RoR: Forum

A slightly different scenario involves one in which Bob and his girlfriend start with a high quality relationship of mutual respect, marry, have children and, over time, allow the relationship gradually to erode for a variety of reasons that amount to changes in context without commensurate growth in knowledge. They may have had the best intentions in the world, had fine characters and a meaningful relationship, but without an explicit rational philosophy to guide them, their relationship began taking turns for the worst. Despite their struggles to understand, they fail to discover and to integrate a philosophy like Objectivism to guide them in their formation of values. In the end, they become unhappy whether together or alone.

I have little doubt that this does happen, though I cannot point to any formal studies to corroborate my sense of life on this issue. I just look at the many divorces that I see and I point to the preceding paragraph as a root cause.

Post 21

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:06pm

Here's another little hypothetical for you to chew on. Bob gets married to a great, great woman. They have a great, great life. Bob turns 45. Bob gets an absolutely gorgeous new secretary with a stellar bum. Now, just for argument's sake, let's say this young lady is receptive. And let's also say that she has the greatest ass, ever, bar none. Better than Cleopatra. Better than Drea Dimatteo. Better than Angelina Jolie. Better than anyone, ever, even Ashton Kutcher for those who swing that way. The sight of her body causes lesser men to faint, and greater to scheme, covetousness in their hearts. And straight women, to weep. Her eyes make the stars seem dim. Her hair, like a waterfall of brunette luxury. Her lips, like a cool stream to a man in the desert. Her bosom, a heaving promise of unquenchable passion. And, to top it all off, 9 out of 10 scientists would agree that a single kiss from this woman, nay, not even a kiss, a mere appreciative glance, without even her full attention, is worth more than 10 of the most loving, devoted, and talented wives in 100 lifetimes of completely wonderful marital bliss.

Do you ask her to get your coffee or do you get your own?

Post 22

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:22pm

Scott, you missed your calling, as a writer of soft porn.

Seriously, take a more difficult case. Two wonderful people, once soulmates, begin to evolve over time into different people. Different value priorities, notions about the pace to take life, where they ought to live, what kind of friends (or how many) to cultivate, etc. They just grow apart. Nobody's bad; it's nobody's fault.

When do they throw in the towel -- especially if they think they can perhaps reclaim the joy they once had?

These choices aren't obvious.

Post 23

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:22pm

James: "I don't want to hurt anybody."

That rings very true. Trying to spare someone's feelings never really works. Even if someone does decide to go through with a breakup, the wimpy, soft, let's-be-friends type of approach only gives them false hope about a reconciliation and makes it harder to move on. I like a clean break, even when I'm the one being dumped. Sure it hurts, but it feels much better to hate the awful guy who just dumped you than it does to think about the sweet, caring guy who tried to soften the blow as he kicked you to the curb.

Scott: "Now, see, I actually try to somehow work the stereotypew of the fat, lazy housewife into EVERY conversation, argument, and article. It's difficult in a political or economics discussion, but if you're committed, it CAN be done!"

You're killing me. Now I'm picturing the fat, lazy housewife appearing in every SOLO article henceforth. Sort of a "Where's Waldo" of bad taste.

Post 24

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:29pm

Hey everyone,

Glad you liked the article. Thanks for the personal compliments. Let me just respond to a couple of points.

Luther, I agree with what you wrote. Certainly self-esteem was a factor in this example. But the point I wanted to make about the path of most resistance is wider than that. In this case, he was afraid of confrontation or any number of other issues. But in real life, there are countless reasons why people will want to avoid an immediate cost even if the long-range results are far better. They could be lazy. They could by trying to avoid "stress". It could be fear of rejection. It could be fear of change. So while I agree with your particular assessment here, I don't want the broader principle obscured. The path of least resistance is really a path of evasion, as Pete recognized in the first post.

Angela, I was trying to convey the increasing hardships over time. These can manifest in a number of ways, and fat and slovenly are just two well known examples. The point was to show that no matter how bad it got, as long as it was gradual, the path of least resistance would still give him every excuse to stay with it. You can think that now Bob can be pitied, but since he has the opportunity to leave the whole time, I think it adds to the disgust with his behavior. Imagine if I had said she was beautiful, smart, sexy, and fun. Instead of people focusing on the path of least resistance problem, they'd think "what's wrong with this guy?". In practice, when someone refuses to assert themselves at all, the relationship is worse in the particulars. Imagine every annoying habit a person has, and if you never let them know it bothers you, it'll just drive you nuts.

