Love and Friendships in the Modern World


Victor Pross

Recommended Posts

Ah, to have to go on hearing that said. Not simplistic—but roughly outlined and incomplete, which is not the same thing. It was Nathanial Branden who took over where Rand left off, and his work became much more involved in the details and elaborations of sexual attraction and romantic love—based on the Objectivist philosophy. You will note that his works tend toward the mind and things related, for we are a "spiritual" species. If you are familiar with his works, are you favorably impressed with NB’s work in this area? Or is any inclusion of 'philosophy' simplistic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have to say that I do agree with the comments about scent/taste, etc. Chemistry in general. I notice this very much in my current relationship, because it is so much more desirable and compatible in that way than my priors.

However, I also think that it's not a mandatory deal-breaker, although I've seen a couple of instances with couples where it was a big part of it. And, in some cases it can be changed. There's all kinds of medical (and often, dental) factors that sometimes can be addressed.

But the other thing is that there is always an initial period where the chemistry combines; there's an adjustment period. I remember the first night we spent the whole night together...there was all kinds of melding, interactivity going on. At one point, we both woke up with night sweats, yuck!! The second time, when we both were just barely awake, we simultaneously sprung out of the bed, we both had identical/simultaneous cramps in our calfs. That's weird. After that, it was fine; better than fine.

When you combine the chemistries, it seems to create a third...

rde

It's the beast inside me, baby...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think he probably is... I was just pointing out some of the other things that come up (or hopefully don't). But, it is OK on a date to order something with garlic in it, as long as you both do... :drool:

The primal, yeah! It's so great when you meet in-the-flesh for the first time, and not only is it comfortable, but even better than you expected. That's exactly what happened with us...been about 9 months now, so we have a little history going too.

I had talked to her on the phone, done business with her, email, all that, but there was no way to expect who came before my eyes. Hoofa!! All systems go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow....this thread is just a hot bed now. Please excuse me as I am a bit challenged today in expressing myself and what I want to get across. I just woke up not too long ago. Very late night.

But at any rate, boy, oh, boy, do I have some stories I can tell regarding scent, the physical attraction, chemistry (when it is nonexistent but can slowly manifest itself later,) etc. I have some stories but one in particular story, an interesting one at that. I will post some of it but not all of it and it falls along the lines of meeting a man where there was no chemistry, no physical attraction when first meeting, wasn't a handsome guy, etc., but it followed later and that passion and chemistry was more intense than any other man I had met up to that point. It was a blind date. But long story short, the more I got to know him, his values, his interests, what we had in common, his ambition, how confident he was, his mind, and so on, he became extremely attractive, much chemistry, much passion. In the beginning when first meeting him, the chemistry, the passion, etc., was nonexistent. But as time went on and getting to know him better, the passion and chemistry later followed and was very intense.

I think too many people put too much stock on the physicality of the person, physical beauty, chemistry when they first meet, and they lose the big picture of what is truly important which is values, mirroring, common interests, how well they connect, etc. When I was younger, of course the first thing I was drawn to in a partner was how pleasing they were on the eyes, how much chemistry was there in the beginning. But as time went on and I got older, gained much more experience, I realized what was truly important in a relationship. I am not all that picky on how pleasing someone is to the eyes or even the chemistry when first meeting. All of these literally can be nonexistent in the beginning but can be gained 100 fold later on.

I agree that most people when first meeting someone they are attracted to how they look, how much chemistry is there, the physicality of a person. I was once this way. But as I've gained much experience, I have found for me personally that it can be nonexistent when first meeting but the more I get to know them, that passsion and chemistry can hit me like a ton of bricks and it can turn into a very intense and passionate love affair. So in essence, FOR ME, the person's values, their interests, their mind, mirroring, and so on very much results in the chemistry of a person, how attracted I will be to them physically, how beautiful and handsome they become in my eyes. So the cause of MY passion, chemistry, etc., for someone truly stems from their values, mirroring, their mind, their interests. It is cause and effect. I have experienced this already where the chemistry was nonexistent, no passion, but the more I got to know them, their mind, what they valued, etc., the chemistry and passion later flowed immensely.

