Sex and OPAR

[PalePower]

Elizabeth,

It’s called the rape scene only for want of a better description of a better name. But Rand herself—the book’s writer—as declared: “If it was rape, it was by engraved invitation.” This was her colloquial way of saying that “you can’t rape the willing.” I am willing to take the word of the creator of the characters.

Furthermore, you will note that Ayn Rand was an extremely selective writer, who loathed so-called “stream of consciousness novels”, who wrote each passage and word for a reason, with tremendous clarity and that being so, consider this: shortly after the “rape”, Rand has Dominique draw a bath…but Rand then places a great emphasis on Dominique’s resolve to avoid stepping into the tub because she wishes for Roark to “remain”…um…if you follow my meaning.

A women who was actually raped by a beast of man she either didn’t know or loathed—and against her will—would have remained in the bathe until her skin pruned. THAT is why Rand wrote this whole “bath passage”; she had something to communicate; Dominique loves Roark.

-Victor

Definitely - I'm aware of that. (Which is why the "rape" scene is one of my favorite parts of the book.) I was more commenting on the danger of taking the typically Randian pre-planned perfection of first-sight relationships literally. Ayn Rand is such a captivating and persuasive author, so in believing and taking as truth her essential philosophy, one can also tend to adopt an outlook on life that mirrors the novelesque perfection of her books - that every glance, word, and chance occurrence must have some deeper meaning and crucial significance, because that's the way it was in her books, and life SHOULD be the way it's presented in her books. (At least, that was my subconscious mental attitude immediately after reading her!)

~Elizabeth

[Judith]

Also, I agree with your "I think it is disgusting" sentiment as a personal choice about using blow-up dolls. I would never use one and would feel pretty ridiculous doing that. But I don't think other people who use them are disgusting at all. I simply don't have a moral (value) opinion about them. It's their business, not mine.

Michael, you misunderstood me. I think people who use other people for the function for which one would normally use a blowup doll are disgusting. Such people should be honest with themselves and use a blowup doll instead of another person.

Morality has everything to do with it. When we think morality in the sexual realm, we tend to think of it where force is involved—such as rape and pedophilia. But of course there is a sexual ethic when it comes to “two consenting adults.” Eventually, the type of practices I was trying to indicate in my posts, catches up to you. This has nothing to do with being a dowdy prude—it is a matter of self-respect and standards.

Yes, I see your point, and I agree.

And the Stoics who thought that the intellect simply was the "boss part" of the soul. Emotions, for them, were entirely a downstream consequence of what beliefs the intellect accepted.

Well -- isn't that the truth? You know, one doesn't fear a bear if one doesn't believe a bear is dangerous, etc.?

On another note,

Maybe Rearden felt bad about being in Lillian's bed, but he kept going back.

I think this is one of more interesting aspects of Rearden - interesting because while Rand acknowledges that people sometimes have urges that they "need" to satisfy, they still can't escape the reality of A is A. Rearden definitely felt bad about being in Lillian's bed, but he kept going back. Why is this? Because he had an indescribably intense desire not only to quench physical thirts, but to also unite with someone spiritually; in the latter context, Rearden kept going back to Lillian's bed to get the illusion of experiencing a fully satisfying sexual experience, but he could not escape the fact that it WAS just an illusion: A is A - Rearden was Alone. (How depressing. ) The fact that he kept going back doesn't mean that the act was somehow in itself "good" - it just means that it was, at least at the immediate moment, it was the lesser of the two evils: either being undeniably physically alone, or being with a surrogate. Rearden probably felt worse after being with Lillian than after being alone because when he was with his wife, he was cheating reality (in that making love to your wife, to him, was supposed to be both a physically and mentally joyous occasion, while with him it was definitely not mentally gratifying, and sometimes neither - though the urges to satisfy those desires were what drove him to her bed).

Damn, Elizabeth, that's right on the money. I was going to try to say something exactly along those lines. Rearden would have been a lot happier if he'd been honest with himself and stayed away from Lillian's bed and "bought himself a blowup doll" or the equivalent thereof. Rearden was Alone. That was the truth. He had physical needs and he needed to satisfy them. Doing it with Lillian was degrading to him; it was more dignified simply to do it alone.

