Choosing a romantic partner (of ledgers and lists )

One point I have not seen discussed here is exactly how a romantic relationship fits into the overall context of one's life. In the overall hierarchy of one's values, where does romance fit? Each individual has to answer that question based on that person's unique identity and context.

I have no doubt that some on this earth have no room in their lives for such a relationship as they pursue other interests of higher value to them. The amount of work required to locate a suitable partner and to maintain and to grow that love can overwhelm their other values without a commensurate return on investment.

A person can have enough other relationships via friends and family so as never to feel "lonely." As for sex, I refuse to condemn such a person morally for pursuing sexual pleasure via legal brothels. Not everyone has a nature suited for romance. Just look at how hard the intelligent, educated people in this forum work to find it and at how they struggle.

I sympathize with the multitudes of saps in this world who have no exposure to Objectivism and no clue about how to pursue romance rationally. They would do better to pursue pleasure in whore houses than to tie themselves into doomed relationships based on the mountains of disinformation spewed from the pages of Harlequin romance novels, Hollywood screenplays and John Gray style relationship books.

Post 41

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:10pm

"In the overall hierarchy of one's values, where does romance fit? Each individual has to answer that question based on that person's unique identity and context...Not everyone has a nature suited for romance."

Luke, would you say that each person has to answer whether productivity beyond mere physical survival fits in his context?

And that not everyone has a nature suited to productivity?

Phil

Post 42

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 7:03pm

Luke,

One point I have not seen discussed here is exactly how a romantic relationship fits into the overall context of one's life.

Not true at all.

Tim Sturm, for example, thinks it is a viable alternative to wanking.

Michael

Post 43

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 2:20am

What, Phil - you be saying some are fit only to be moochers?

[how else to interpret saying not all suited for productivity]

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/25, 2:21am)

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/25, 2:23am)

Post 44

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:20am

Phil asked:

Luke, would you say that each person has to answer whether productivity beyond mere physical survival fits in his context? And that not everyone has a nature suited to productivity?

Yes, I would say that, Phil. However, the principles of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin come into play here. Clearly, we see people who do only live at a bare survival level, and some fail even to achieve that -- and perish.

I do not think the rest of us, though, have any "duty" to provide for those whose nature fails the productivity test. Likewise, no one has a "duty" to attempt to relate to those whose nature makes them unrelatable.

An example of someone whose nature might make him unsuitable to pursue romance would be a borderline autistic savant totally immersed in his work. Another might be someone whose passion for his work leads him on a career path of constant travel in an occupation that precludes a traveling companion. Another might be a person so abused as a child that although he can live effectively as an independent producer, his psychological scars make romance impossible for him.

I am not a psychologist and so I am just fabricating these examples from thin air. I simply suggest that some people perhaps demand more value from romantic relationships than those relationships can ever deliver, and that those people may generate more total value in their lives with other pursuits. This assumes that a bad romantic relationship subtracts value from life while having no romantic relationship amounts to a zero value. Not everyone here will agree with that assumption, however, since a bad relationship at least offers learning opportunities. Some people never seem to learn their lessons from their mistakes, though.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 5/25, 7:53am)

Post 45

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:25am

MSK wrote:

Tim Sturm, for example, thinks it is a viable alternative to wanking.

I had hoped for a more rigorous treatment of the subject than that, Michael.

Post 46

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 11:52am

Hey Luke,

Well just how rigorously do you wank? (NOOOOOOO!!! - don't answer that...)

//;-)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 5/25, 11:53am)

Post 47

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:52pm

Okay fellas no wanking in the kitchen. I just mopped and the floor has to be completely dry before we can start playing Naked Twister and stuff.

If it all takes that much analysis and brain pain, it couldn't possibly be worth all the effort so why bother, at least in my book anyway.

Loosen up LUUUUUUUuuuuuuUUUUUUKE. Find yourself a good divorce attorney and have a little fun. You've been tied down way too long.

Post 48

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 5:29pm

There is a lot to be said in favor of Katdaddy's purring response to Michael Stuart Kelly. A long-term relationship needs lots of commitment and lots of enjoyment from being in love with your partner. The many factors of daily life that Robert Bidinotto points out as important, are important. But there are so many ways two individuals, especially those who really develop themselves as individualists, are different, that there are bound to be incompatibilities. To manage those incompatibilities, one needs constantly to evaluate them in the context of your whole life. It sure helps to put up with the occasional irritations of two individualists living together if that context has a great many present and past loving moments in it. The purr factor is important.

