for taking it slow in romance, but such is the state of our current culture.
The things you say here are true but there is an underlying premise in these types of writings which is false. Making up an artificial prescription of how to act in order to “get the girl” is not right. I think that any relationship that was going to be worthwhile would not require such superficialities as limiting a date to a certain amount of time, or waiting a certain number of weeks to couple, or always saying the right thing at the right time. Trying to make these regulations around human relationships is tedious. Furthermore it is artificial in the same sense that the government regulating an economy and making rules of how people can interact is artificial and thus doomed to fail. To my mind human interaction is a more natural thing, which in pretty much all cases does not need a set of preformed rules to follow. What the real trick is, does not have to do with creating a certain appearance when you are first getting to know someone, the trick consists of finding the right person to begin with, in which case I doubt whether becoming a couple “too soon” or having the date run “too long” or appearing “needy” is going to affect anything.
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.
The individualism in society - contra - interpersonal individualism, has been well answered, so I don’t need to.
Obviously, the initial attraction to a woman is precisely ~ because ~ she is a woman (and vice-versa). So don’t make the error of splitting ‘individual’ from ‘woman’ - she is ‘individual woman’, as you are ‘individual man’, in that order.
I appreciate a non-conformist and fresh (rational) approach, but it seems that in overturning one traditional order of female dominance in initiating relationships, you are posing another, of male dominance: a false dichotomy? Surely
See, we are talking in contexts and degrees here. And volition of course.
A f’rinstance is my own experience, which I think is quite atypical (isn’t that the point?).
My most satisfying and most long-lasting relationships were unconventional in that neither party was always dominant in any one field.
In other words, each could and did assert themselves, by choice - and back off at other times, by choice. Personality, one person with more energy, and individual character and expertise - all play a part.
You can view a person really blossom, when he or she is not playing to their society stereotype. The thing is it’s volitional, which should always outweigh man’s or woman’s nature, qua gender - I believe.
Kevin, I’ve no doubt your ‘system’ can ‘work’ - especially early on - in a reverse psychology, holding-back manner. With some women, for a while. There is an important distinction between self-assertion and self-esteem in considering a relationship - and a contrived power-play, to “get the girl”. Many have maybe experienced its effectiveness, in making oneself seem desirably unattainable, but some would suspect that such techniques don’t relate to reality and honesty, and anyway one can’t hold back forever. (To be fair, I don’t think you have taken it this far, explicitly.)
And what makes romance an exception?
Sex, dear. Sex is what makes romantic love so gol-darned exceptional.
Sex, dear. Sex is what makes romantic love so gol-darned exceptional.
LOL! Serves you right for asking sincere questions of Delaney. 
I think his assertions are not so much as to be considered seriously as examined, like a disease. But seriously, note his manner in calling you “dear”! That’s him working his magic on you, no doubt… so perhaps you could describe how your inner-femininity is responding to this powerful display of masculinity on Delaney’s part, as he condescends to you. Are you swooning yet?
In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen it discussed (because there’s so much foul “content” to wade through first), but has anyone else noted Delaney’s regular style in posting? He apes the smarmiest of ad copy. If his blogs hit my email, I think my filter would route it to the spam/trash section (and I think my filter would have a point).
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):
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.
Edited to add:
Sorry, I forgot my manners here. My last sentence should read:
…per my extrapolation of your argument (in which you found an implication that your ideas are bigoted, which they are), dear.
What do you mean by “make a move”?
In my opinion, five weeks is too soon to begin an exclusive relationship with someone. I can’t prescribe specific time tables; in this instance, there is a man who — for whatever reason — has indicated that he is not yet ready for the level of intimacy and exclusivity that a woman is pressing him for. Isn’t that enough?
As I indicated above, if the sexes in the scenario were reversed, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I think he’s indicated that he actually wants more, but he’s holding back because he thinks that’s what he should do.
Sex, dear. Sex is what makes romantic love so gol-darned exceptional.
If your answer is, “If he doesn’t, he fails in romance” and you don’t intend to give any further reasoning and leave it at “that’s just how it is” then what of the numerous cases where such a failure hasn’t happened?