I would have to say that Rand's method of introducing her couple-characters by the "gut-instinct-my-god-do-they-have-intensely-sexy-eyes-they-must-be-the-embodiment-of-every-value-I-ever-cherished-and-we-will-live-happily-ever-after-together-because-of-the-MEANINGFUL!-way-they're-eyeing-that-lamp post-right-now. . .-and-then-we-DO-live-happily-ever-after-because-only-the-people-I'm-looking-for-are-the-only-ones-that-CAN-look-at-lamp-posts-like-that" style is both one of my absolute favorite aspects of her writing and one of the most disliked. The absolute favorite part comes in the genuine amount of truth in those encounters - there IS an instant sort of "Wow. . . a REAL person!" click when meeting some people, and it's one of the most thrilling, "story-book" feelings you can experience. The most disliked part comes in the seductively easy way you can end up fooling yourself by believing too readily in these instances. Just because a person walks confidently, speaks smoothly, or gazes you down like they KNOW your soul BITCH, does not mean they actually are confident, intelligent, or that discerning or interested in you yourself. I had a very very strange, but thoroughly enlightening experience along these lines of Roark/Dominique or Prometheus/Gaea that more or less slapped me in the face - that although thrilling, tacit personal relationships are indeed possible and I'm sure happen often, it doesn't give the Rand reader free reign to over-romanticize their life to the point of litereally disengaging themselves from reality.

Which is why the Roark rape scene is one of the most interesting parts of the novel. . . In the first place, it totally violates Objectivist principles of personal rights and force over mind: Roark raped someone, period. And he's our hero? (Forget the fact that they both "knew" the other "wanted" it. . .) The second is some questions I guess can never be answered: Disregarding the theme and plot, would Rand have allowed Roark to rape Dominique even if she had not held his essential values but had merely come across as strong, contemptuous, and passionate? What was his purpose - to satisfy an urge, even if he had erred, to give him a taste of what the reality would be like, or to knowingly "conquer" her? (And if it was the former, shouldn't Rand, or rather Peikoff, revisit their stringent stance on sex? Or is that only permissible in story books? If that's the case, isn't Rand violating her own stand on art?)

Also, if Dominique in fact did not turn how she had impressed Roark, wouldn't that put Roark in a nasty spot of trouble? Say, if she had sued him, or become pregnant, or if he contracted an STD? (I always notice that in her books - there are always these passionate sexual first encounters and there's never any thought that anything bad COULD come out of them!) Isn't Roark intelligent enough to have considered those possibilities and that they most CERTAINLY would utterly destroy his career - his career!! - and yet he STILL goes through with it? Isn't that . . . well . . . STUPID? And again - this is our hero?

I absolutely am aware that it's a fictional story and a "recreation of reality according to values" blah blah however that quote goes - that the reason there's no pregnancy or STD issues is that not only is it unessential to the plot, but it would be a "submission" of sorts to the pains of life (and there'll be none of that in Rand novels!). And, technicalities aside, The Fountainhead rape scene is probably one my most favorite and the most exciting parts of the book (and leaves you wistfully longing, Oh God! why won't somebody rape me!?). However, the point is the danger that lies in taking "romanticized Objectivism" literally - life is simply NOT like that, and can't be lived as such. Otherwise, you're subjecting yourself to a lot of senseless pain and disappointment.

This part of Rand's writing is, I believe, not an integral part of Objectivism but part of Rand's personal fantasy. A writer is allowed to inject her personal fantasies into her writing. Too many readers have trouble telling the difference between the personal fantasies and the philosophy.

I've had experiences of soul-shattering certainty about people such as Roark and Dominique had, and unfortunately, I've ended up being soul-shatteringly WRONG. More than once. And people I've ended up loving tend to be people I never noticed when I first met them.

And I do not share Rand's fantasies of violent sex, or male dominance, so I personally don't enjoy her sex scenes all that much. But they're HER fantasies, and they're HER books, so she's entitled to do the fiction parts any way she likes them. Art is, after all, a stylized re-creation of reality. I'd have done it differently.

Judith

[Ciro]

Ellen Writes: (I think that there is homoeroticism in the relationship, despite Rand's hotly denying this) with Howard Roark and Gail Wynand: "So this is Howard Roark," Wynand thinks; "So this is Gail Wynand," Roark thinks.

Ellen, I really don't see any homoeroticism in the relationship between Roark and Wynand.

In Italy, for instance, is very common for a man to compliment another man for his values and good looks.

