RoR: Forum

Jeanine,

What the heck does rapproach mean? My dictionary does not list it.

Philip wrote:

As for parental control - and this is an issue I can relate to - someone pointed out that people mature at different times. I suggest that if parents and schools were less authoritarian and less protective - in short, not treating young adults like children - teenagers would mature faster and be better prepared for independence.

I need to write an article about my failed attempt to mentor a local young man in Objectivism. He called me out of the blue last year stating that he was an 18 year old who needed a telephone mentor because he was struggling with his religious parents and trying to get himself on the right path.

To make a long story short, I eventually learned that he implicitly sought a father figure and not just a mentor. He had a violent temper and severe emotional problems well outside the scope of my abilities to counsel. He had many problems as an initiator of violence throughout his school career and his mother molly-coddled him rather than making him face the music. I finally broke all relations with him when he called me several months into our interactions in a panic because he had just beaten his girlfriend to the point of hospitalization. He panicked because of his fear that I would "think less" of him and would "abandon" him -- which I jolly well did, thank you very much. I have no tolerance for physically violent people in my life.

Thankfully, he lives too far to ride his bicycle to my house. I recognized the classical codependence and enabling between himself and his mother, who kept referring to him as "this kid" rather than placing responsibilities squarely on his shoulders where they belonged. His stepfather, of course, wanted nothing to do with him, having already gotten physically attacked by this "boy" some time earlier.

I had advised this young man from the beginning that he needed to focus on gainful employment and the creation of a budget so he could leave his parents and have more freedom as a legal adult. I sent him several books on personal finance and goal setting. He did none of the assignments I outlined for him, persisting instead in inflating his own ego with hot air about how "rational" he was while evading his utter lack of productivity and violent temper. He consistently talked disrespectfully to his mother, the woman who kept him fed, clothed and sheltered, and she let him get away with it.

Yes, an article about codependence and enabling in Atlas Shrugged between the moochers and the producers would be good. Some real life lessons of this phenomenon in modern parenting would offer good supplemental material.

I remain very, very skeptical of the flippant disregard for parental authority and the power of the dollar I have seen in the exchanges here today. They make no sense economically.

As for Jeanine, I can see you represent the Romantic school of unbridled passion that Ayn Rand heavily criticized in The Romantic Manifesto. Nevertheless, I still support sex work as a legitimate profession that should be legalized and I routinely refer fellow freethinkers to your profile page when I say as much to them.

Luke Setzer

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 12/08, 8:44pm)

Post 21

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 9:15pm

Luther, I believe Jeanine was referring to the French word "rapprochement" :

rap�proche�ment

P Pronunciation Key (r�

pr�sh-m�

)
n.

A reestablishing of cordial relations, as between two countries.
The state of reconciliation or of cordial relations.

Post 22

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 9:56pm

I remain very, very skeptical of the flippant disregard for parental authority and the power of the dollar I have seen in the exchanges here today. They make no sense economically.

As for Jeanine, I can see you represent the Romantic school of unbridled passion that Ayn Rand heavily criticized in The Romantic Manifesto. Nevertheless, I still support sex work as a legitimate profession that should be legalized and I routinely refer fellow freethinkers to your profile page when I say as much to them.

Rand did not say that romanticism should be bridled; she said it should be educated and armed with reason. To suggest that the one sided emotionalism Rand attributed to the romantics should be "bridled" means that emotion needs to be restrained for the sake of reason (or whatever). This is not Rand. What Rand wanted to teach people was how to feel unbridled passion is a rational way, and to stop viewing reason as a bridle.

That said, I'm not so sure about Rand's generic characterization of the Romantics. It certainly does not apply to Shelley, who was an atheist and chemistry enthusiast as well as a poet, nor to Geothe, nor to Lessing. But you are right that my ideas are very close to the original Romantics, including some who could not be called defenders of reason. My sense of life is certainly "romantic symbolist" as opposed to "romantic realism", and I don't quite believe in a benevolent universe in regards to existence, although I do (for somewhat different reasons) regarding consciousness. Part of the reason is precisely because none of me doubts that absolute authenticity, integrity, and exploration of creative passion cannot be compromised, and yet the world contains as much Victor Hugo as Ayn Rand in terms of what happens to those who actually live so beautifully.

