I have an unwritten policy about opposite-sex friendships. This issue came up recently in a discussion with friends, and it got me to thinking about why I conduct my friendships the way that I do.
My general policy is this: When I am in a committed relationship with a woman (as I will be with Kelly for the rest of my life), I avoid developing intimate friendships with other women. When Kelly and I hang out with another couple, I do make friends with the woman in that couple. But in general I don't develop an intimate friendship with the woman independent of Kelly, or independent of the other woman's man. On the other hand, I am very willing to develop an independent, intimate friendship with the man in the couple. I'd have no problem inviting just the guy to a sports bar to watch football, but I wouldn't do the same with his girlfriend.
Some could (and have) argued that this policy is sexist. After all, a woman can be every bit as good a friend as a man. Continuing the couples example above: If both couples are in a committed, happy relationship, then why would there be any reason to hold back on developing friendships? After all, if I am fully dedicated to Kelly, there's no reason for either one of us to be jealous -- I'm not romantically interested in any other woman besides her. Neither one of us would ever cheat. So, acknowledging that I could have an enriching, totally platonic relationship with another woman, why would I avoid it?
My answer to this question is grounded in two key points: 1) Emotions respond to how one acts in a relationship, not how he labels the relationship, and 2) There can be more than one soulmate for any given person.
1) Most everyone has heard of situations like this: A man meets a girl he really likes, and she feels the same way. They start hanging out a lot, and the relationship quickly becomes intimate, both physically and emotionally. They decide to be exclusive. There's only one problem -- The woman says that she doesn't want to be his "girlfriend," she just wants to be friends without the pressure of that label. Why, she asks, can't they just be very intimate, sexually exclusive friends-with-benefits? He is confused, but reluctantly agrees. When he finally confesses his deep love for her, she is surprised and uncomfortable.
Or: A man and woman who were romantically involved decide to end their relationship due to incompatibility. They both still care about each other very much, but one or both acknowledges that it's not going to work out for the long term. So they decide to be just friends. But starting the day after the break-up, they still hang out with each other every day. Even though they no longer have sex, and even though both have decided that the relationship is over, both continue to harbor romantic and sexual feelings for one another. When one of them finally decides to start dating someone else, the other is surprised at how badly it hurts.
Or: A couple is having a lot of problems, but the man insists that he wants them to stay together. Though he is rude to her, never shows her affection, never buys her flowers any more, and never initiates sex -- he insists that he still loves her and wants them to remain a couple. She is confused because her man's words and actions seem to contradict. Eventually, one or both of them are tempted to look outside the relationship to fulfill their romantic needs.
A common thread in each of these examples is that the label placed on the relationship does not match the actions of those in the relationship. In the first example, the woman wants to be "just friends," but in every practical sense, they are acting like they are in an exclusive, romantic relationship. They are acting like boyfriend and girlfriend, but they don't want to acknowledge that the label applies. Even though the man may agree to withholding the label, and consciously believes that his decision is rational, his emotions disagree with him. Though he tells himself not to fall in love, that it is just a friendship, he falls hard anyway.
The not-quite-broken-up couple also have a label/action dichotomy in their relationship. Both consciously acknowledge that the relationship is over, and that they made the right decision in breaking up, but they are still acting like they are in a romance. Even though they stop having sex, in every other respect their relationship is as intimate as it was when their love was in full bloom. So both remain romantically and emotionally invested. Their emotions respond to their actions, not to the "friendship" label they have loosely pasted on.
In the last example, both the man and woman want to label their relationship a "committed romance," but the man is not treating her like his lover. He's treating her more like an annoying roommate. As a consequence, their love is dying, even though both may honestly want to stay together. Again, their emotions respond to the way they act in the relationship, not their conscious intentions.
2) This is a shorter point, but equally important: I do believe in soulmates, but I think that there is more than one potential soulmate out there for me. Though I hate to even consider the thought -- if Kelly died tomorrow, I believe I could find someone else and live a happy life. There are very few such women out there for me, but they do exist. Saying this takes nothing away from my love for Kelly. I simply acknowledge that there are many exceptional woman out there, and that I could be compatible with at least a few of them.
Kelly and I tend to make friends with people who are compatible with us in a variety of ways. Most of our friends are attractive, fit, intelligent, active, humorous, and fun. And most of them are also Objectivists. What this means is that several of our female friends are the kind of women I would be seeking if I were single, and similarly, some of our male friends are Kelly's type. One of these friends could be a potential soulmate for me. This does not mean that either of us are open to finding someone else. We are perfect for each other, we have a history together, and we have decided to get married and have a family together. Those choices mean everything.