Ciro

[Victor Pross]

Ellen Writes: (I think that there is homoeroticism in the relationship, despite Rand's hotly denying this) with Howard Roark and Gail Wynand: "So this is Howard Roark," Wynand thinks; "So this is Gail Wynand," Roark thinks.

Ellen, I really don't see any homoeroticism in the relationship between Roark and Wynand.

In Italy, for instance, is very common for a man to compliment another man for his values and good looks.

Ciro

Ciro,

Good point.

Oy, why would Rand create characters--whose character traits and whose inter-relationships with all the other characters--be something to lie about later on? Why–OH WHY--would Rand ‘hotly deny’ something of this instance when she is the freaking creator of those characters and situations? If she wanted to suggest a platonic love between two characters---as she mentioned in “The Journals of Ayn Rand”--let’s take her at her word for it and stop superimposing our own presumptuous tendencies and speculation upon fictional characters ---created by Ayn Rand!

-Victor

Edited December 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen Writes: (I think that there is homoeroticism in the relationship, despite Rand's hotly denying this) with Howard Roark and Gail Wynand: "So this is Howard Roark," Wynand thinks; "So this is Gail Wynand," Roark thinks.

Ellen, I really don't see any homoeroticism in the relationship between Roark and Wynand.

In Italy, for instance, is very common for a man to compliment another man for his values and good looks.

Ciro

Ciro, m'dear, re-read the book, hm? (And of course you've quoted me out of context; those mutual thoughts aren't what I was referring to; but never mind, I'm not going to go through the book and do a textual analysis.)

Ellen

Adding a PS: Anyway, I think that homoeroticism is all over the place in Italian culture, and has been for at least more than two centuries. I further think that homoeroticism is entirely normal and healthy. Nor was I saying that Roark and Wynand were homosexuals. They weren't.

___

Edited December 28, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Victor Pross]

Quote: "My objection is to the starting point. Religions (and Objectivism) have a built-in booby-trap where they say sex is good, but then make you feel guilty about it. That is not necessary. Sex is good, period."

According to religion, sex has to have a high spiritual pedestal and source and that without this it is an evil perversion---categorically. So exulted is the “spiritual” element of man that the dichotomy within religion leads to a revulsion of the physical, and therein a special emphasis on sex.

This falls along the same lines as the Peikoff spun Objectivism. Let’s also call this “Orthodox Objectivism.”

So exulted is the “spiritual” element of man that Objectivism holds that sex is evil if not ordained by values---and it is here that “values” are held intrinsically and regardless of context. It is categorical. So exulted is the spiritual element of man that a religious marriage serves to redeem or excuse sex or make it a permissible Achilles' heel. Peikoffian Objectivism so exults the spiritual element of man that to sleep with anyone less than a hero or heroine—one’s “highest ideal” is evil—and it is this Catholic Madonna/Whore split—with no recognition of a gradation of the human continuum in between these two opposites that is dished up with a sprinkle of either-or.

If Objectivism is to loose the religious veneer that has shrouded it—thanks to the Orthodox lot, if so be the case—it is a full return to rationality [and I mean actual rationality] and context-keeping that should be emphasized.

In the effort to strip this religious varnish from the philosophy, the “Protestant Objectivists” [or the "Liberal Objectivisms"] spin off in the opposite direction granting casual sex [or strictly-physical sex] a status it does not really deserve—and do so not in the name of a standard, but just to show them there Religious Objectivists, the Orthodox, that they are truly intellectually emancipated, goddamn it.

A rational sexual ethic is not established with one eye on reality—and the other eye on those “other guys.”

-Victor

Edited December 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Judith]

So exulted is the “spiritual” element of man that Objectivism holds that sex is evil if not ordained by values---and it is here that “values” are held intrinsically and regardless of context. It is categorical. So exulted is the spiritual element of man that a religious marriage serves to redeem or excuse sex or make it a permissible Achilles' heel. Peikoffian Objectivism so exults the spiritual element of man that to sleep with anyone less than a hero or heroine—one’s “highest ideal” is evil—and it is this Catholic Madonna/Whore split—with no recognition of a gradation of the human continuum in between these two opposites that is dished up with a sprinkle of either-or.

Ironically, Rand herself did not hold this position. See Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Rand saw no problem with having affairs with people who were less than one's final and lasting choice. (After all, Dagny did this in "Atlas".) The kind of orthodoxy you're talking about here, Victor, is a case of being more Catholic than the Pope.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

My position is not an overreaction. It's all about context.