I don't alter my words concerning parents or finances. I too have my personal experiences, and I have parents break souls by doing exactly what was done to Msr. Reed's former lover. As for financial dependence, I have seen some evils so black and so up close that I see blood whenever the right to place conditions on the use of one's property turns into moral sanction for those who attempt to use such dependency as a lever of power. I can't bring myself to say specifics. But I will say that "if you don't like it, leave" has been used before my eyes to crush the spirit of someone I knew and might have admired worse than anything else I have seen in my life. And I have seen it tried other times. This is not a stand I take lightly.

As for economics, children are not economic investments, or else the proper 'economy' of bringing up children should be based on a reward in terms of mentorship, friendship and seeing a human being flower in freedom due to one's own care. If this is not a reward enough to risk paying for the accidents of young people living dangerously, then one was foolish (assuming one had a choice) to have children.

On a different note, let me do justice and say, both for myself and as a member of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, that I appreciate your support for sex work, and especially for the honour of being used as an example of its value. For this, I am very grateful, and as a capitalist it is always my policy to follow our professional code in all relevant cases.

regards,

Jeanine Ring )(*)(

P.S. And yes, Jennifer is right; I did mean "rapproche". Thank you, Jennifer, for the correction.

Post 23

Wednesday, December 8, 2004 - 10:07pm

Jennifer is right. And any sharing of her early experiences would be very welcome.

Luke is a liar:
"I would have chosen to delay sexual consummation on the basis of my concept of honor until after she reached the age of majority."

He would have waited two years? Complete bullshit. He would have done it Clintonian: he would have refrained from penetration, which would have kept him safe, legally.

Geez, Luke, the man said he didn't know that the petro was wrecking the condoms, and he was using lube on a 16 year old girl! Did you really expect the boy to be on top of the finer points of the law?

Jon

Post 24

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 1:09am

Jon says:

Luke is a liar:

Mr. Letendre,

I have never exchanged a post with you before, and to my knowledge you are new to the forum (please correct me if I am mistaken).

It is one thing to strongly and forcefully disagree with Luke Setzer, it's something else to say, he is a liar. One thing I have never seen Luke do, is preface an argument with an ad hominem.

In my short time on this forum I have found Luke to be a reasonable, intelligent, polite, and friendly person. From my limited knowledge of his involvement in objectivism (a strong involvement, that includes running an Objectivist club in Florida) and from reading some of his articles and post, I believe he is a passionate and committed objectivist.

Trust me, Luke Setzer is not among those where that 'tone' of speaking is necassary, or justified.

George

Post 25

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 5:39am

George, thank you for the kind words and defense.

Jennifer, thank you for the French lesson.

Jeanine, I appreciate your insights and kind words regarding my support of legalized sex work.

Jon, I do not think you know me well enough to say what I would or would not do with a minor as a rational 20 year old.

Adam, I did not intend to bring your moving article into orbit around me. I appreciate the candor of your article and your willingness to share these intimate details with us for our education. For that, I want to express my gratitude to you.

All, this article struck a nerve with me because of its many assumptions about a broad range of topics including:

The rights of children to live their lives by their own values
The rights of parents to instruct children in their values through various disciplinary measures
The rights of children to choose abortion without parental notification
The rights of property owners to dispose of their property as they see fit
The rights of human beings to engage in sexual intercourse according to their own best value judgments
Etc.

As you can see, Adam's article proved highly thought provoking. I need to chew on these many topics for a while and re-think some of my premises. I do not wish to dig my heels into the ground on a position that may in fact be riddled with land mines!

Luke Setzer

Post 26

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:18am

George said:

It is one thing to strongly and forcefully disagree with Luke Setzer, it's something else to say, he is a liar. One thing I have never seen Luke do, is preface an argument with an ad hominem.

