Kevin Delaney

Who cares where he is? To him, the only thing that matters in that moment is where he's going.

I won't respond further to Red, because to do so would require me to violate certain Forum rules, and I don't want to burden Besty with the task of deleting my post. I will close by saying that I think this thread (chiefly Red's statements, not mine) is extremely instructive for both men and for women to read.

"No way" to what, exactly? As far as I'm concerned, your mission as a man is to bottom-line everything people say and do, and keep your life and affairs as simple and straightforward as possible. (Granted, there are many different schools of thought on this, but you asked for my opinion.)

Perhaps there are people who say "no," when they really mean "yes." I'm not sure how common this is among adults, but in any event, it's not your job to figure out who might be telling you the truth, and who lives in bizarro land.

Red and I have been over this very issue before on The Forum, so I don't imagine that what I say will convince him. But for everyone else, this is a classic example of what I call psychoanalyzing (or "playing Sigmund Freud"): You're not allowed to do this, Red. You're not allowed to speculate on or guess at another person's motivations in this way. When a woman tells you it's over, you must take her at her word. Legally as well as morally, you are obligated. It's also the only way to retain your masculinity, and preserve your male sanity.

*Sorry, the last line of my last post should have read: "I'm neither complaining, nor bragging..."

Don't take my word for it. Take HER word for it. A woman has sex with you one time, then drops you (by text message, no less) immediately afterward? While you're driving home? Doesn't she know that texting while driving is dangerous? But seriously, if YOU had done this to HER, she — along every one of her girlfriends, and the majority of her Twitter followers — would regard you as the filthiest pig on the planet right now. Something tells me there is a Sex in the City DVD boxed set somewhere in this lady's apartment. (And Betsy, I'm neither complaining nor exaggerating. I'm kidding. It doesn't happen to me constantly, only every other week... )

You got sexually used, my friend. I know, it happens to me constantly...

How can they be "together" if they live a continent apart?

I'm on your side, Red.

Naturally, there will be further interactions, dealings, etc. It's extremely obvious that this woman is not homely.

To understate: No. Which is why it makes for compelling fiction. If you'd like your romantic life to be real and not fictional, you must shun the principle of drama in all forms but literary.

2.5 million possible explanations… None of which are any of Red's business or concern. Like all men, Red needs to learn the art of dropping women. He hasn't yet discovered that love is simple — that a good relationship is a straightforward & happy affair, free of ambivalence, confusion, immaturity and drama.

Betsy: What "cause" are you suggesting that Red seek out? An explanation... of what?

Do I get a free dinner?

Man is the conqueror — symbolically and in the bedroom. If I ask a woman out for coffee and she says no, I respect her time and my own, and I don't pursue things further.

Who paid for dinner?

Red: This girl has zero romantic interest in you, and is playing with you because she knows you like her. You should have walked away. Now your ego rationalizes: She turned me down when I asked her for a date. But on the other hand, she laughs at my jokes. Maybe I still have a chance with her… You did the right thing before, to shut off all contact.

Nate, as you alluded to in your initial post, there is a crucial distinction to be made between "evil thoughts" and evil ideas. There is no subject or topic about which it is immoral to think. If one is to function mentally at all, no aspect of existence can be forbidden from entering awareness; no area or fact of life may be closed to mental consideration. This necessarily includes actions which, if taken by one in reality, would be immoral (such as murdering the neighbors because their stereo is too loud). Morality applies to the way one uses one's mind — to one's method of mental functioning — never to the contents of consciousness per se. Emotions as such are involuntary responses, and are not subject to ethical evaluation. We must think about our emotions; we do not condemn ourselves morally for what we happen to feel. If you use your mind properly, you likely will not spend too much time contemplating depravity. A commitment to rationality generally ensures a well-integrated emotional life: few of your feelings and desires clash with your conscious convictions. Theories can be evil. Communism is a destructive political philosophy, completely at odds with man's nature and the requirements of human life. Its implementation has caused suffering and death on a massive scale. But one can feel free to read the works of Marx, and one must independently consider the validity of the ideas they contain. One might even agree with some aspects of Marx, or at least withhold a total condemnation of his perspective, without fear that to do so will constitute a demerit on one's soul. The Bible teaches that you can go to hell for doubting/questioning your faith, for desiring your neighbor's wife, for experiencing pride or feeling anger. It wants you to obliterate the distinction between what happens inside of your mind, and the actions you perform in reality. The purpose is to inculcate guilt in you from the inside out. When you distrust, deny and disown your internal self, you naturally become self-doubting, self-loathing, and miserable. Happy, self-confident people are unlikely to submit to external (moral) authority. I have a great many problems with Nathaniel Branden. However the thesis put forth in The Disowned Self is a psychologically and philosophically important one.