In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@...> wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/2008 10:29 AM, Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> As I described in my previous post, I will be sharing my thoughts
>>> and experiences while studying Nathaniel Branden's works.

<snip previous comment>

>>> First, I should
>>> point out that I have just completed his book "Breaking Free –
>>> "How to cut the bonds of childhood that are keeping you from
>>> reaching your full adult potential".

<snipped old details>

>> What this means in practice is that the child has only nominally become
>> an adult (age 21, out on one's own, earning one' living, etc). Full
>> adulthood is a "becoming" process, something that is never completely
>> attained (as with a mathematical curve that approaches a certain line
>> asymptotically). Unfortunately few people continue with the "becoming"
>> process, but rather remain as stunted children all their lives.
>>
>
> I have thought about how it may be misleading to emphasize a person's
> 18th or 21st birthday as the attainment of "adulthood" or "maturity".
> It seems that the attainment of a certain age does not necessitate a
> minimum level of achieved maturity in a person. Perhaps this
> "celebrating adulthood" at 18 or 21 encourages a person to conclude:
> "I am now an adult and need no further personal development".

All of the above is certainly true, but worst of all is the mutually
exclusive classification of humans as either children (with
subclassifications from new-born to adolescence), who are in a process
of physically and mentally maturing to more fully realize their human
potential, and adults, who have already matured and for whom it is
assumed and accepted by most people that the process of maturing is now
complete. However, the true situation is that all such
subclassifications are merely sometimes useful approximations and do not
fully characterize reality. Just as humans are from birth ever
physically developing and changing (even aging is part of the continuing
process of development), so they can be and should always be mentally
growing, changing and increasing in maturity, understanding and efficacy
in dealing with reality, because this is the means by which each
effectively achieves hir purpose in life, optimally increasing hir
lifetime happiness, even though the full extent of such possible human
potential is something that can never be finally reached.

>> Full human life must necessarily involve mental growth and development,
>> which is why I often state that "Most people are dead by the time they
>> are 30".
>>
> I have heard of this phrase and have always been concerned that it may
> apply to me someday. However, it seems to me that I have developed
> myself to have disposition to be constantly learning and growing, and to
> have an open mind. Therefore, I think it is unlikely that I will ever
> become developmentally "stagnant".
>
> I wonder if it is possible to change someone's halted development. I
> wonder what it is that makes a person's mind "turn-off" to the rest of
> the world.

A major reason is because they have never experienced both the immediate
joy and the enormous sense of pride that comes from using one's mind
to effectively deal with reality. I mainly blame current educational
methods for this, but of course it is a self-inducing system because
their parents and all other role models around them were also turned-off
by that same hopelessly sterile educational approach.

>>> Studying this
>>> book has brought to my attention that some behaviors in which I
>>> engage are not optimal for my long-term health and happiness.
>>>
>> Actually that is and will always be true for everyone, me included.
>> It is only the number of areas in which this occurs, their extent and
>> degree, which hopefully gets reduced over time. Furthermore, even
>> though one may do one's best possible to estimate those actions that
>> will optimally increase one's lifetime happiness, even an effectively
>> *perfect* job of such estimating, there is always the chance aspect of
>> reality (the factors required for full analysis are essentially
>> unbounded in number and inter-related complexity and one's estimation
>> time is necessarily limited) which can completely destroy or reverse
>> one's best possible estimation. Again having one's estimations actually
>> work out is something that one ought to be able to get better at with
>> experience and thought, but I, for one, find it very frustrating that
>> I don't get better at this much faster than I do.
>>
>
> Your description of the estimation process above makes sense. It
> makes me think of the idea that mental development is the process by
> which to improve one's chances at estimating correctly, since that is
> what the mind is for. I enjoyed a book called "The Black Swan" by
> Nassim Nicholas Taleb. In the book he describes how the social
> world with which a human interacts is much more complicated now
> than it was not so long ago. With improved communication and
> transportation technologies, information and people can move around
> the world so quickly that it makes it all the more difficult to make
> accurate estimations.