But seriously, note his manner in calling you “dear”! That’s him working his magic on you, no doubt… so perhaps you could describe how your inner-femininity is responding to this powerful display of masculinity on Delaney’s part, as he condescends to you. Are you swooning yet?
Oh yes, that’s exactly
I’m convinced now. 
I believe it’s www.leadinglady.com
That’s for bras . It’s actually leadingmanblog.com. I went there, and this is what I found:
A Leading Man does not ever modify his basic game plan to suit a particular woman.
How backwards. This epitomizes the basic problem with Kevin’s approach. Certain tricks, like being “unavailable” when you actually want to go out, may generally work on women because of tendencies that some (not all) of them share – but they’re still just tricks. In the end, a relationship is had between two people, not two stereotypes. People will be attracted to this or that at the start, but knowledge about each person only grows, furthering the distance from any attraction based only on stereotypes and solidifying – or not – attraction to the person her/himself.
These tricks are so ridiculous because, as has been noted, they’re representing a fake version of a person – that same individual person who the girl/guy is going to eventually become more or less attracted to. How long are these tricks supposed to be perpetrated before the true person is revealed? What kind of response is to be expected by the other party, the one being fooled?
If “women are looking for a good fantasy,” as Kevin writes on his site, they need to get real. It goes both ways, and most men don’t want the fantasy, for good reason.
I want to say I’m against the entire notion of romance, but I’m not quite. It just needs to be so personal between all the different kinds of relationships that people have, with all their varied personalities. Rules about romance I don’t think exist beyond very general ways that people get along – and then the rest needs to be judged against the particular person you’re with, what he/she likes and thinks. Roses are going to seem great to some and the total opposite to others when used for the same purpose.
This epitomizes the basic problem with Kevin’s approach.
I think that much could be said about Delaney’s approach, and why it is poor. For instance…
The sorts of women that Delaney describes in other posts of his are not the sorts of women that I would want to be with personally. The kind who “will run tests on a man,” like “rais[ing] a bizarre accusation” or “attempt[ing] to incite an argument…” (from this thread, which along with this thread is where I first made the mistake of trying to respond).
However, taking Delaney seriously, and if I believed that all women are secretly or ultimately that way (or the “good heterosexual women”, at least), then I might not have taken the time to find a woman more suited to my tastes. With a woman acting in this fashion, which I would otherwise describe as “playing games” (or something worse), I might have told myself, “Well… that’s the nature of romance! The nature of women! I need to accept it, if I want a fulfilling relationship, and act ‘manly’ so that she will respect me!”
And what would be the eventual result of all of this, if I were “successful”? I would be with a woman that essentially I didn’t like, on the basis of “acting” a certain way… and given that if I allowed myself to respond to her as I was initially and routinely inclined, outside of trying to be “masculine,” then it’s probably the case that she would be with a man that she essentially didn’t like either.
Not only do I find that a pretty horrible outcome on its own, but when I compare it to my actual situation…? I’ve found a woman who does not play those sorts of games (and who, herself, hates the idea of “playing games” generally), and I am very happy with her, and she with me. In imagining replacing my actual wife and our blissful union with this masculine/feminine bullshit, going to Delaney’s blog to find the latest advice on how I’m supposed to behave, treating women as this sort of alien species that needs to be studied and then patronized, winding up with women such as Delaney describes and trying to convince myself that it’s some sort of a virtue on their part… god, what a nightmare.
So yes, I think that there are problems here. And then there’s this – Rand on “Racism”:
[Racism is] the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.
[…]
[Racism claims] that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control.
Now, I understand that Delaney is speaking of gender and not race, whatever that might mean to us. And further, he doesn’t actually make any attempts to argue for his assertions, so it’s difficult to know the source of his claims (except perhaps that he “just knows”, and so should you ). But what is he saying, if not that a woman has certain “intellectual and characterological traits [which] are produced and transmitted by [her] internal body chemistry”? What is he saying, if not that her “convictions, values and character are determined before [she] is born, by physical factors beyond [her] control”?
Of course, to get sincere answers to those questions (if any exist), Delaney would have to speak for himself, which I do not expect, and which would doubtless disappoint were he to try. But this is my evaluation of his arguments, such as they do exist, and I find Rand was probably correct in the present case when she went on to say
This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.