My remark that sex is good, period, means that human beings are born with a desire for sex that develops as the person matures and that desire (even and especially when it extends to attraction to strangers) is not a twisted form of Original Sin that must be overcome by "proper philosophy." That is a contradiction in orthodox Objectivism that is hidden in the booby-trap and that kind of thinking, actually, is what must be overcome. It causes guilt.

Man's desire for sex is good because man is good. He is an end in himself just the way he is. (Call it the Law of Identity taken at face value.) We build from there in adding other values, not take away from there.

I heartily reject Original Sin in sex.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

It’s called 'the rape scene' only for want of a better description, of a better name. It is a misnomer. But Rand herself—the book’s writer—has declared: “If it was rape, it was by engraved invitation.” This was her colloquial way of saying that “you can’t rape the willing.” I am willing to take the word of the creator of the characters.

Furthermore, you will note that Ayn Rand was an extremely selective writer, who loathed so-called “stream of consciousness" novels, who wrote each passage and word for a reason, with tremendous clarity and that being so, consider this: shortly after the “rape”, Rand has Dominique draw a bath but Rand then places a great emphasis on Dominique’s resolve to avoid stepping into the tub because she wishes for Roark to “remain”…um…if you follow my meaning. There is a specific reason for that passage.

A women who was actually raped by a beast of man she either didn’t know or loathed—and against her will—would have remained in the bath tub until her skin pruned. THAT is why Rand wrote this whole “bath passage”; she had something to communicate; Dominique loves Roark.

At the time, very tittilating stuff. Maybe that's one reason it was there.

Personally, one way or another I always ask for permission (unless, of course, it has been pre-agreed).

No doesn't mean yes. Unless you're doing role play. Personally, I'm not a big role play guy because sometimes you look at what you're doing and start cracking up. It depends what you're up to. But rape scenarios? No fucking way.

Ayn definitely had some kink going in the male dominance department.

I like stylized eroticism, but it's one of many other ways that sex can show itself.

[Victor Pross]

Ironically, Rand herself did not hold this position. See Nathaniel Branden's "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand". Rand saw no problem with having affairs with people who were less than one's final and lasting choice. (After all, Dagny did this in "Atlas".) The kind of orthodoxy you're talking about here, Victor, is a case of being more Catholic than the Pope.

Judith,

I’m not talking about Ayn Rand. I’m talking about Orthodox Objectivists.

-Victor

Edited December 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

My position is not an overreaction. It's all about context.

My remark that sex is good, period, means that human beings are born with a desire for sex that develops as the person matures and that desire (even and especially when it extends to attraction to strangers) is not a twisted form of Original Sin that must be overcome by "proper philosophy." That is a contradiction in orthodox Objectivism that is hidden in the booby-trap and that kind of thinking, actually, is what must be overcome. It causes guilt.

Man's desire for sex is good because man is good. He is an end in himself just the way he is. (Call it the Law of Identity taken at face value.) We build from there in adding other values, not take away from there.

I heartily reject Original Sin in sex.

Michael

Michael,

I’m not ascribing an original sin notion to you, [or any other notion] but your quote was helpful as a launch pad for the post. Anyway, you are far from an Orthodox, you are much more liberal. B)

Victor

edit: Hmm, I’m wondering now if my meaning is clear in the post.

Edited December 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Rich Engle]

I'm still like about the "proper sex" passage.

"Sex should be friendly." --Robert Heinlein

I guess there are different ways people deal with the beast within. Still, I can't imagine...

"My darling, shall we prepare ourselves?" Oy-vay. It just ain't that difficult.

[Victor Pross]

I'm still like about the "proper sex" passage.

"Sex should be friendly." --Robert Heinlein

I guess there are different ways people deal with the beast within. Still, I can't imagine...

"My darling, shall we prepare ourselves?" Oy-vay. It just ain't that difficult.

Rich, I’m accustomed to grabbing the woman by a lock of her hair directing her to the bedroom.

That is, if I can wait that long. :hairy:

-V

[Rich Engle]

Right on, Victor.

Matter of fact, I had that done to ME last week. Heavens to Betsy!

rde

Always prepared to take what he dishes out.

[PalePower]

My remark that sex is good, period, means that human beings are born with a desire for sex that develops as the person matures and that desire (even and especially when it extends to attraction to strangers) is not a twisted form of Original Sin that must be overcome by "proper philosophy." That is a contradiction in orthodox Objectivism that is hidden in the booby-trap and that kind of thinking, actually, is what must be overcome. It causes guilt.