While these differences perhaps make estimations and decisions about
some things more difficult, I think the enormously increased ability to
find information generally makes estimates and decisions about most
things far easier. If only people would be more open about themselves
and eschew anonymity, then decisions with respect to people would also
be much easier now than in decades past.

>>> The book relates the question-and-answer sessions of some of
>>> Branden's group therapy sessions (at the time of the book he was a
>>> practicing psychologist). This entire book is based of an epiphany
>>> Branden had during one of his group sessions. He asked the group a
>>> series of questions about how their parents treated them when they
>>> were children. He found that when he asked an appropriate question
>>> to a person to whom it applied, the person experienced a great
>>> deal of enlightenment regarding certain important frustrations or
>>> questions about hirself.
>>>
>> This occurs to those who are really open and honest with themselves.
>> Many (most?) people have a hard time doing that, at least not for every
>> facet of their psyche. Many things remain hidden deeply, are never made
>> conscious and are certainly not spoken of, often these are the things
>> that are most important with respect to inhibiting/promoting their
>> psychological development/growth.
>>
> I can picture how this process occurs within a great many people. When
> a person points out an inconvenient truth about another person's history
> or personality, it can be easier to make excuses for it, rather than admit
> it, try to understand what is wrong with it, and take action to
> correct it.

More often, in my experience, the person, either ignores you, goes off
in a huff and never talks to you again or lashes back with some negative
comment about you, usually totally unrelated to the point you were
making. At least if someone tries to make excuses, that is something
that you can try to counteract, providing some hope for the future of
the relationship.

<snipped previous details>

>>> I could really relate to the story of the first client, "Henry" (a
>>> fake name), 24 years old, and his responses to the first question.
>>>
>> Regarding the use of a fake name, this appears to be part of what is
>> called patient confidentially. If that patient wants it, while that is
>> still irrational, I can respect the need to adhere to that desire, or
>> even contractual obligation. However, what I have never understood is
>> the refusal to use the names of people who specifically do not want
>> confidentially and even welcome their names being used and are fully
>> willing to sign any necessary release (such as myself).
>>
>> [It is also possible that "Henry" is a composite of a number of
>> Branden's clients rather than one single individual. A number of writer's,
>> whether in the health care fields or not, use this technique for examples,
>> rather than obtain permission to use that of a specific individual. These
>> writers like this method also to combine the characteristics of several of
>> their clients into one pseudo-person with the problems or situations
>> they wish to discuss. **Kitty]
>>
>> [However, I consider such a technique to be invalid because the
>> example is then not a *real* one in any fundamental sense, and,
>> for any number of unforeseen reasons, may not be able to even
>> occur in the reality of any single human. This is similar to using
>> a unicorn or a truth machine within a philosophy example - totally
>> unacceptable for discovering the truths of reality! --Paul]
>>
>
> This practice of using a composite person as an example, if engaged in,
> does seem like an awfully dishonest way of communicating an example.
> Given that each person responds to words and ideas differently based
> on hir knowledge and experience, there's really no way to tell what a
> "composite" person would do. This way of giving an example seems to
> be no better than just making-up the person and hir response. And
> doing so would not be reality, only the author's estimation of reality.

I'm in total agreement with that.

<snipped portions on religious upbringing>

>>> Branden explains to Henry, on page 23, that Henry withdrew and
>>> stopped trying to understand the world around him. This random,
>>> unintelligible environment constructed by his parents confused him as
>>> a child and as a result, Henry stopped trying to make sense of the
>>> world. Henry had given up the hope of understanding. When reading
>>> this book, I remember the next phrase in the book, something Branden
>>> says to Henry:
>>>
>>> "When you withdrew, you gave up hope of understanding. You stopped
>>> caring to understand. That's when you gave up your self-esteem".
>>>
>> Exactly! One cannot have high self-esteem unless one is and sees oneself
>> as efficacious with respect to reality.
>>
>
> I am still working at making a connection between the idea of self-esteem
> and the feeling of being able to understand reality and act upon it
> appropriately. As I read Branden's books I see that he makes this
> connection, and describes how efficacy in dealing with reality is a
> person's source of self-esteem because the mind is a person's main
> way with which to deal with reality.