I think he’s indicated that he actually wants more, but he’s holding back because he thinks that’s what he should do.
He said he feels attracted to her, which for a man can happen extremely easily. In the past, he might have rushed into a relationship with her on the basis of his emotions, and because she has indicated that she wants it.
I hope that any man operating in romance does what he does because he understands why such is the proper course of action, not because I (or anyone else) told him to!
I hope that any man operating in romance does what he does because he understands why such is the proper course of action, not because I (or anyone else) told him to!
The irony!!!
This epitomizes the basic problem with Kevin’s approach. Certain tricks, like being “unavailable” when you actually want to go out, may generally work on women because of tendencies that some (not all) of them share – but they’re still just tricks.
I do not advocate “tricks” — I advocate a principled approach to romance.
Every one of my critics so far in this thread manages to mangle or misrepresent my ideas to some degree. Reading the various reactions, paraphrases and denunciations at times makes me wonder if we’re speaking the same language, or whether Google Translate might be involved. It’s a little like watching yourself being hanged in effigy, only the dummy looks nothing like you.
At some point I will address the fallacy of “masculinity versus the self,” which is a subset of “romance versus the self,” which I regard as a species of the mind-body dichotomy. JASKN and many of my other detractors seem to be confused by this extremely common error.
For a man to be “masculine” in romance, the thinking goes, he must transform into something different from his actual personality — a stereotype, as it were. But you can’t keep up the charade forever: Eventually, the “real you” emerges, which bears little resemblance to the phony, “masculine” character you initially presented yourself to be. At this point, your relationship with the woman you deceived necessarily suffers.
If you are a man, and you desire a sexual relationship with a woman, then masculinity is in you. It is a part of you; it’s a vital aspect of you. It needs to be discovered and developed, but at no point ever should you put yourself across to anyone as something (or someone) you’re not.
Authenticity is a key romantic concept for both women and men. If a man takes the time to consider what I am saying, and avoids jumping to hysterical conclusions, I’m confident that he will come to understand his genuine, masculine self on a deeper level. This self-awareness can only help to make him more effective in his efforts to connect meaningfully with with a woman, and to sustain that connection over time.
I want to say I’m against the entire notion of romance, but I’m not quite.
Thank you for your candor, it’s helpful to know where people are coming from.
Let me go on record as saying I am one hundred — if not a thousand — percent in favor of romance, of romantic relationships, and of the ecstasy of romantic love.
(from this thread, which along with this thread is where I first made the mistake of trying to respond).
If responding to me is a mistake, why do you continue to do it?
If responding to me is a mistake, why do you continue to do it?
Well, it’s funny, but despite how this looks I don’t really consider myself as “responding” to you any longer. Not in any meaningful sense. My general goal on this board is honest discussion, trying to arrive at the truth of things, and so on. But I know you can’t be my partner in anything like that. (Or if you could, it would have to be at the far end of some process of reflection and improvement that you’d have to undertake, and I just don’t currently have the time or patience to wait on that, nor do I see any signs that you’re even aware that you need to change anything.)
It’s like I said, your “assertions are not so much as to be considered seriously as examined, like a disease.” This isn’t a conversation we’re having (not even this post; I don’t expect anything worthwhile to come back), it’s more like postmortem pathology. It is a curiosity to try to diagnose your claims.
But why bother at all? Usually I don’t. In this case, I saw other people trying to engage you, and that was upsetting to me because I knew that you would continue to dodge their efforts and peddle your particular brand of snake oil. Every now and again, I think it’s worthwhile to try to identify your errors.
Isn’t it as well to take the good and leave the rest? Kevin Delaney’s topic here has merit, though I have objections to his premises. As men, we are often - for the obvious but invalid grounds of sex - steam-rollered into binding attachments with a partner, which means that one has allowed another person to initiate something highly significant, complying with her aspirations, feelings, etc. not one’s own convictions and emotions.
(Note that this is when a relationship is the goal, and wouldn’t apply to what is accepted to be a casual fling).