OH. Now I get what you're saying. The person that someone would choose as their sex partner at the age of, say, 18, isn't necessarily the kind of person they would want to choose at 45; that doesn't mean, however, that they didn't have standards at 18, or that the sex they had at 18 was "evil" or even something they should be ashamed of - just a part of their maturing process.

I like that outlook much better. Plus it makes more sense, if rational happiness is our objective here.

~Elizabeth

[Ellen Stuttle]

My remark that sex is good, period, means that human beings are born with a desire for sex that develops as the person matures and that desire (even and especially when it extends to attraction to strangers) is not a twisted form of Original Sin that must be overcome by "proper philosophy." That is a contradiction in orthodox Objectivism that is hidden in the booby-trap and that kind of thinking, actually, is what must be overcome. It causes guilt.

I'm reminded of something said to me by a fondly remembered sexual partner with whom, years ago, when I was 18-19, I engaged in numerous "rolls in the hay" -- at times literally. His parents owned the riding stables where my horses were boarded. On occasion our assignations transpired literally "in the hay."

I'm always reminded of that relationship whenever I think of the forest glade scene from Atlas, the scene wherein Dagny and Francisco first have sex. I thought of my relationship with my friend the first time I read the scene; the guiltlessnes of it was so much like what I was experiencing with him. Although unlike Dagny, I knew what was what prior to the first encounter. And unlike Francisco, my friend really was a sort of "playboy." He was a "womanizer." He liked women, and had a number of sexual partners. I knew full well that our relationship was not a "romance"; it was a sexual fling, understood as such by both of us.

One day we'd been playing around -- not in the hay; on the couch in the living room of his home (his parents and siblings were gone somewhere). He was very good-looking in a Robert Redford sort of style of good looks, with large clear blue eyes -- not intense blue like Paul Newman's, more a sky blue. He was lying there on the couch and he smiled with so beatific an expression, he looked like an angel might look.

And he said, "Ellen, sex is beautiful."

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another scenario.

You are depressed. You are no longer in a relationship. Life got so complicated that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort anymore. Your career is stuck. Your body is too something (like overweight, tall, pimply, not too attractive, whatever). People seem to be drifting away from you because they are no longer interested. You recently lost some very precious values, and you are thinking about simply giving up on everything.

Walking down the street or in a store (or somewhere), a stranger starts flirting with you, letting you know loud and clear you are attractive and enormously interesting to him/her at the moment. You stop and talk. One thing leads to another. Flirting goes and comes and you end up in bed for a hugely satisfying experience without even perceiving how you got there. The next day you find out the person is married. That is a deal-killer within your values for a relationship, so you part ways without making a scene.

But life suddenly got better and you started facing your problems with more optimism and competence. The sex gave you a much-needed lift at a time you desperately needed it.

Tell me what is wrong with that? All I can see is good.

(I can come up with a million of them.)

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael seems to be talking about sexual/spiritual maintenance: taking care of the body's needs in the absence of the ideal. Victor seems to be talking about the striving for sexual/spiritual potential. I agree with both. It reminds me of Michael's seed idea. A seed must maintain its needs if it is going to actualize its potential and grow into a tree. "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."

Paul

Edited December 28, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Judith]

Here is another scenario.

You are depressed. You are no longer in a relationship. Life got so complicated that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort anymore. Your career is stuck. Your body is too something (like overweight, tall, pimply, not too attractive, whatever). People seem to be drifting away from you because they are no longer interested. You recently lost some very precious values, and you are thinking about simply giving up on everything.

Walking down the street or in a store (or somewhere), a stranger starts flirting with you, letting you know loud and clear you are attractive and enormously interesting to him/her at the moment. You stop and talk. One thing leads to another. Flirting goes and comes and you end up in bed for a hugely satisfying experience without even perceiving how you got there. The next day you find out the person is married. That is a deal-killer within your values for a relationship, so you part ways without making a scene.

But life suddenly got better and you started facing your problems with more optimism and competence. The sex gave you a much-needed lift at a time you desperately needed it.

Tell me what is wrong with that? All I can see is good.