However, consider what might happen if I started hanging out with Kelly's attractive, fun, intelligent friend Kate (a made-up person) on a regular basis. Kate and I develop a friendship independent of Kelly. As time goes on, the friendship becomes more intimate, and we share all of our deepest thoughts and dreams, as one would with any close friend. Neither of us are at all interested in a romance. But the fact is, we are acting as if we were feeling each other out for a potential romance. Think about it -- if you are single and you meet a woman you like, how do you test the waters to see if the relationship can go further? You begin to hang out with the woman independently, on a regular basis, and get to know her more intimately. It's possible that Kate and I could begin to develop romantic feelings for each other, even though it is not our intention.
Emotions are an automatized response to value judgments stored in the subconscious. Love is the emotional response to the integration of many values in another person, along with the reciprocated recognition of those values in oneself. If you throw in frequent intimate (even non-physical) contact -- and mutual physical attraction -- then romantic feelings are often the result. While one's conscious decisions about how he labels a relationship are taken into account by his subconscious, the way he acts in that relationship is also registered. The emotional result can be a confusing mixture, but most often one's actions are weighed more heavily than his conscious labels, especially if they are in stark opposition.
I don't develop independent, exclusive friendships with other women because I am dedicated to Kelly, and I would not want to inadvertently develop romantic feelings for another woman. Even though I would never act on those feelings, I don't want to take any focus off of the woman I love. I choose to funnel 100% of my romantic and sexual energy into one person, into one relationship. I choose to do this because I believe that this kind of monogamous, long-term romance is the greatest possible adventure in life (see my articles on The Morality of Monogamy and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality for more details).
While I stand by the generalizations I have outlined above, I want to stress that I do not treat my opposite-sex friendship policy as a set of Commandments. Commandments are for religion, not for a rational mind. The ideas I have outlined must be considered within a context, and applied contextually to any particular situation. Think of it like a healthy diet. A man can have a healthy diet and eat hot dogs or pizza every now and then. Maybe his body burns up calories very fast and he has more flexibility about what he can eat without gaining unhealthy weight. Or maybe his metabolism is very slow, and he must be more watchful of his diet than others.
My point is that, while I think it's a good tendency not to develop intimate, independent friendships with members of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that one must draw a line the sand and never deviate from it. For example, I retain close friendships with several of my ex-girlfriends, and I still keep in touch with them on a regular basis. All the women I have loved in my life are very special, else I wouldn't have dated them in the first place (see my article "Demoting" a Relationship). Kelly knows about them, but she isn't close friends with any of them. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by staying in touch with these women, and I've never had a problem with developing romantic feelings for them.
However, my friendships with these girls are all long-distance. We chat on the phone once every few weeks, and our discussions are very intimate (in the non-sexual sense), but that is the limit of it. If one of them moved to the area, I would probably invite her to have dinner with me and Kelly, and even go out with her alone for coffee every now and then. But I would be much more careful about how much time I spent with her.
There are many different kind of friendships -- everyone is different -- but keeping in mind some rational generalizations about conducting opposite-sex friendships can help one avoid confusion and focus on the one that matters most.
I love you, baby!
--Dan Edge
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I started out reading this post being skeptical of your policy on friendships. But reaching the end of the article, I now whole-heartedly (or, whole-mindedly) agree! :) You wrote this essay in a very clear, logical, and persuasive style. It's a very good essay.
Thanks a lot, Ergo. Yer makin me blush.
I think this is a great defense of a rational idea. I have many people I know, especially ones who have never been married, who think that a principle like this (limiting opposite sex friendships) is arbitrary and limiting. Having seen the results in action, your characterization of the reasons this is valid are spot on in my experience.
Do you think that in the context of both partners explicitly agreeing that such relationships are ok, that this principles could change?
Hi Kendall,
As I wrote in the article, there are situations in which opposite-sex friendships are appropriate, for instance if the friendship predates one's marriage. But of course one's wife should know about the friendship and approve (I can't think of a reason the wife would object).
However, as in other examples I used in the article, even if both parties in a relationship agree to adopt a certain label, their subconscious minds will be confused if their actions do not match the label.