Self-esteem is one's own subjective estimation of one's worth, the
measure of which is one's ability and success at gaining the purpose of
one's life - optimally increasing one's lifetime happiness. In order to
achieve this success one must be as efficacious as possible in
understanding, modifying and gaining happiness from the reality in which
one lives. There is no other real method of gaining happiness and
therefore there is no other valid measure of one's worth.

> He says that, since humans are
> designed to deal with reality through the use of their "rational
> faculty",

Branden certainly errs here. Humans are not "designed", since "designed"
implies a designer. What a strange statement for an atheist to make! A
better way to say the same thing would be "humans have evolved to deal
with reality ...". Humans do not have the biggest teeth, the thickest
hides, the fastest legs, wings, gills, hibernation capability or any
other abilities superior to all other lifeforms *except* their brains.

> full, successful use of this rational faculty is the source
> of a person's self-esteem. However, I still can't see and understand
> these connections in my mind. I'm thinking about them.

Hopefully my words above will help a little.

>> And the first step to being
>> efficacious is to understand that upon which one needs to act. The
>> second is fully understanding the ultimate purpose and the immediate
>> goal of one's action. Without both one has no basis for making a
>> choice and certainly little chance that one's choice will be right
>> (particularly since "right" would be yet to be defined in such a case).
>>
> This point is clear. If one constantly has choices to make, when
> making choices, one must decide one's desired outcome (the goal).

And one necessarily *always* and *constantly* has choices to make as
long as one is conscious. It is important here to realize that taking
no action at all (no change from whatever one is currently doing) is
still a choice that one has made and acted on.

>>> This is the point in the book when I began to laugh, and cry,
>>> simultaneously – both quite heartily. I think I became emotional at
>>> this particular statement in the book because I have never really
>>> understood the idea of self-esteem. I am still struggling to
>>> understand it, and other parts of this book have helped me to
>>> understand it. But Henry's story sounded very similar to parts of my
>>> childhood. My parents could be quite random in their behavior,
>>> laughing one minute, quiet the next, shouting at one another the
>>> next, or drunk and loving the next.

<snipped previous comment>

>>> It made a lot of sense to me
>>> that a child in this type of situation would "give up" trying to
>>> understand the behavior of others and would begin to "turn off",
>>> emotionally. I think I have turned my own emotions off.
>>>
>> But at least you did not give up trying to understand other, not emotion
>> related things in life. That was your anchor to reality and what enabled
>> your mind to retain sufficient health that you could now finally begin
>> to examine emotions.
>
> I had a wonderful, related experience with one of Branden's other
> books, the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I agree: during these experiences
> I had never given up at trying to understand non-emotion things, and that
> I can now apply this inquisitiveness to myself.

And doesn't that feel great!

>>> Since some
>>> things my parents did could be hurtful, or (in contrast) caring,
>>> or irrational, I began to tune them out and to stop emotionally
>>> responding to them.
>>>
>>> I still do this today. For example, I don't like a number of traits
>>> about my mother and I am not very close to her, intellectually or
>>> emotionally. However, on the rare occasions I see her or talk to her
>>> on the phone, she will try to hug me or tell me she loves me. My
>>> first response to these expressions of "love" is to ignore them or
>>> tune them out. I don't want to respond to her, probably because my
>>> response would be: "no you don't Mom, or you would act differently
>>> than you do".
>>>
>> What this means is that she does not really know what love means.
>> She merely thinks of it as a duty that she owes to a son and can be
>> accomplished simply buy using the word and taking the standard actions.
>> She probably very deeply wants to love you but she does not know what
>> love really entails nor how to actually do it.
>
> What you describe above seems to accurately describe most people in my
> family. I wonder how many other people think the same thing about the
> actions of each of their family members.