I agree entirely. Many of people on SOLO (including myself) on occasion say something in the heat of debate that on reflection we don't stand by. I don't recall Luke ever even doing so much as that, let alone telling a deliberate lie.

Mr Letendre, those types of statements may make you somewhat unpopular with a number of us around here.

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 12/09, 7:19am)

Post 27

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:22am

Jon asserted Luke is a liar, I assume in disbelief that anyone can wait two years to have sex. I find this strange. There is nothing wrong with waiting to consummate a romantic relationship, and I do think that can be a prudent think to do for teenagers when they may not have the means to assume responsibility for the consequences (e.g. an unwanted pregnancy).

I grew up in the Philippines, where sexually transmitted diseases are common and abortion continues to be illegal. So long as I was there, I chose not to have sex. This was all through high school when, frankly, most people around me were having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends. I do not regret my choice, especially when I saw some of my former classmates, at ages as young as 14, too busy caring for their infant to get good grades or get anything more than a minimum wage job. Even if abortion were legal there, I would have no control over what my high school girlfriend would choose to do if she were to become pregnant. She could choose to get an abortion, but she could also choose to give birth to the child. The honorable (and legal) thing to do then would be to either help pay for the abortion or to provide for the child, which I was far from capable of at the time. There was no way I could see myself asking my parents for money for either one, for a mistake I made.

Even before I was an Objectivist, I did not conflate short-term pleasure with long-term happiness. That's common sense. Sex is but one means of expressing romantic love, a means proper and reasonable in some contexts but perhaps not in others. Some may see that as restraining or bridling passion. I see it as maximizing long-term happiness.

Post 28

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:27am

Byron,

You eloquently captured what I have attempted to say in these dialogues. Thank you.

Luke Setzer

Post 29

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 7:42am

Thank you for writing this Adam. It is important not to lose sight of the real risk that the anti-abortionists may turn the clock back.

John

Post 30

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 8:19am

Adam, I was very moved by this article, and thank you for your willingness to share such a personal experience.

I think that my upbringing with regard to these matters was somewhat unique. Though there was an underlying theme of Catholicism/abstinence present, it was more important to my mother that I "save myself" for a man I loved. (My father, old-world Italian that he was, would have preferred to keep a chastity belt on me, but that is another story.) I was never taught that sex was bad or dirty, but instead was instructed to make good choices about it, and not to treat it casually.

I think, however, that if I had become pregnant, I would have been the one to insist on an abortion regardless of their opinions. My father would probably not have been told about it. (In rural Italy, pregnant girls were married immediately.) That's why I found your article so poignant, as it really reflected my point of view on the course of action one must take if one is to shape one's destiny.

One of the issues about which I become most violently passionate is the right to own my body and what I do with it. Back alley abortions should be relegated to a very dark place in our past. As I have previously stated, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned in this country, I will leave and never look back.

I am completely irate that some people think they have the right to tell me what can and cannot be done with my uterus. I have researched the history behind the formation of Planned Parenthood, and have read some of the letters written by women who were forced to become breeders, having seven or eight children before collapsing because their bodies could stand it no longer. They never had a say in the matter.

A recent letter to the editor of my local newspaper likened abortions to a "daily 9/11." I wanted to throttle the woman who wrote it. Let's hope she doesn't have a daughter.

If exercising the right to own my body ever again becomes an act of criminality, Adam, I will meet you in the jail yard for a game of poker.

Post 31

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 8:19am

That was a most enlightening piece, Adam. While I didn't have any direct experience of that nature during those times in the late '40s and 50's you reminded me of the abominable laws that were in place. We may have deteriorated a lot in the matter of government intervention in business affairs but we have progressed significantly in the affairs of the heart. Those who beat their head against the wall and say that we're going to Hell in a handbasket should remember that.

