About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Monday, December 1, 2014 - 5:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I created this poll based on discussions here and elsewhere about romantic relationships.  I initially expected myself to answer "locate a lifetime soul mate" but have instead chosen "exchange psychological visibility for the moment" based on my general observations of how people actually behave beginning with the onset of puberty.  Young and inexperienced people know too little even to grasp what they actually need from a lifetime soul mate.  The technical term "psychological visibility" is a fancy name for "companionship" or, put negatively, "avoiding loneliness."  When I posed the question as "long-range" it depends entirely upon how "long" the "range" of the participant is.

 

In a perfect world, every adult who instructs every child would have perfect knowledge of every child's needs for the indefinite future and offer perfect instruction perfectly absorbed the first time perfectly by every child so every child could immediately know the traits of a suitable lifetime soul mate beginning with the onset of puberty.

 

When you find that perfect world, please provide us a map so we can all go there.

 

What is actually needed is instruction on self-knowledge and how to acquire it based on the "psychological visibility" principle including cautions against the "warped social mirror" so prevalent everywhere.

 

I would like to see this thread explore how people's self-knowledge has grown from the "date" experience, which "dates" proved worthwhile even if they never led to "relationships," how you ended bad "dates" or bad "relationships," how you determined which "relationships" to turn into "commitments," etc.

 

Friendships are fundamentally different from romances so it is very difficult even to compare them in terms of their "psychological visibility" value but I welcome insights into this contrast as well.



Post 1

Monday, December 1, 2014 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke:

 

You have taken on a tough one; figure this one out, and you will be mankind's first.

 

It's been a while...but what I remember was, it was pretty much a free-fire zone.   Dangerous.   Filled with consequences.    Supposed to be a fun thing, not such hard work.   But some enter the arena thinking the game is paint-ball, not realizing others are showing up with live ammunition.    It is one of those human activities we don't actually think our way through; like our adolescence, we either survive the experience, or not.

 

Few navigate; most, I think, meander to a consequential result.

 

Probably not the same purpose for all who enter the arena, nor even, for a given person is that reason constant over time.     Part of the problem; alignment of expectations.      But, it is part of a process for establishing the basis for a trust relationship, like a succession of on-ramps.

 

Those are supposed to be inconsequential on-ramps when you decide not to enter the freeway.

 

Advice is dangerous in this area.   But, 'beware the tollroads' is as much as I can make up at this point.

 

regards,

Fred



Post 2

Monday, December 1, 2014 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Are you talking about dating (the process) or a date (a single event in the process)?  The answer could be different depending on which you mean, and it could also depend on whether or not the person is dating (or going on a date) within an exclusive relationship or not.

 

This very quibble is evidence that, like you, I've thought a good deal about the topic and have noted that not many other people have.  In Christie Hartman's book "It's Not Him, It's You" she points out that there are boatloads of self-help books available that call themselves dating books when, in fact, they are relationship books.  They assume the reader is already in a relationship or interested in relationship-building.  There aren't many resources available for the person who wants help with dating, before a relationship even exists.

 

Assuming you mean a date, my response would be closest to the one that you said was equivalent to companionship, although based on your qualification that the negative of that is "avoiding loneliness" it doesn't quite fit since I don't typically experience loneliness, not at this point in my life.  I've learned that I enjoy new people and new experiences and a date turns out best when I don't overthink it beyond that.



Post 3

Monday, December 1, 2014 - 3:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I meant a singular "date" event in any context across the spectrum though relationships today nearly always start with a first "date."  It is at this initial event that a possible relationship is made or broken.  People here have noted how cheaply a relationship can start and how costly a marriage can end.  Why is that?  It is mostly from a lack of purpose assigned consciously to every choice or a crossing of purposes between the participants. Higher consciousness would lead to lower failure rates.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/01, 3:10pm)



Post 4

Monday, December 1, 2014 - 11:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If I was single I'd date DD! 😈



Post 5

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is mostly from a lack of purpose assigned consciously to every choice or a crossing of purposes between the participants.

I would add that there are many times when what is lacking is not purpose, but honesty about the purpose.  Lots of people know exactly what they want, but are dishonest about what that is.  That goes back to the social conditioning you mentioned earlier, although that's not the phrasing you used.  For instance, it's not supposed to be okay for a woman to say, "I don't want to fall in love with you, I don't need a boyfriend/husband, I don't want you to call me tomorrow, etc." 