I also have many stories regarding scent. Oh, boy, quite a few of them at that. But anyway, I really hope this came out right as I am a bit challenged today and expressing what I want to say and getting it across correctly. I am sure as the day goes on I will probably correct and edit to make it more clear or maybe any misunderstandings someone else might have. I also want to say Victor is a handsome guy !! But when first getting to know him, what he looked like was not important to me. He even asked me if I wanted to see what he looked like and it honestly didn't matter either way. Come to find out, he is a handsome man. But I was more interested and more attracted to him intellectually (wow, very much so), his values, his interests, how well we connected, and so on. And come to find out, we've clicked on many many levels from values to interests, he is my mirror and this is why I ultimately fell in love with him. I don't base my love on chemistry, scent, or even how attractive they are physically, or even if they are considered "eye candy." I base my love on much much more than that. I have experienced and learned that chemistry and passion can be nonexistent in the beginning but can flow heavily once getting to know them on a deeper level.

So just because there is no chemistry, no passion when first meeting someone and you seem to think to yourself, yeah, he's only good as a friend or I don't like certain mannerisms because there's just no connection or chemistry within the first 30 minutes or 24 hours of meeting them, don't jump the gun too quickly and disregard them as this person may TRULY be Mr. Right or Ms. Right. It's pretty sad that people will toss aside anyone and everyone if there is no chemistry in the beginning and you just don't seem to click within the first hour of meeting or even by the second date. To me, it seems pretty superficial and what exactly it is you are basing your attraction on, chemistry on, etc., if going out on a date or two dates and you say to yourself, there's no chemistry, toss them to the side. It *can be* very difficult to judge someone within the first 30 minutes of meeting someone or even after 2 dates. Doesn't give a whole lot of time to get to know what is REALLY important. I once was this way. But I NOW know what is truly important. I've fallen in love with Victor for all the right reasons. My physical attraction for him is already there.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to be clear on something. I am not saying that the internet is the best way to meet someone. What it has done is opened up a new possibility of meeting someone. What I am saying is that in every aspect of meeting someone people are overlooking what is truly important and that is values, mirroring, and so on. It seems they are basing too much on chemistry and the like and that it is to override values, mirroring, etc. I've never had a problem attracting a potential partner. For me now, there is a huge difference of what I am looking for in a romantic partner and I have found after gaining experience and knowledge what is truly important. I have also found from firsthand knowledge and experience FOR ME personally how much chemistry and physical attraction I have for a person stems on how well we connect, our values, how much I have in common, mirroring, and so forth.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing that's nice about the Internet other than meeting people is that it's a great help for couples that are already together. There's always one I'm looking for first in my box, you know? Makes my day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in my first post here, I truly believe that people can fall in love over the internet. Had it not happened to me, I don't know if I would be such a true believer. The internet is just another channel of communication. Whether you meet someone through normal channels or cyberspace, it doesn't really matter. Love is love regardless of how it originated. The key thing is honest and open communication when interacting with someone that you are interested in romantically. That way you reasonably know what to expect when you actually meet.

Online forums are a great place to meet people with similar interests and viewpoints. You can see a great deal of their personalty come through and see how they interact with others. It is not the hard sell like dating sites. People meet friends online and love is certainly not out of the question. The internet greatly expands the circle of contacts for people. That said, internet romance is not for everyone. Like Nathaniel Branden says, "Romantic love is for grown-ups." This is doubly true for cyberspace romances. I don't recommend getting serious online for someone who is young and inexperenced or who doesn't know who they are or what they want. People are generally a bit different when you finally do meet them in person, but I have not found them to be a whole lot different. I certainly wasn't disappointed with Michael when we finally met. I was thrilled beyond belief.

Distance is a major barrier in cyber romances and the fact that at least one person has to uproot themselves makes it all the more difficult. Without going into great personal details, Michael and I have several obstacles that have prevented us from overcoming the geographic issue. At our age, there are bound to be issues outside of the romance that make it difficult to up and move far away. However long it takes, it takes. One thing is for certain, we have never doubted our love or commitment to each other. We knew before we met physically that what we had was something very special and very rare. Maybe we didn't smell, touch or taste each other :shocked: before we said those three magic words, "I love you," but I did fall in love with him even before I knew what he looked like. I fell for something much deeper inside him. I hope everyone finds their one true match during their lifetime. Michael is so much more than I ever dreamed possible in a human being. I am so glad I found him. I'm still thrilled! purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I love you, Michael.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you can, Chris, but not if you adopt the self-defeating attitude that some people have exhibited here. Don’t close the door to new potentialities—opportunities-- just because it’s different. Be forward thinking, be a fountainhead. Be a "glass is half FULL' guy. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This gives me hope. Maybe even I can meet someone over the internet.