I suppose I'd ask how you got in bed in the first place with this person. Why were they flirting with you to begin with? What was the attraction? Did they just happen to catch sight of you and decide they wanted to go to bed with you? Or did you actually have a conversation and they (and you) decided on that basis? In my mind, that makes all the difference. I've no aesthetic objection to people going to bed with each other after they just meet, but I do have an aesthetic objection to people using each other's bodies as sex toys. Are they people encountering each other? People having a relationship on the basis of who they are, no matter how short the acquaintance? Or people using each other?

Judith

[Paul Mawdsley]

"[P]eople using each other's bodies as sex toys" can be just one end of the spectrum of a healthy, fulfilled, and actualized sex-life. One time the mind can be focused on the physical connection; another it can be focused more on the spiritual connection; and still another it can be focused on the philosophical connection (yeah, right!) Sometimes it is just about the physical sex. If you haven't found "the one", I don't see any harm in just enjoying the sex with someone whom you find a strong attraction. Within the context of your values, why not give your body what it wants while still seeking your ultimate relationship? Your spirit may want more, but at least give it some to tide it over.

Paul

Edited December 29, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[ginny]

I haven't posted here because frankly, I've had a lot disagreements with a lot a objectivist sites, but this thread has prompted me to finally have a say.

I'm thrilled that someone FINALLY is saying that sex doesn't have to be an all or nothing issue. I was involved with objectivists in the seventies in New York. I was involved sexually with a few of the guys I knew. (Too young to know any better) Without exception, these guys were utterly unable to enjoy a sexual encounter for fear of not being John Galt in bed (I came to think of it as "objectivist sex." If sex wasn't perfect (and it usually wasn't) these guys would sadly shake their heads and say, I guess we just have a different sense of life." That was it. It never occurred to them that sex can be worked on and actually made better. Certainly, no discussion about sexual preferences ever took place.

I read something by Nathaniel Branden (can't remember where) where he says that between finding ones ideal partner and a whore, there's a whole lot of room for negotiations.

Bottom line, I think AR wasn't too intelligent about sexual matters, and of course Leonard Peikoff carries the torch. I don't know about his first wife, but I don't think it's a coincidence that his next two were young enough to be his daughters. What better way to control a woman than when she's young and naive.

To Peikoff. sex may be all spiritual, but I'd be real curious how many orgasms his poor wives have had. I'm sure they can count 'em on one hand. (sorry for being katty).

[Paul Mawdsley]

ginny,

I haven't spent any time around orthodox Objectivist (my sense of life wouldn't let me ), but what you describe is exactly what I would imagine the philosophy would do to people's psychology. It can tie people in spiritual knots trying to live up to an ideal image rather than simply acting on one's own principles. Spiritual knots don't do much for one's sex-life.

btw-- Welcome ginny! Enjoy the sex... uhhh, discussions.

Paul

Edited December 29, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[CNA]

I haven't posted here because frankly, I've had a lot disagreements with a lot a objectivist sites, but this thread has prompted me to finally have a say.

I'm thrilled that someone FINALLY is saying that sex doesn't have to be an all or nothing issue. I was involved with objectivists in the seventies in New York. I was involved sexually with a few of the guys I knew. (Too young to know any better) Without exception, these guys were utterly unable to enjoy a sexual encounter for fear of not being John Galt in bed (I came to think of it as "objectivist sex." If sex wasn't perfect (and it usually wasn't) these guys would sadly shake their heads and say, I guess we just have a different sense of life." That was it. It never occurred to them that sex can be worked on and actually made better. Certainly, no discussion about sexual preferences ever took place.

I read something by Nathaniel Branden (can't remember where) where he says that between finding ones ideal partner and a whore, there's a whole lot of room for negotiations.

Bottom line, I think AR wasn't too intelligent about sexual matters, and of course Leonard Peikoff carries the torch. I don't know about his first wife, but I don't think it's a coincidence that his next two were young enough to be his daughters. What better way to control a woman than when she's young and naive.

To Peikoff. sex may be all spiritual, but I'd be real curious how many orgasms his poor wives have had. I'm sure they can count 'em on one hand. (sorry for being katty).

Ginny,

Welcome to OL and good you have finally posted. I think you'll like it here. OL is far different than most O'ist sites I have seen. What you describe above is definitely not surprising. Their trying to live up to an image and being set up for failure. In reality, no one is perfect. Difficult to live up to a fictional character such as John Galt. Of course, you can find someone who has many of the same qualities and so on but again no one is perfect. For one, it is up to us to form rational convictions. You have to work for it. It's easier to just figure it out on your own through experience and knowing yourself very very well. It would be so nice if it could be handed to us on a silver platter but unfortunately it doesn't quite work like that. I think you know this as well as I do. At least that is what it sounds like.