For instance, say you and your wife agree that it's OK to have sex with other people. Then you go out and start having sex with your friend Jenny every night. You and your wife will not be "OK" with situation, even if you agreed you would. Your relationship would be a marriage in label only.
That's an extreme example to make the point, but the same principle applies to other, less extreme situations. There is some leeway in this, but on some level you and your wife cannot arbitrarily decide what constitutes an intimate relationship. If you spend a lot of time with another woman who you are attracted to, romantic feelings may develop, no matter what you and your wife have decided. You are not in direct control of these emotional reactions.
I'm really glad you liked the article!
--Dan Edge
Dan,
I thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts on this topic. I enjoy most, if not all, of your posts because I find that you and I have much in common - both psycho-epistemologically and in the topics we find most interesting. I agree with your central thesis here which, if I may summarize it, is that the dynamics governing the relationships between one's concious convictions, one's emotions, and one's actions are, at any given time, just as real as anything else. Being objective facts, these dynamics must be obeyed (or, to use your term: identified) in just the same way that the nature of any external object is obeyed if it is to to be commanded (ie: changed and/or maintained). You argue that yes, there may come a time when one of these factors might change, but in doing so, they will necessarily affect the others. Someone may convince himself that polyamoury is acceptable; someone may develop depression and lose his love for his wife; someone's spouse might die - but the bottom line is that none can operate in isolation from the others. The polyamourer will leave his wife and develop a disdain for all things monogamous; the depressed will retreat into nihilism and/or divorce; and the widow will either remarry or commence a new life as a playboy.
What I've said so far I'm sure is obvious, but I mention it because I want to use it as a basis for making a generalization about the psycho-epistemology of all Objectivists (or pseudo-Objectivists, if you like) - whether in the ARI or TAS camps - because I recently made an integration regarding a flaw which I believe is the root cause of all of their differences. The flaw is not in Objectivist theory itself, but in any individual who has a eudamonistic outlook on life. It is manifested in such a person's psycho-epistemology; within the context of reality how it is today. I think that your thesis here identified, demonstrated, and provoked (by it's critics) that same psycho-epistemological tendency, albeit in regards to a much narrower topic.
The other day, I came across a criticism of a leading ARI member which said that this member's (alleged) position that breaking Objectivist moral priciples was acceptable in our mixed-economy was a giant rationalization that opened the door for all kinds of immoral acts. In other words, regarding as good, say, the public exposure of Eliot Spitzer's use of prostitutes because it brought him down and spared Wall Street the torture he would have inflicted on him equates with, say, regarding as good the use of an ordinary person's identity in order to slander Spitzer to achieve the same end. While both prostitution prohibition and identity theft are morally wrong, this person claimed that the ARI figure is basically touting the notion that "all is fair in love and war" when we are in fact not at war.
Simultaneously, as anyone who has been an Objectivist for any length of time well knows, one the other side we have the ARI accusing the "Kelleyites" of embracing the exact same notion - only with more attention paid to the "love" half of the saying. Namely, that breaking the Objectivist principle of moral judgement was a giant rationalization which lead Kelley and his ilk to "repudiate fundamental tennets of Objectivism" by preaching tolerance when outside groups are in fact Objectivism's enemies in a very real philosophical "nuclear war." In other words, conversing with, say, The Libertarian Party, in hopes of making them embrace Objectivist ethics is on par with, say, embracing an ordinary, nonphilosophical, nonpolitical person merely because he believes in something philosophically non-essential like hard work. While both the LP and the individaul are wrong (ie: arbitrary), the TAS, the ARI argues, is allegedly implying that if there is no difference between a political group and an individual's arbitrary belief, then there is no difference between a CEO and a janitor's economic value, and there is no difference between a political party and a philosophical organization in their cultural value.
How does this tie in with your notion of the essential unity, and objective nature, of thought, emotion, and action? What I am trying to point out is that both camps, and thus all of Objectivism (ie: anyone who holds long-term, rational self-interest as the means to the moral ideal), is making the same mistake.
The majority of the opposition to your thesis, and your proposed methods of adhearing to it (not befriending women), that I have read seem to hinge around one supposition derived from this error. Specifically, the idea that one's actions and emotions are not dictated by reality in the same way one's convictions are. That one's convictions about an issue as complicated as how to counter the continually irrational forces at work in our culture should be obeyed without any input from one's emotions or actions/situation in the same way that one's emotions and actions/situation should have no effect on one's convictions if he lived in a time without those irrational forces.