Scott, I like that idea. Fat and lazy wife stereotypes in every article!

James, you're right that the excuse is often that they don't want to hurt somebody, and they inevitably do anyway.

As for the posts by Luther, Scott, and Robert, those are all tough questions. How perfect does your relationship need to be to continue it? Well, I'll start with the easy answer. Once you've decided you don't want to be in it, get out of it! We'll do the harder questions another day.

Post 25

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:31pm

Robert:

Its never too late to change careers, especially to one so illustrious as soft porn hack writer...it may be a step up from ambulance chaser! Maybe I could corner the market as Objectivist soft core porn writer, and 'John Galt' (porn star once features in the Free Rad) could star in a film I penned...

Angela:

If there is an opening for "SOLO Bad Taste Waldo," to paraphrase Sting, it's hard to say it, I hate to say, but its probably me. All for a laugh, you understand! (Now I want everyone to really pay attention to where that comma is at the end of Waldo, but before the quote, above.)

See, THIS is why I love SOLO. Very, very bright, intersting people, around whom I get to be a bit silly, even in the context of some serious conversation, and I get treated with benevolence and understanding! Plus, pictures of women with gi-normous mugs of beer doesn't hurt, either...now if only Ash-dude were here to tell me how too cool for school I am...

Post 26

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:18pm

Angela, I disagree with a point you made:

Even if someone does decide to go through with a breakup, the wimpy, soft, let's-be-friends type of approach only gives them false hope about a reconciliation and makes it harder to move on.

In some cases, yes, a friendship is impossible (most of my past relationships), and a clean break is best. However, if you genuinely value the person, and the rest just does not work out romantically, why throw away a bond that is solid on other levels?

It takes time to adjust to the new scenario, certainly, but it is possible if the person was a quality one to begin with.

***

Joe, this article was truly excellent. I think fear motivates too many people to stay in hopeless, or even less than optimal, situations like this. If life is about total passion for the total height, compromise on something so valuable as a love relationship is doing oneself a grave disservice.

Post 27

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:30pm

Jennifer, do you think that sometimes people go in the direction at which James Heaps-Nelson hinted -- namely, leaving a decent relationship for an "optimal" but non-existent ideal that will, in fact, never materialize? I think this would offer a legitimate enough "fear" to keep people in decent though less than "optimal" relationships. People can delude themselves both ways, either settling for less than the best possible or leaving the best possible for a non-existent "ideal."

Post 28

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:41pm

Luther, I'm sure they do, and one side of the slope is as slippery as the other. It depends upon which values are the "must-haves," and which are the "nice-to-haves."

It is important to note that along these same lines, the constant quest for the "perfect" person can also be a huge defense mechanism.

The solution to any of these is, of course, to thine own self be true: Know what you want, know what is negotiable -- and what isn't -- and stick to it.

Post 29

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:47pm

Jennifer, you're right that friendships are possible after a relationship. One of my dearest friends is an ex-boyfriend. I was referring the empty promise that is so often mentioned when breaking up. It's often said not with the genuine intention that they two will remain friends but simply to soften the blow and sound nicer. In the case of a person who has been too weak to break things off, the "let's just be friends" approach can leave the door open to the couple getting back together. Even when friendship is possible a break is needed before that friendship can happen outside the shadow of the relationship - especially for someone who is prone to taking the easiest path.

Post 30

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:07pm

Kat,

I do think Luke is right about relationships being like other values. Every value has to be looked at as a trade off - does the value gained justify the time and energy expenditures necessary to get and keep it. The more important the value - career, health, romance, children - the more expenditures are justified and the harder it is to figure out just what is justified, but it can still be looked at as a sort of balance sheet.

Kelly

Post 31

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:19pm

Angela, thanks for clarifying, as I misunderstood your first post. I agree that such an approach is very wimpy and immature. Very high-school, in fact. :)

Post 32

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:21pm

Kelly, I agree. Love is a business transaction, and one that is more needful of a balance sheet than perhaps any other thing in life. :)

Post 33

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:25pm

Kat meowed:

C'mon Luke, you can't be a buzzkill 100% of the time can you? People and relationships are in a completely different category than cars and stuff. Although both are values, they are certainly not in the same league. It's not that cut and dried.