Another thing to be aware of when making lists is this: Neither you nor the one are are assessing will be the same in 10 years. If you are a thinking person and constantly working on further developing your character, abilities, and interests, both your listing properties and the properties in another that you might seek may very well change. People are dynamic. Not only do people change with age due to their choices, but they may change as the result of certain events. For instance, it is not uncommon for a woman to change markedly upon becoming a mother. The husband may lose some or a great deal of her attention and interest. She may be worn to a frazzle. Her hormonal balances may change. Then there are the changes that come with menopause. These may have substantial effects upon a relationship. So, a man wedded to his list may not have an adequate commitment to maintaining his relationship. He may not live up to his responsibilities. You do not marry a list, you marry a woman. OK, there is a possibility of changes in a couple which are great enough and troublesome enough that a marriage should be ended. But this is not the desired outcome when you marry. To get the desired outcome of a long and happy marriage, commitment that does not get tied up in lists is needed. With that commitment, two rational individualists may well work through some tough periods only to find that they are the happier later for having done so.

Post 49

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:15pm

Charles,

The purr factor is important.

Another thing to be aware of when making lists is this: Neither you nor the one are are assessing will be the same in 10 years.

Spot on. And there are two purring. She is just a little more public than I am. This comes from a difference in way of being, not from one being more in love that the other. (One of us probably is, but darned if I know who.)

My mother, of all people, once gave me some really good advice when I was younger, which of course I did not heed. She said that you have to work at happiness in a marriage. It doesn't stay good without care.

Something to think about for 10 years down the road. Unless of course you think your mate should be what Robert Bidinotto called premises with feet.

Good post. You are my kind of people.

Michael

Post 50

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 7:18pm

Charles Anderson: "Another thing to be aware of when making lists is this: Neither you nor the one are are assessing will be the same in 10 years."

That's true whether or not you have a list. A well-thought-out list can help you find a good match. It isn't a guarantee for future happiness and certainly not a substitute for keeping romance alive in the relationship. Anyone who thinks that finding the ideal mate is anything other than a starting point is fooling themselves. What the list does best is help you eliminate partners that aren't right for you and instead find one that suits you. When you both start from the same place, it seems that you'd have better a chance of staying together as each of you changes over time.

There is no reason the list can't be dynamic. As you change, so do the things you look for in a partner. The list can still serve you well then. You'll know why you're unhappy with your partner. Maybe you've changed - you need different things. Maybe they have - they no longer match up with the things you value most. The key is to make sure the list really represents what you want. If your list is flawed or followed blindly, it isn't going to work.

Substitute the word "list" for "determining what you need and deserve in partner." That's what it really is. Not checklist to score a potential mate but a way to focus on the fundamental things you require in a relationship.

Post 51

Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 8:57pm

Angela, you've captured very precisely the words with which I was going to respond. Well said.

Post 52

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:09am

Absolutely, Angela. Well-said.

The thing that's surprising me is that there's a note of pragmatism in some of the discussion. 'You won't know what you'll tolerate and want in a relationship until you're in the middle of that relationship.' What's lost in that assumption is that the whole reason our lists were even made is that we have enough experience to know what our 'wiggle-room' is where our ideals are concerned.

For those who want to keep the list-keepers away from iron-bound 'commandment'-type rules, don't worry. Context is kept and there are plenty of differences that add spice and variety (or can just be tolerated).

But all of us have standards. All of us have things we won't deal with and things we're negotiable with. A person with no standards isn't reasonable, he's a whore. But I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating a lack of standards.

The "you can't plan it all" folks are right-on in that respect. But if it's understood that we're talking about a guideline and not a manual, I don't think all of us are that different in our approaches. Some just keep an implicit list in their head and some of us make it explicit.

Jason

Post 53

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:26am

I'm glad Jason brought up this point, but I'd like to stress that an explicit list is necessary for good romance in the long-term. I think you have to know consciously and viscerally why a person is either right or wrong for you.

More specifically, I think you need to know what you explicitly want in life and partnership -- or you'll simply be befuddled by actions and words of your intended lover.

Otherwise, the purr will soon turn to growl or grumbling.

Post 54

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:41am

The really valuable part of lists and standards etc is to *myself*. It says to me, that I love myself, value myself enough to set high standards in the first place.

I can identify (christ hindsight is a bitch) every instance where I compromised, placated, cheated myself, lied to self and others, or forgave the unforgivable in a relationship. Some of these actions preserved in some form, a relationship that should have died a quick death.

It is important, that truth, and reality including our values be obeyed. The lies we tell ourselves in romance can be the most damaging of all lies because they cut to the core of who we are and what we value in life.

John

Post 55

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:56am