 

 

Higher consciousness would lead to lower failure rates.

That is true of pretty much everything in life.



Post 6

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 8:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Jules were single, I'd slap him in the face!  :-)

Post 7

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

He might like that :-)



Post 8

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Could the person who answered "gratify my physical desires" please elucidate how to achieve this honestly without the meaning running deeper for self or interlocutor in a way that harms one or both parties?

 

At least a paid sexual services provider and the provider's client make no pretense of the nature of the transaction.



Post 9

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

😈

 

:) Luke I have not actually voted yet!(wasn't me)

 

(Edited by Jules Troy on 12/02, 9:17pm)



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 5:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"Prospective victim assessment" is missing. 



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 - 9:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke, it wasn't me either.  

 

And I can tell you that I've never accepted any money for sexual services.



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 4:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Teresa, I sanctioned your observation about "prospective victim assessment" as a definite "Other purpose not listed" because I have seen that happen.  My lawn service man was widowed a few years ago when he lost his wife of many years to cancer.  He later got a girlfriend who proved quite the financial and emotional predator.  She bled him dry of every penny.  Poor guy had a heart way bigger than his brain.  He finally got rid of her but it was too late as too much damage had already been done to him.  He is in what appears to be a much healthier relationship now.

 

My point in Post 8 is that too many people treat their sexual partners as whores and ATMs rather than as soul mates while merely pretending they are soul mates.  Ugh.  The dishonesty of this continues to astound me.  I had college roommates who regularly lied to their girlfriends so they could always "get some on the side."  One turned an old saying on its ear:

 

Old saying: "Women: Can't live with 'em.  Can't live without 'em."
His saying: "Women: Can't live without 'em.  Can't live without 'em."

 

Worse was his attitude about the barrier desired between body and soul.  He started a "side" relationship with a girl down the street while his "main squeeze" was out of state.  "I don't want her to start 'liking' me, though," he fretted.  Good grief.  My life was complicated enough with zero women in it.  I was just struggling to make ends meet and make sense of where I was going.  Here he was drinking and fornicating on a regular basis.  Meh.  His "main squeeze" eventually got pregnant with another man and married him.

 

Meanwhile, his buddy pulled the same sorts of stunts and then some.  He told me his girlfriend asked if he was seeing other women.  "I told her what she wanted to hear," he giggled.  I think much of the rush of these scenarios comes, not from the sex, but from the manipulation.

 

So, again, how is "gratify my physical desires" an honest purpose of a date?

 

Can two people engage in this type of purely physical relationship honestly?

 

I have not yet mentioned that bane of high school, prom night.  Is it necessary to attend with a "date" to such an event?  Why?  Are you really interested in this person or do you just want to "impress others with my arm candy" and "gratify my physical desires"?  I knew at least one girl with a sharp mind and a promising future who got pregnant on prom night.  Ugh.  Prom night has always struck me as the climax of Deweyite social metaphysics.

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/03, 4:59am)



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 6:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke:

 

We have a reptilian brain stem; in some, it is more dominant than in others.

 

Reptilian 'thinking' is at a very low level:

 

"Can I eat it? Can it eat me?"

 

To which could be added, "Can I bang it? Can it bang me?"

 

Notice, on the sliding scale of "Can...may....should" that reptilian thinking doesn't go beyond 'Can.'

 

 

Can: what the universe with we in it has arranged that we are able to do, limited only by physics.

 

May: what our local tribe permits us to do by local law.

 

Should: what our adhered to ethical or religious belief restricts us to doing.

 

 

 

regards,

Fred



Post 14

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke:

 

My point being, your question above,

 

"Can two people engage in this type of purely physical relationship honestly?"

 

to me, is "Can two reptilian thinkers have an honest relationship?"

 

 

A reptile would ask "What is honest?   Can I eat it?  Can it eat me?"

 

So, under the filters of can, may, should, I think the answer is, they cannot.

 

regards,

Fred 



Post 15

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 7:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The act of being honest requires a recipient.  It is possible to be honest with yourself about the purpose of a date, regardless of what that purpose is, including to "gratify my physical desires."  I see no issue with that.  The issue is that a date is not a solitary event, and very very few people, outside of paid services, are honest with each other on this account.  That strategy rarely gets men what they want, and goddess forbid that a woman admit something like that because that makes her a slut.