Kat,

That is a total call out saying "Hey, hook me up, Girl. I want it!"

Chris,

Kat is a match maker for O'ists. Also from my understanding and what I've been told is that Atlasphere has an area to hook up with others looking to make a connection! The Atlasphere Ah, hopefully there will be another hook up and you will share with us when you've made your own connection. :heart: The beauty of Love in Bloom !!

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin's post has been badly misinterpreted, and has been dismissed without the attention it deserves. To say that he is a "nay-sayer" because he disagrees with the majority opinion on this thread is not an argument.

Kevin did not say that people who communicate in cyberspace are a pack of liars. He said that letter writing is a form of communication crucially different from in-person communication; it lacks spontaneity, one's words are carefuly considered, chosen, edited -- so that the receiver does not learn the nature of the person's more spontaneous communications and actions. This does not mean that the letter-writer isn't telling the truth as he understands it. It may mean that he doesn't know the full truth about himself and that therefore we are not learning it from him. We know what the person says he believes -- and probably thinks he believes. We do not know how he behaves.

In my view -- Kevin did not say this, -- in order to fully know someone, we need to see how he behaves in a crisis, when standing by his principles puts him at risk. And that is something we cannot learn from letters. He said, importantly, ""The tendency among Objectivists to identify themselves with their minds and with their rational thoughts to the exclusion of all else finds its perfect expression in cyberspace. On the internet, talking your talk and actually walking that talk are indistinguishable."

He objected to the idea that from pictures and the written word one can know who a person is in every meaningful respect. I agree with that. Tell me, did you know everything significant about Ayn Rand from reading her novels? Yet a novel provides the reader -- infinitely more than do any number of letters --with potential insight into the writer's soul. Yes, we learned immensely important things about Rand from her books, but we did not learn whether we could live with her happily or whether what we loved in her, although real, was a partial picture, with much of importance still be learned.

I doubt if Kevin would deny -- certainly I wouldn't -- that in rare, unpredictable, and very fortunate circumstances we might find, when we meet him, that the persona we encountered through e-mail is everything we want and love in a human being. But cyberspace communication alone cannot tell us that this that is so.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

To me, Kevin is one of the good guys. Our contact is sporadic, but if I had to list, say, about 20 people online who are my favorites, he would most definitely be included.

We don't interact enough for me to call him a close friend, but one day if I ever meet him, I am certain that a very good friendship will result. It will be the extension of the online communication I have had with him.

I doubt that the friendship would be of another nature, though. I think it would be more of what it already is.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara-

My problem here is that you, and others, seem to be treating this as something such as correspondence chess. Each party is playing a deceptive game, and out to win. They take time to study each others moves in order to win pieces. I don't have such a dismal view of human nature as that.

Online romances are more than "letter writing." When I met Lydia, it was through live, instantaneous chat. There was no studying, no contemplating, no strategy in our communication. There was live, one on one interaction. No different than face-to-face. I've intimated this once, and I'll now explicitly state it-to say that those who meet online, to say that Angie and Victor are playing a deceptive game with each other, or to say that they are decieving themselves is, quite frankly, insulting.

From what I understand, they've spoken on the phone, which is much different from mere letter writing. When speaking live with each other, I don't think that Angie and Victor had the chess timer out so that each could manipulativly calculate their responses to each other. I don't understand the "take as much time as you like" mentality of some here. This is not what happens. At least it did not happen with me. I fell in love with a person via who they were through their words. Those words were not correspondence chess, played out over hours or days contemplation; they were words written in the instant. They were words that proved to be true.

When I say naysayer, I mean it. When someone like Kevin is "disturbed", then let him be disturbed. If he wants to categorically deny the possibility of online romances, then he is going to have to deny reality. Let him achieve this possibility if he can. Prove to me that I do not love my wife. Prove to me that I did not mean it when I told her "I love you" before we had ever physically met. Naysayers. Spades are spades. I love my wife; I loved her the first time I told her such.