Likely few, I suspect (it sure seems that way from all my experience).
Most people merely accept the cultural norm that one has some kind of
duty to love or at least continue cordial relations with one's
relatives even if deep inside you can't stand them.

>>> But, rather than say that (which, in fact, I have on
>>> occasion), I mute my emotional response. So one might say that I'm
>>> emotionally withdrawn. Rather than express my true emotions and
>>> thoughts and create conflict (since she will get angry with me and we
>>> will get into an argument – it's happened many times before), I
>>> ignore my feelings and even encourage myself to be non-responsive.
>>> This "ignoring of feelings just to get through the situation" seems
>>> exceedingly prevalent in my life.
>>>
>> Far better would be to greatly reduce the likelihood of encountering
>> such situations and instead seek emotional situations with people who
>> understand them and act consistently with that understanding. The fact
>> that she (and perhaps other people that are negative to your well-being)
>> are biologically related should have no bearing on this decision.
>>
>
> I strongly agree that biological relation has no bearing on my decision
> to interact with people, and have begun to apply this perspective in
> my life.
> Since I understand this philosophy to be highly rational, I find it
> surprising
> that so few people agree with it. Perhaps this is because so many people
> have been indoctrinated by religion or family pride (or something else)
> that they experience strong guilt if they refuse to interact with people
> biologically related to themselves.

I think that the biggest reasons for most people continuing to interact
with their biological relations are:
1) These are naturally people with whom one is most likely to have both
experiences and genetically predisposing characteristics in common.
2) The culture of today strongly influences everyone to refrain from
judging others. This is based in religious origins ("Judge not, else ye
shall be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyself" - and who is the
closest "neighbor" during one's childhood? Family of course) and in
political origins such as the disastrous phrasing, that was sneaked
into the US Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal".

>> I do
>> not have a single biologically related person to whom I am close, mainly
>> because none of them have any high regard for the ideas that I think are
>> most important of all. In fact, they all appear to regard me as an
>> impractical misfit and kook.
>>
>
> Paul, I think it is interesting that your family regards you as "an
> impractical misfit and kook". I think this is very interesting because
> from my knowledge, those people who have accomplished great things or
> who have revolutionary ideas are often considered "misfits" and
> "kooks" by their contemporaries. This relationship between unorthodox
> ideas and accomplishment seems to make a lot of sense. If one wants to
> make a great improvement to some aspect of reality, this desired
> improvement implies that the current state of reality must be
> *different*. Hence, those who discover something *different* (and
> perhaps wonderfully beneficial) must *think differently*. In the
> process of thinking differently they may also need to take the abuse
> of their contemporaries for being "different".
>
> It is very unfortunate that unusual ideas are treated with such hostility,
> because improvement only comes through new ideas (a deviation from
> the current idea).

It is refreshing to see someone else appreciate and state that so well.
Of course, the converse does not hold. Just because a person is very
different in thought and action from others does not imply that s/he has
discovered any important and generally unknown/accepted truths of
reality. Many people like to be different for no other reason than
perhaps their own amusement or self-identification. But most who are
different, do so to associate with similar others in groups somewhat
alienated from the rest of society.

>> But so what? There are lots of other people
>> in the world, some of whom have shown and will still show that they
>> appreciate my most cherished ideas.
>>
>> [The description Paul gives for himself is near identical to mine.
>> While he has 1 brother, 1 sister and 1 biological daughter (that he
>> knows about - the others were from sperm donations), I have 2
>> brothers, 2 sisters (all younger than me), **Kitty]
>
> Kitty, I note that you are the oldest of your siblings, as am I. I
> understand independence of thought tends to be more prevalent
> in eldest children.

That is the general finding of psychologists. However, my brother was 2
years older and my sister 6 years younger (WWII intervened). As a child
my brother was certainly more of a rebel with respect to the family
mores than I was, but this led to him being, in general, a far less
ethical person than me, but, after his teens, also far more aligned with
the behavior and norms of society than me. Still my radicalism came
slowly, continuing to build all my life, as I more and more questioned
and analyzed everything that I observed others doing.