But the presence or absence of those forces are two different things, and need to be acknowledged as such. An ARI sympathizer will tell you - as many have already done in regards to befriending women - that in the "mixed-economy" of your psyche - just as in the literal mixed-economy - it is acceptable to act solely on your concious convictions (as distinct from the rules you propose) because your emotions and your situation will inevitably result in happiness and liberty, respectively. On the other hand, a TAS sympathizer will tell you that given your internal conflict, you should be "objective" and accept this state of being as real (just as real at the LP's love for liberty), and to somehow correct your emotions (and the Libertarian Party) by being "open" to acting one way or the other (ie: not making any rules) until they integrate with the position you have somehow determined to be correct, even though you haven't practiced either policy exclusively.
Essentially, what I'm saying is that just like in a real mixed-economy, where an Objectivist's actions often clash with his convictions and contribute to emotional and existential unhappiness, it is ultimately self-defeating to not commit fully, sooner or later, to "unmixing" the economy (ala John Galt or ala pre-Galt's-speech Dagny Taggart), the same applies to whatever mixture is reaking havoc inside someone's head.
Neither the ARI nor the TAS believe that America has reached a point yet where "shrugging" is necessary, and that's fine. Both organizations still believe that there is enough "intimacy" with liberty and capitalism in the culture that it will see the error of it's ways before it's too late and "break up" with socialism. But, as more and more situations arise - as they inevitably will until Objectivists gain more, or better targeted, influence - where it becomes necessary to do things like defraud a small stockholder of D'Anconia Copper in order to defraud James Taggart, the last thing anyone needs is Galt, D'Anconia, and Danneskjold labeling one another as "unprincipled" because they are trying - the best they know how - to control outside influences beyond their control. Similarly, as an individual becomes more and more in love with someone, the last thing he needs to be thinking that he is just "scared", "weak-willed", "irrational", or "old-fashioned" because he is taking into account internal mental-emotional-existential dynamics beyond his immediate control in order to nourish the love he already possesses.
Very interesting post. I agree with the overall approach to relationships and act in the exact same way as you do, for the same reasons.
But I must admit unease with continuing friendships with ex-partners. Speaking from personal experience, my wife still stays in touch with her ex-husband. She emails him on a regular basis and occasional talks to him on the phone. But I must admit, that if she went out for coffee with him, I would be a bit worried that a romantic relationship may rekindle in spite of my wife's assurances that it could never happen. I fully understand that they were friends and lovers for many many years and have a long history and deep understanding of each other. Yet, it is precisely this aspect of their relationship that makes me uneasy.
Dan, I very much like how you grounded your argument in concrete examples, i.e. connected the abstractions back to reality.
What do you think of polyamory as a lifestyle, assuming everyone involved is aware of what's going on and no one's being deceived?
Heroic Dreams, thanks for the wonderful compliment!
--Dan Edge
Aaron,
In my opinion, choosing a lifestyle of polyamory is so self-limiting that I regard it as immoral. There may be certain cases in which it could be an ethical choice, but I am not aware of any.
In my view, the choice to pursue polyamory as a permanent lifestyle is like aspiring to work at a series of dead-end jobs. It's like saying, "I know that I could find and pursue a single productive career, but I choose not to. I prefer job-change as such, and will continue to alter my career choices on principle." Such a choice is non-sensical.
Another example: I liken polyamory to a genius aspiring to be a janitor. A genius is capable of excelling at any career he sets his mind to, so how could he be happy as a janitor, or the fry-guy at McDonald's, or a bus boy at Waffle House? I think that the genius who limits himself in this way is acting immorally.
The polyamorist is like this. It's not that he thinks that a monogamous romance is impossible to him for some reason, he simply rejects the notion of monogamous romance as such. The potential emotional/psychological fulfillment of a long-term romantic love relationship far exceeds that of any polyamorous relationship. So why would some choose the latter over the former? It doesn't make any sense.
--Dan Edge
Excellent article, Dan. I have personally witnessed several relationships dissolve when one partner fostered an extra-marital friendship that was more connected than the marriage, and admit that I was once wrongly a party to it (I wasn't the only one, either). I'm sure that, had such concise and reasoned advice been around at the time, it would have woken me up to the impending disaster, kept me from getting attached to someone that I should not have been. Such advice as yours, if applied early enough, can save a relationship, or at least save someone from paying thousands of dollars to hear some unprincipled quack of a therapist talk about "feelings" and "space".
Post a Comment