Kelly and Jennifer replied respectively and respectfully:

The more important the value -- career, health, romance, children -- the more expenditures are justified and the harder it is to figure out just what is justified, but it can still be looked at as a sort of balance sheet.
...
Love is a business transaction, and one that is more needful of a balance sheet than perhaps any other thing in life.

Amen, sisters!

Brother Buzzkiller
Professor Emeritus
Royal Academy of Value Balance Sheets

Post 34

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 6:32pm

Brother B.,

I see you a ledger and raise you a flowchart.

Sister Spreadsheet
Chief Accounting Officer
The Balancing Act, Inc.

cc: Sister Double-Entry

Post 35

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:38pm

Jennifer,

Love is a business transaction, and one that is more needful of a balance sheet than perhaps any other thing in life.

I think a relationship or marriage is probably like what you says here. But love, geez, I don't know...for some people maybe, but I myself had been completely irrational in this respect. Although a relationship may not last if it is not balanced, but I can't say that there's never love there.

Post 36

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:51pm

Hong, then what is the love based upon?

I remember explaining my view on this a while back (can't remember the thread), but all transactions, whether human or otherwise, are based upon a principle of trade. If you love someone, there has to be an exchange of value; not pity, not duty, not anything that will be detrimental to your life.

If there is love in spite of a deficit in your return on investment, then yes, you are correct, there is irrationality at the root of it -- and it causes a slow death of the soul.

The terminology may seem cold, but the principles are valid.

Post 37

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:53pm

Fat and lazy wife stereotypes

Oh boy, that's exactly the image my husband has in mind for his ideal wife...;-)

Post 38

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 10:36pm

Joe,

I really liked this article

Why does everybody always use "Bob" - even that guy hawking the "male enhancement" drug on TV is named "Bob." (Same guy maybe?)

About this balance sheet metaphor, I have tried and tried and tried and tried and tried to use it as a main love tool in my own life and there are just too many curveballs in a relationship to make it so simplistic. I agree with Kat.

Of course, a relationship is largely constructed of payoffs and payouts and these are easy to compute, but there are always a bunch of sticky emotional issues that complicate everything, not just the simple evasion of taking the easy way out when you should know better. Btw, I do not want to detract from Joe's point here either, since it is of utmost importance. It is just not the whole picture.

I don't see love as a straight line - I see it as organic and it comes in waves. Organic also means it can have a birth, growth, decadence and death just like any living organism.

So it is entirely possible that Bob's love for his hapless wife also could have grown, even from such a shaky beginning, and they both ended up finding happiness and comfort in each other. They also could discover good, lovable and admirable things in each other that they didn't even suspect. This often happens in crises and during illnesses. These things do exist at times.

Here, I can see arguing for the virtue of persistence and accepting each other for what they are, not so much balance sheets (and I don't think it ever can be totally either-or - i.e. persistence/acceptance only versus evaluation only - at any rate).

As to waves, in a relationship, at times the all powerful emotion of love is very intense and at other times it is almost not even present. It goes and comes, just like everything else organic (sleep-wake, etc.). When it is at a high, the mind seems to go out for a hike and it is easy for you to do all kinds of stupid things. When love is at a low point the mind needs to carry it and not the heart if the loved one is important enough. So in this part, I see a real value for the balance sheet type evaluation.

Then there are all those other sticky emotional side issues that accumulate, the jealousy, fits of passion, tenderness, irritation, so many things, not just basically wanting or not the relationship. They all get mixed up together and make it really hard to know what you want. The growth of these issues is actually what I think Joe was also illustrating in his little story.

I know that if a love dies, very rarely is it revived. Friendship can survive, though. At least for me it can. I personally have been through way too many relationships for my own good. I have yet to pay a cent in alimony (it is never demanded and I have always left my exes most anything they wanted anyway) and currently I am very good friends with practically all of them. My attempts at reviving love with a couple of them were total disasters on both sides.

One last point. Going into a relationship already planning an exit strategy for "just in case" to me is already taking second best in life. Once I have evaluated and chosen and the chemistry and love are there, I prefer to plunge in as deeply as I can to the limits of madness, and if I get hurt real bad (like I have been), I have made a magnificent failure, not a settling on the easy way.

My life. My choice. Total passion for the total height. Especially in love.

Michael

PS - That one was for you, Kitten.

Post 39

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 11:02pm