<snipped previous comments>

>>> I have a difficult time expressing
>>> my thoughts or feelings about a number of things, especially in my
>>> employment setting, because I'd rather not "rock the boat" by
>>> exclaiming, for example, that I really hate wearing a tie!
>>>
>> One solution is to clearly make that statement by the simple action of
>> acting differently ("actions speak louder than words"), and let the
>> other person "rock the boat" by raising the issue.
>>
>
> I did try this, and was promptly requested to wear a tie next time.
> I should have raised the issue.

Yes. You could have challenged back by simply asking "Why should I?"
Not with a challenging tone, but rather one sincerely wanting reasons.

>>> While this "emotional muting" may not sound very harmful, Branden
>>> says another very interesting thing about emotional responses. I am
>>> having difficulty finding the exact quote, but Branden states that
>>> emotional responses are value judgments. When a person has an
>>> emotional response, the emotions are an automatic expression of how
>>> that person values a certain event.
>>>
>> Yes. Emotions are automatic, subconscious summations of your evaluation
>> of something or someone. If rational and consistent (and mentally
>> healthy) such evaluations are fully consistent with what you
>> consciously think and profess. It is only that it would likely take
>> you far longer (and would not likely even be as accurate) to
>> consciously go through the entire evaluation procedure that the
>> subconscious does for you. In this respect I have gone a little
>> further than Branden. I call emotions "tools of cognition" because if
>> they are made consistent with your consciously held principles, they
>> can be used to help you understand and react to given situations and
>> people much more quickly and accurately than can conscious thought.
>> More than once in my life I have found my emotions telling me
>> something that I did not at first agree with, but after a while came
>> to realize was more consistent with my fundamental principles of
>> behavior than the conscious choices and actions I was taking. However,
>> for one to be able use and rely on one's emotions in this fashion one
>> must deliberately and with great focus, and over time, go through a
>> process that I call "reprogramming one's emotions" in order to ensure
>> that they are consistent with one's most fundamental conscious
>> convictions and their implications.
>>
>
> I enjoyed your discussion above, Paul. Perhaps your experiences are
> what people call "going with your gut". However, I do agree that it is
> most prudent if one "reprograms the gut" to respond in a way that is
> in one's best interests.

Yes, they are called that, but I am always very negative about that
expression, since all reasoning and evaluation, whether conscious or
emotional takes place in the brain. So one reprograms one's brain with
respect to emotions, not one's gut. One's gut is what one reprograms to
respond in one's best interest by, for example, accepting certain foods
and other substances, which one has consciously decided are beneficial
for one's body, without too much disturbance.

>>> To me, this means that if I fail
>>> to emotionally respond to events, I also fail to experience and
>>> *express* my value system.
>>>
>>> *And what do you know? I've had problems with asserting my values
>>> and standing up for my convictions! Wow!*
>>>
>> It is very enjoyable to see such insight!
>
> It is very enjoyable to experience it! I feel as though I have made
> much progress in a short period of time (the past few weeks). It is
> invigorating, refreshing, and rewarding to see the world in a better
> way.

And it appears to me that you *have* made much progress.

<snipped previous comment>

>>> A second, very important point in this book influenced my thinking
>>> very much. Branden only briefly mentions the topic of sexual roles,
>>> and compares male and female sexual roles. I will first briefly
>>> discuss my experience with sexual roles.
>>>
>>> When I was in high school, approximately 16 years old, I had a
>>> girlfriend who I dated for quite some time (18 months if I remember
>>> correctly). During that time, being teenagers, we were both
>>> interested in sex and exploring sexual desires with one another.
>>>
>> Such a difference in 50 years. I was also interested in sex at that age,
>> but there was absolutely no thought of taking any related action to
>> explore sexual desires with a girl.
>
> Not infrequently it is the girl who first initiates the exploration
> of sexual desires.