As for me, I wish Angie and Victor all the happiness they deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, good. So I’m not the only one to see the cynicism in Kevin’s post. You know, one wonders if the naysayers either don’t believe in love--or a part of them feels as if they are missing out on one of life’s greatest treasures and are resentful to see it taking place elsewhere. Yep, it's one or the other. Take a pick, but it’s not coming from a good place. Why all the doubt for people who are saying “I’m in love?” That’s right, Jody, call a spade a spade. Ah, this envy…this ugliness of spirit. I'm not saying this is true of everybody, but if the boot fits...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jody,

Thank you so much and I totally agree with what you have said. I very much appreciate your taking the time to post. Lydia is a very very lucky girl to have found you. Yes, Jody, there has been much talking live between me and Victor, some conversations lasting as long as 3 or more hours. Tonight's little chat was over 2 hours. He always makes me smile and had me busting up tonight. But as soon as he hung up the phone, I missed him dearly and have been thinking of him constantly. Well, I think of him constantly anyway. :) He is my baby just as Lydia is your baby girl !!

Victor,

Honey, I also agree about all the cynicism going on. I've gotten it both online as well as offline and it is truly unfortunate to see. I love you, Honey.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angie, you are not words on a screen, honey--you are more real to me than anyone I now know.

I never feel more alive than when I’m interacting with you. And when we meet in the flesh, it will merely be a continuation of that which is so well established. I love you so much. You are my own soul reflected back, but in the body of stunning beauty. :heart:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea.

Kevin is a friend and a first-class mind.

I don't think he was motivated by the urge to spit in someone's soup, but instead by the urge to shoot for the highest, most real and sacred experience we can have with love.

Why don't we credit him with that spirit--and this is a spirit we all know to be the good--and consider the blanket negative statements as an excess of rhetoric?

I think that is closer to the truth anyway.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I agree that there are those who are critical without being malicious, and that’s why I offered the disclaimer in the above post: Ah, this envy…this ugliness of spirit. I'm not saying this is true of everybody, but if the boot fits...

In some cases, the boot does fit. It’s true; they know who they are. And there are a few...that’s all that’s being said. Now then, back to our regular program of optimism and genuine good-will.

Victor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jody: "Barbara, my problem here is that you, and others, seem to be treating this as something such as correspondence chess. Each party is playing a deceptive game, and out to win. They take time to study each others moves in order to win pieces. I don't have such a dismal view of human nature as that."

What I said: "Kevin did not say that people who communicate in cyberspace are a pack of liars. He said that letter writing is a form of communication crucially different from in-person communication; it lacks spontaneity, one's words are carefuly considered, chosen, edited -- so that the receiver does not learn the nature of the person's more spontaneous communications and actions. This does not mean that the letter-writer isn't telling the truth as he understands it. It may mean that he doesn't know the full truth about himself and that therefore we are not learning it from him. We know what the person says he believes -- and probably thinks he believes. We do not know how he behaves."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara: in order to fully know someone, we need to see how he behaves in a crisis, when standing by his principles puts him at risk. And that is something we cannot learn from letters.

This is an important observation, Barbara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue of a crisis and truly not knowing someone fully, I agree with that "to an extent." But I find it interesting that I have spent many many many many years with someone where a crisis never presented itself and I still got to know this person extremely well and how he behaves to the point I could predict how he would react to something, etc.

Anyone here, when was the last time your partner was put through a crisis and standing by his principles put him at risk?

I am sure there are many many couples out there that have been together for a very long time where a crisis has not yet presented itself but they still know each other extremely well to the point they know their mannerisms, can predict how they will react to a certain situation or how they will react to what someone else may say to them, etc. I was in one of these relationships that lasted for many years and I still got to know this person extremely well but a crisis never presented itself. It also has much to do with the person's self esteem, his level of confidence, his level of optimism and how well he will ultimately deal with a crisis. You can learn these traits about someone long before a crisis ever presents itself. The man or woman of high self esteem and high confidence is better able to deal with reality as it is presented to him, even in a crisis situation and will fair much better than someone who has low self esteem or low self confidence. The man of high self esteem and confidence will not crack under high stress situations. He can deal with reality as it is presented to him. I can learn this about him long before a crisis hits.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.