 

I do think that two people can set out to engage in that type of relationship honestly, but I don't think it can last long.  Either or both will lose interest or either or both will decide they want more.  It's inevitable.

 

By "prospective victim assessment," I wonder if Teresa meant something even more sinister than you described, Luke.  What you described could fall under your category of "locate and win the best possible income provider." 



Post 16

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 9:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Fred,

 

Post #13 - can, may, should... brilliant!



Post 17

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

DD wrote:

By "prospective victim assessment," I wonder if Teresa meant something even more sinister than you described, Luke. What you described could fall under your category of "locate and win the best possible income provider." 

I know she meant something more along the lines of date rape drugging or worse, but I wanted to turn that on its ear.  This woman was not just practicing a vicious form of hypergamy a la Lillian Rearden.  She actively destroyed her victims in a purely consumptive manner while not offering even the appearance of respectability in return.  While she drained our lawn man she also married a much older man in another state for the sole purpose of collecting his life insurance.  A rational woman could certainly set her sights high on the socio-economic ladder and then create objective value for her man in exchange for his full emotional commitment.  She could do this through traditional full time means of bearing and raising his children, keeping his house, managing his financial affairs, etc.  That is what I meant by "locate and win the best possible income provider."  Today, those gender roles could reverse with the husband performing the rearing (though not incubation) of the children, etc.

 

An appeal to Maslow's hierarchy of needs is appropriate at this point.

 

By J. Finkelstein (I created this work using Inkscape.) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons

 

The lowest level correlates to the reptilian stage Fred described.  The next level correlates to the mammalian stage and some of the human stage.  The higher levels correlate to the truly human stage.

 

If Maslow has identified needs correctly, what does it mean to satisfy sexual needs on the most basic reptilian level without satisfying them on the higher human level?  Did he actively condone masturbation or other non-intimate outlets?

 

How would you instruct your child on this subject?

 

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/03, 11:52am)



Post 18

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 11:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve:

 

I wish.

 

But a goal I try to imperfectly strive for when pondering difficult political (or any) concepts is to seek out additional axes when a single axis doesn't seem to lead(me)to any help in understanding the concept.   Not enough axes is a problem(results in bewilderment) too many axes is also a problem(results in confusion.)   So a goal is, finding the right number of axes to understand a given concept.    And by axes, I just mean, independent/orthogonal 'classifiers' or directions in which to examine the concept.

 

Looking for the axes is actually a corollary of a deeper bias of mine;  looking for the inevitable gradient.   Not just in science pr engineering topics, but in everything.   Including politics.    Including love. I literally mean, in everything.   I've found only one concept in this universe devoid of gradient; we call it Death.   I've no interest in Death.

 

Early in my adult life, when pondering poltics, I was drawn by singular vs. plural, and became sensitive(to a fault) to singular being over-applied.   'The' Economy.... 'The' "S"ociety, etc.   I've also found "can may should" to be useful classifiers.   Also, free vs forced association.   

 

This helped me with some confusion I had over my own interpretation of Rand;  at one level, when I was younger and first exposed to her, I interpreted her as leading a (necessary) reactionary war of "I vs. We".  Made explicit in Anthem.      But I think that is an incomplete over-simplification, because it is too easily deconstructed into 'every man is an island nation onto himself, waging an endless reptilian war against all.'   A more nuanced(to me)interpretation of 'We' distinguishes the 'we's (plural) formed via free association vs. the We (singlular) formed via forced association;  it is only the latter-- singular Totalitarianism--, I think, that Rand was, and her ideas still are, at war with.    With that additional 'axis' I find it harder for Rand's detractors to spraypaint her ideas with cartoon accusations(not that it will stop them in the least; they must cling to their attacks on her or confront a horrible self-realization, bordering on existential crisis); eventualy, to me, those additional axes corral her detractors into a corner along with rapists and slave owners, which if I were them, I'd find an uncomfortable corner to be in.    

 

Of course, to them, the villians in all that are folks who introduce the new axes.   Why can't we stick to their script and keep this all about selfish reptilian sinner I vs. selfless saints We?    Because political life is so easy when opponents agree to act like the offered sand bottom blow up clowns, waiting only for the next punch.

 

regards,

Fred 



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Wednesday, December 3, 2014 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Luke:

 

Did he actively condone masturbation or other non-intimate outlets?

 

Because I am not above being a lout, I cannot help but respond "beats me."

 

regards,

Fred



Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.