Again that was never the case in my experience (very limited, I grant).
It did not happen to me until I was 40 and had a brief affair with a
slightly older woman some years after the breakup of my first marriage.

> Another girlfriend I had in high school was *very*
> sexually assertive. She was 16-17 years old. What was the sexual
> environment like for young people at this age 50 years ago?

Actually that age was more like 54 years ago (1954), when I was in the
last two grades of high school (there were then 5 HS grades in Ontario
9-13). In my experience at that time, sex before marriage, or at the
least engagement, was taboo and only the lowest class or most crass
people did it, mainly because they were too weak to resist their baser
urges - actually not too different a view than about people who got
drunk. (Note these are *not* my present thoughts at all! But an honest
attempt to phrase how I and most other morally "good" people thought
about it in 1954.)

>>> However, during our relationship, my girlfriend was very reluctant
>>> to have sexual intercourse. This did not bother me, but many of
>>> her peers learned of her preference for non-intercourse sexual
>>> activities. Her peers proceeded to pressure her and mock her for
>>> not wanting to have sexual intercourse.
>>>
>>> After a year of dating this girl, I was visiting with her family at
>>> their cottage, and some of our friends came along. One night I snuck
>>> into her room and we spent time together, talking, kissing, and
>>> holding one another. I don't recall anything sexually-out-of-the-
>>> ordinary occurring that night, but at one point she began crying
>>> intensely. After I coaxed her into explaining what it was she was
>>> upset about she described to me how her brother had sexually molested
>>> her several years prior. She had been very reluctant about sexual
>>> situations because this experience with her brother still bothered
>>> her. At this point I began to understand why she had been reluctant
>>> about sexual activities and *I resolved to not pressure her about
>>> sex* (emphasis placed because I will come back to this point again
>>> very soon).
>>>
>> What was needed was to explain to her that loving, caring sexual
>> activity is totally different and unrelated to molestation (although I
>> would need to have the actual actions described before I can accept the
>> word "molestation" as a correct naming of them).
>>
>
> I am interested to hear your thoughts about what constitutes
> "molestation".

The root problem with "molest", abuse" and so many other words
attempting to describe negative social actions, is that they confuse
psychological effects and physical effects. As an example here is the
definition of "molest" from Collegiate portion of /Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, Unabridged/. Merriam-Webster, 2002.
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

"1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or
injurious effect
2: to make annoying sexual advances to; /especially/ : to force
physical and usually sexual contact on"

Now to be complete, one would in turn need to look up "annoy",
"disturb", "persecute" and, at least, "hostile" (all dictionaries are
necessarily circular in character). However, it is clear from the
general meanings of these words and all others used above that while
some actions that fall under this definition, are clearly physical and
are therefore Violations of the receiver (see the definition and uses of
Violation in the NSC), many others are not physical at all, but purely
psychological. It is a major implication of the theory of Social
Meta-Needs that while many actions that are purely psychological may be
disliked by the receiver of those actions, any actual harm that is done
by them is *entirely* up to the receiver. While such actions may
therefore, be socially preferenced against, they are *not* Violations
of the receiver.

>> In that sense you should never have pressured her
>
> I made a mistake by using the phrase "pressure her". By pressure, I meant
> that verbally asserting my interest in sex was considered by her to be
> pressure.

Then that was her problem (psychologically), not yours. If she really
thought that she was right and was proud of her decisions, then she
would have just said no, and left you to decide whether or not that
answer and its result satisfied you, sufficiently to continue the
relationship, at least on the same level as up to that point.

> When I said above that I "resolved not to pressure her about
> sex", I meant that as "I resolved not to ever mention sex so as to
> avoid making her feel pressured".

Understood now, but "pressure" is another word in that class above
like so many that have conflated meanings encompassing both physical
and psychological actions. Therefore, care has to be taken in its
usage to make sure that the reader understands that its intended usage
is purely to mean "attempt to have a psychological effect".

