Objectivist Romantics, individualism and Selfish Relationships

[Victor Pross]

Objectivist Romantics, individualism and Selfish Relationships:

I have never been in a romantic relationship with an Objectivist, but I can certainly project in my mind what it would be like. Or to be more precise: I have an ideal as to what it must be--ideally speaking. That’s the practical side of me coming out.

An ideal relationship consists of two individualists—that is, two separate sovereign people who have developed the ideal of intellectual independence, who have achieved a healthy level of self esteem, who are confident in their person and who are prepared to celebrate these accomplishments in the person of another human being, a person who reflects their own achievements back at them.

Individualism encourages personal autonomy, and so I can see this in my projected girlfriend and she will see it in me. We would respect each other’s person as such. Our autonomy would not pose a "threat" to the other. Our autonomy would be a welcomed trait—a definite must. It would a basic and principled understanding from the outset. We would not douse our relationship with jealousy or prohibitions on the other’s actions. We would not “police” each other---as if one partner where a prisoner and the other the guard [with the roles reversing according to circumstances and the nature of the relationship].

All of this type of behavior stems from a lack of emotional security and possessiveness. This lack of over all trust can tarnish the vitality of a romantic relationship. Common sense dictates this, and yet so very few people explicitly understand it. Whatever conflicting issues Objectivist Romantics might encounter, this would not be one of them.

Not if they are really individualists.

And while some mistakenly believe that “individualism” discourages the development of relationships, Objectivist Romantics would realize that it is its lifeblood! It's as if some people believe that relationships must consist of something 'other' than sovereign individuals pursuing their own self-interests, but how could a valuable relationship be based on anything else? Before you can say “I love you,” paraphrasing The Fountainhead, “You must be able to first say ‘I’”. Far from daunting a relationship, the principles of individual autonomy encourage the development and flourishing of genuine personal relationships.

Unfortunately, most people also conceive of relationships as "social" rather than personal--and this, of course, would be contrary to Objectivist Romantics who are in the relationship for the selfish enjoyment of the other’s person. While others believe that the purpose of a relationship is to serve a “social function”---whether it is for social status or the fulfillment of social expectations or family obligations or financial gain or “just because”-- Objectivist Romantics would realize that the relationship would serve no other purpose other than what the other puts in it and what is derived from it. You heard it before: It's a give and take deal.

In general, relationships that are primarily social involve unreasonable compromise, conformity, demands and sacrifice. This is contrary to the spirit of individualism. Objectivist Romantics may encounter all the usual stumbling blocks that characterize most other relationships, but they would have the intellectual equipment to defuse the problem, to overcome it--to fight for the relationship--because they both would realize that the relationship is an immense value to them.

**

Edited September 2, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

Victor, I like your article. Are you by any chance psychic? lol I'm not going to say it out in the open other than I can relate to your article. You know, realy, you've so gotta be psychic. That's gotta be it.

I too have an idea of what it might be like and I am sure I could add to your thoughts here. All I can say to that one is WOW. Being O'ists, all of us, we can only hope that we truly find that special someone. You should listen to a Rush song called Ghost of a Chance. You would probably like it.

I would enjoy adding here but I am short on time and need to start working again. Maybe later tonight I will be able to but I can't promise anything.

Angie

[Victor Pross]

Oh, come on Angie! You're just playing with me now. Are you saying that we are on the same page when it comes to relationships--with all the other things we agree on? We agree TOO MUCH! This is not normal! ;)

[CNA]

This is so NOT normal.

A lot of aspects in your article reminded me of those types of relationships. You forgot one though but it falls along the lines of sacrifice and/or compromise. The ever so dreaded, you're my partner so you HAVE TO come to the family reunion. Since you are a married couple, they think you are obligated to go to those reunions or business parties where they can schmooze around with their boss or what have you and you can be the barbie wife or whatever. So yuck to that one. And then if you don't go, they get all upset or stomp around with attitude. Yeah, you know what I have to say to that one.......hmmmm....BITE ME

P.S. Laughing too hard. I think that was the biggest NOT I have ever seen. That thing was absolutely huge. It sorta jumps at you when you first see it. I edited it to make sure it wasn't too big. LOL

Edited September 2, 2006 by CNA

[Victor Pross]

And you godda laugh at those Barbie Doll couples…they don’t have any genitals.

[CNA]

One benefit though for those barbie and ken.....no waxing or shaving or that dreaded 5 o'clock shadow, also no bra necessary, EVER, no bed head either. Damn, I'm missing out on a lot, aren't I?

[CNA]

Whoa, nevermind. No genitals ??.....OUCH...That one seriously hurts. no midnight rendezvous. So have to have those, and all the other rendezvous meet up places as well, have to have those too !!

[Victor Pross]

A little scene with Ken and Barb:

Barb: Ken, you have no genitals.

Ken: It's not what I don't have that matters, it's how I use what I don't have that counts.

The end