As long as it’s not ‘gaming’ by the man - which he alone would be the judge of - holding back and considering his thoughts
about her before his passions come in completely, is quiet “self-assertiveness” (according to Branden’s model) as I see it.
Isn’t it as well to take the good and leave the rest?
I don’t believe so.
It might be different if Delaney were willing to discuss his views in sincerity, or respond to the criticisms he receives with honest reflection. Even if he were a literal Nazi, coming here to talk about what he thinks of the Jews (or to promote the Aryans), as distasteful as I would find that… the discussion could still generally take place as a discussion should, if there were signs that Delaney were open to it.
But I initially found him – and find him still – to be utterly resistant to provide reasons for his claims, to defend them, to engage in the criticisms that they raise, or to participate in any way in the kind of discussion that a board like this is ostensibly designed to house. So I think it is proper in this case to treat him as a man who continually makes offensive and unsupported bald assertions, which I believe him to be in fact.
He advocates bigotry, he does it in spite of reason and the evidence/rationale that one or more other members provide, and I think that the greatest good here comes from identifying those facts. We do not praise the snake oil salesman for having a winning smile before we identify him as a snake oil salesman, and ensure that our loved ones hide their purses.
He said he feels attracted to her, which for a man can happen extremely easily. In the past, he might have rushed into a relationship with her on the basis of his emotions, and because she has indicated that she wants it.
I hope that any man operating in romance does what he does because he understands why such is the proper course of action, not because I (or anyone else) told him to!
From a reader:
Prior to discovering your website, I would have jumped at the chance, since she’s quite physically attractive and has many positive qualities.
Furthermore:
From a reader:
She has told me that she thinks we should be seeing each other (or at least keeping in touch) a lot more often.
Supposing he really has barely seen her due to more of your recommendations, this increased interaction between the two of them is more without being an official relationship yet. Doing this would allow one to much more quickly figure out if a serious relationship is really a good idea. His options aren’t just between a snail’s pace and breaking the sound barrier.
I do not advocate “tricks” — I advocate a principled approach to romance.
Principles have to serve toward the end of one’s well being and they exist for certain types of contexts. I’ve mentioned when going more slowly would be wise. This is not one of those circumstances. Going slowly at this point would just be following an out of context commandment.
I’m not against principles qua principles for anybody, I’m against pointless, counterproductive things whether somebody calls them “principles” or anything else.
At some point I will address the fallacy of “masculinity versus the self,” . . .
For a man to be “masculine” in romance, the thinking goes, he must transform into something different from his actual personality — a stereotype, as it were. But you can’t keep up the charade forever: Eventually, the “real you” emerges, which bears little resemblance to the phony, “masculine” character you initially presented yourself to be. . . .
In any context, being aware that a woman is a woman is up there with being aware that a tree is a tree. The law of identity, basic and inescapable, yes. However, you’ve given no cause for accepting that what you claim the psychology of females is like is true and/or why what you claim specifically that a man should do in regard to a woman is actually appropriate, with no backing for how what you advise is in any way rooted in the nature of women and/or men. Nobody here wants to throw out the law of identity, they want you to support your claims of what some identities are.
I’m not even arguing here right now that “masculinity” necessarily goes against individuality and is a phony stereotype, I’m arguing that so far *what you’ve presented and called “masculinity”* necessarily goes against individuality and is a phony stereotype. You still haven’t given cause for accepting anything you say about masculinity to have any root in being male.
Also, if masculinity is simply being attracted to women, there’s not much more to be said there.
It seems like all of these discussions about sex boil down to a lot of rationalization concerning the topics of “masculinity” and “femininity.” I think these discussions, at least those that make positive claims, shouldn’t even happen without solid, undisputed definitions for both of those concepts – or lack of concepts, as it may turn out to be.
Broadly, and very advisedly, I think core cultural influences and convictions come into play in discussions on sexuality and gender among Objectivists. Conservatism (but without religion) and liberalism/libertarianism are each exhibited.
Knowing there is a third and radical way, is one thing: finding it, is quite another. Maybe - and only in this area - it is partly a careful selection of the best of each culture - and always superseded by individualism and self-knowledge.
Type-casting gender is never going to work.