>> but merely described the possible joy of such activities.
>> But then you were far too young to fully understand this
>> at age 16.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> Within the next couple of months, the pressure she encountered from
>>> her peers intensified. Finally she said that she was tired of the
>>> emotional grief from her peers regarding the context of sex in a long-
>>> term relationship and she decided to end the relationship. I was
>>> very hurt. I think I learned from this experience *not to pressure a
>>> woman about sex, even if I have sexual desires* (again, I will come
>>> back to this).
>>>
>> Actually one should never "pressure" anyone about anything.

I meant this to be true even for psychological pressure, in the sense
that one should not attempt to use psychological influence on others,
but rather always use persuasion by trying to appeal to their
reasoning ability. This is particularly true with children because it
promotes in them the notion that all actions should be based on
reasons rather than whims.

> Again, it seems that I incorrectly used the word "pressure". I used the
> word "pressure" to mean that, even the simple act of mentioning a topic
> is considered to be "pressure", depending on the person. For example,
> if I ask my father how he is feeling, he may become angry and say: "No
> Steve, I haven't stopped smoking yet", even if I had no intention of
> discussing his smoking habit. My asking about his health is construed
> as "pressure" about his smoking habit.

You must learn not to accept someone else's construing of any word you
use or action that you make as your own meaning or intent. His
construing is his problem, not yours.

>> To be effective and successful, all influencing should be done by
>> means of persuasion (reasoned argumentation) related to the
>> lifetime happines of the other person.
>
> I agree, and try to practice this at all times. Since humans are
> designed to operate within reality by using their rational faculty,

Now you are parroting, just like someone else that I recently
criticized for this. But again, humans are not designed, rather they
evolved to be as they are. There is a crucially important difference.

> appealing to that faculty is a good way to influence a person.

It is only a good way to influence those people who are amenable to
reason, which unfortunately does not seem to be anywhere near a
majority. For that reason, using reason to influence is also a very
good way to filter out people with whom you would be better of not
associating very closely. In addition, I think that influence by
reason (ie persuasion) is the only way to ensure that such influence
will be fully integrated and lasting, but again only with those who
are amenable to reason and integration of it into their conscious idea
structure.

>>> In this book, Breaking Free, Branden briefly describes sexual roles.
>>> I have taken the time to find the excerpt from the book where Branden
>>> describes this point. It is on page 206 (in the Bantam edition first
>>> published December 1972):
>>>
>>> Branden: "Masculinity or femininity entails an affirmative attitude
>>> towards one's sexual nature and one's sexual role." (Next on page
>>> 212): Branden: "Now here's something I regard as of prime
>>> importance. [A man's sexual role is] not being afraid of the
>>> responsibility of masculine self-assertiveness. If you're a woman,
>>> [it's] not being afraid or inhibited about responding to the man,
>>> about surrendering sexually."
>>>
>>> My first response to reading the above was that it was unfair of
>>> the man to be sexually assertive (phrased: "masculine self-
>>> assertiveness") and expect the woman to "surrender sexually".
>>>
>> I had the same response and still do.

Upon re-reading your lines above, I realize that I miss-read them
initially, so my statement of agreement above is not correct. I never
thought of this asymmetrical view as being unfair to the woman (since
I never thought of it as precluding assertiveness and initiation by
the woman), but rather as being an unfair psychological burden on the
man (which is what I then addressed in my comments).

>> I see the roles in romantic love
>> as almost completely equal, with which partner is doing the initiating
>> (not "asserting", that is far too forceful a word) alternating from time
>> to time depending on natural desires. So here is one place where I
>> disagree with Branden's rather old fashioned, almost patriarchal idea.
>
> I have thought about your label of Branden's idea as "patriarchal" and
> it seems to be a good way to describe it.

I think so - it is patriarchal in the sense that the man (father
figure) is always supposed to be the initiator and leader and the
woman his subordinate follower. It is related to the idea expressed by
Ayn Rand (and never given an acceptably reasoned explanation) that the
President of the US should never be a woman. I was surprised to see
that Branden, much younger than Rand (only a little older than me) is
still carrying on that sort of notion.