Sam

Post 32

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 8:49am

Thank you for your passionate personal account, Adam. It is a chilling reminder of what we should never allow to recur in this country. Regardless of my vote for Bush, I remain a staunch supporter of abortion on demand and will do what I can to keep it legal.

I am curious what would be the ramifications if the girl kept the pregnancy and gave the newborn up to adoption. How would her parents react to that? Could they use their parental authority to force her to keep the newborn rather than give it up to adoption?

-- Michelle

Post 33

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:19am

I am quite strongly resonant with Luke's sentiment about obligations for both parents and children of minor age.

I'd imagine that if I had a daughter who got into a similar situation, I'd probably want to kill the young man (just a figure of speech, no offense intended) - not because they had sex (I understand the biology), not even because they had sex without my consent (It's a given that no parents would consent to it, and children would defy their parents anyway), but because I were left out when my own child were in a life-and-death situation. No parents should be put through this.

While both children and parents are going through agony during those difficult times at that particular stage of their children life, there is often utterly lack of open and frank communications between children and parents. I think the feelings and emotions are too strong on both sides that often prevent people to remain rational on many sensitive issues.

I am also for the parental authority in children's life before they become financially independent. That's a big consideration when my husband and I chose options to save for our son's future education: if it is we who are supporting him then we need to have a grip on him!

I don�t know how I will fare when my son reaches that age (he is only 7 now). But for now I am definitely the tyrant in his life!

Post 34

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:29am

I have a daughter who is, seemingly, racing at warp speed towards womanhood. The tyrant in me has to argue with the rational in me, to arrive at an agreement to trust her ability to make good choices for HER life.

But its not an easy thing!!!

John

Post 35

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 9:54am

Hong wrote:

...not even because they had sex without my consent (It's a given that no parents would consent to it, and children would defy their parents anyway)

Why do you think that no parents would consent to it? My parents allowed my 17 years old sister to have her 22 years old boyfriend overnight. They knew she would do it anyway and preferred it would be in their premises so that they have more control.

Post 36

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 10:51am

Michelle,

Your parents, and my parents, and Ayn Rand's, all raised their children with the high respect for their children as individuals that is implicit in the Jewish secular culture, and absent from the majority Christian cultures in America. We know that a child who is trusted to be responsible learns to be responsible and trustworthy, that a child who is treated with respect for her judgement will grow up to be respectful and worthy of respect, and so on. I don't think that our parents would ever have considered treating our choices, especially choices as important and intimate as romantic love, with anything other than the respect and trust we had learned from them.

My lover's parents had no respect whatever for their daughter as an individual with her own judgment and intelligence. They had created a National Merit Scholar - and wanted her to grow up to become a generic Christian housekeeper for a generic Christian man, living uneducated, "barefoot and pregnant." And yes, she knew that they would have considered her having to bring up an infant as (1) the divinely ordained punishment for her having had sex without marriage, and (2) God's way to force her to give up the heathen notion of a woman getting a university education and an intellectual career.

Hong,

The standard assumptions in "old high culture" families - that is what cultural anthropologists call Chinese, Jewish, Parsi and other societies with similar values - just don't apply when one is dealing with people who believe in a literalist religion, and live by its teachings. With reasonable people one deals reasonably. With the non-reasonable one deals as one can.

Post 37

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 10:59am

Michelle wrote:

Why do you think that no parents would consent to it? My parents allowed my 17 years old sister to have her 22 years old boyfriend overnight. They knew she would do it anyway and preferred it would be in their premises so that they have more control.

In the buckle of the Bible Belt where I was raised, my parents would never have gone for that, or at least not the part where we shared a bed! They would have engaged in some major ass kicking had I even considered asking. They referred to people who embraced that sort of behavior as "trash."

We definitely need a complete Objectivist treatise on how parents and the law would work in a "division of labor" to transition rights and responsibilities from parents to growing children in a rational manner. Any takers?

Luke Setzer

Post 38

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 11:00am

Duplicate post deleted.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 12/09, 11:01am)

Post 39

Thursday, December 9, 2004 - 11:02am