>>> However, I contemplated this point at length and realized that I
>>> likely have this response because of my experiences with women who
>>> had been sexually abused (I have dated one other woman who had
>>> also been sexually abused.)
>>>
>> I hate this much and often improperly used word "abuse". I simply
>> will not accept any usage of that word unless and until I am told
>> the full details of what is called an abusive action.

My reasoning for disliking the word "abuse" is now fully explained above.

>>> I understand how such women can be afraid of sexual encounters and
>>> therefore I had resolved not to sexually assert myself.
>>>
>> If someone is still bothered so fundamentally by such an occurrence in
>> hir past then you are better to not get involved with hir in any way
>> related to sex, unless you first help hir get this "bother" resolved and
>> ended.
>>
>
> This resolution is a lengthy process, one which I thought I could help
> with.
> In this regard I had been acting for the benefit of others, rather than
> myself, which is wrong.

It is only wrong to help someone overcome a problem if the resources
that you need to expend in doing so, cause a greater reduction of your
lifetime happiness than the probable increase that you estimate will be
obtained from the ongoing relationship with the person after the problem
is eliminated. Of course, this also requires a continuing estimate of
the success at such elimination. There are many times when I have given
resources to a person, for which I never received sufficient return of
value in any way. And this will happen again in the future since one can
never be sure without trying, at least a little. I take solace in the
fact that I must continue to do that in order to find or help create
people who then return value that makes up for all those small losses.
For example, Kitty has made up for just about all the losses in my life
before her.

>>> However, in deciding this, I also am denying my sexual role
>>> and sexual nature (if Branden's evaluation of these are accurate).
>>> And this contradiction seems likely to cause a fair amount of
>>> frustration, for both myself and any woman with whom I am in a sexual
>>> relationship.
>>>
>> There is no doubt that many women look for a man to always be the
>> assertive one, but I think that is irrational thinking on their part and
>> needs to be cleared up. IOW, do you really want a sexual relationship
>> with such a woman while she still thinks that way?
>>
>
> Good point. No I don't. I had been in a relationship with a woman who
> thought this way and it was very frustrating. I constantly had the
> responsibility of sensing her desires (exactly as you describe below).
> Of course, since I can not read the minds of others I could not always
> do this successfully and she felt "unwanted" during the times that she
> had desires and I didn't sense them. Very frustrating, and unrealistic.

It was very much that way with my first wife, even though before we
married she was the more socially outgoing and assertive one than I. In
fact, one of the reasons I was attracted to her was because I was so
socially inept and I thought that she would be able to help me and/or
supply that aspect of the partnership. Lo and behold once we were
married, all of a sudden *I* was supposed to be the assertive leader
and make all the social contacts! You can imagine the result.

>> To me such thinking also puts a lot of pressure on the man to
>> always be able to sense the woman's desires and make the right
>> assertiveness decision. I have never liked that situation. Like you
>> somewhat, I would always rather do without than to make a mistake.

I note that I used "pressure" above, one of those words with conflated
meanings. However, I do always use it solely in the psychological sense,
something that can always be resisted by a fully rational receiver (as
you do also, it appears).

Actually this word is probably used that way, exclusively, by the vast
majority of people when applied to a social context. The problem with
the use of such a word is that its origin and root meaning is purely
physical.

<snipped previous comments>

>>> I hope some of the readers find my personal experiences above to be
>>> enlightening, encouraging, or at least, interesting. I look forward
>>> to comments and discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> And why none have come, I simply do not understand.
>>

I leave this in to emphasize that it is still the case.

>>
>>> ---
>>> Steve Floyd
>>>
>> Again thanks for posting this.
>
> You're welcome. I'm glad that we discussed it. Even if there
> are not yet any other posts to this, there is always the possibility
> that it may be read, thought about, and considered by others in the
> future.

Or even has been already by some, but without some feedback no one can
know that.

> That's why I chose to post in a public forum.

Exactly. Doing so at least provides the possibility that one's ideas
and thoughts will effect more people.

--Paul