You are so correct. Most definitely with sex that it can be worked on and greatly improved. You know, great lovers are not born. They are created. So I have to laugh at the whole sense of life deal and that is the reason the sex wasn't all that great. Yikes.

For me, I've never felt guilty about sex, even when I was very young. It is absolutely beautiful, glorious, pleasurable !! Even though some were not my ideal partners or what have you, why should I feel guilty for it or that it was not proper because it was not my ideal man or what have you? Whatever. I have to laugh. How else am I going to learn and form my own rational convictions if I don't have some type of experience to draw from. I've learned from all my experiences, especially in the last 17 years. I have no regrets on how I lived my life when I was in search of what was right so long ago which I did some really stupid stuff. Yeah, no doubt I definitely made mistakes so long ago but I have always learned from those mistakes. But what I have come to believe in is extremely valuable to me. I would NOT have been able to come to these rational convictions and fully integrated it if I didn't experience it for myself, be it good or bad experience, rather than it being handed to me on a silver platter. I know very very few ortho O'ists and grateful I don't. I would much rather have a friend, lover, and so on that is authentic and working on forming their own rational convictions than the ortho types. The ones that aren't afraid to say hey, I'm not perfect, I've made mistakes but I'm learning from them, the ones that are comfortable saying, you know what, I've changed my view because I just experienced something that contradicts what Ayn Rand has said, I have experience with it and know with certainty because I experienced it, or the ones that say, hey, I was wrong and so on. Ayn Rand can give you a foundation to build on but not much else after that. The rest has to be done by the individual. These orthos have taken it to the extreme and leads to psychological issues, confusion, guilt, loss of identity, and so forth.

Wow....what an introduction. LOL I just found some things in your post of interest. hehehehehehe Nice to have you here at OL.

Angie

[ginny]

Thanks. I'm delighted to report that once I left that insane environment, my sex life improved tremendously. Guess objectivist sex just wasn't for me.

Gin

[CNA]

Here is another scenario.

You are depressed. You are no longer in a relationship. Life got so complicated that it doesn't seem to be worth the effort anymore. Your career is stuck. Your body is too something (like overweight, tall, pimply, not too attractive, whatever). People seem to be drifting away from you because they are no longer interested. You recently lost some very precious values, and you are thinking about simply giving up on everything.

Walking down the street or in a store (or somewhere), a stranger starts flirting with you, letting you know loud and clear you are attractive and enormously interesting to him/her at the moment. You stop and talk. One thing leads to another. Flirting goes and comes and you end up in bed for a hugely satisfying experience without even perceiving how you got there. The next day you find out the person is married. That is a deal-killer within your values for a relationship, so you part ways without making a scene.

But life suddenly got better and you started facing your problems with more optimism and competence. The sex gave you a much-needed lift at a time you desperately needed it.

Tell me what is wrong with that? All I can see is good.

(I can come up with a million of them.)

Michael

I have a bit of time to write. I read this a little while ago but it keeps popping back up into my head. This is going to be rather quick as I don't have much time to write. I agree that sex is good. But it depends on the individual and what that individual is using it for. It's not the act of sex but the individual themselves. It may temporarily give you a false sense of self-esteem, confidence, and so forth but doesn't last long. I think other things going on in that individual's life also needs to be analyzed rather than attributing it to a new found sense of hope and that sex was the cause of this pick me up. I have a friend that is a hardcore sex addict and our conversations have been full blown in your face honesty. No holding back from either sides, including harsh judgments. You know, just two close friends talking honestly with each other. It's been quite interesting to talk with him. We've been friends for the past 12 years or so maybe and I found out a few years back about his sexual addiction. We are still friends and still talk as I have learned much from him in regards to this issue, self esteem, evasion, and so forth, and the sexual addicts take on reality and so forth. I've done the same with other friends, family, etc., that have some type of addiction and it is always interesting to be able to talk with them openly and honestly. At any rate, he has horrible self-esteem, confidence and has admitted to this as well as admitting to many other things.

Just a quick run down, what you describe is the same thing that he goes through. It gives him a false sense of self-esteem and picks him up to the point he can function and get his life back on track. But after a while that false sense of self-esteem, etc., disappears so he goes out once again in search of that "high" he gets from sex. At first he recalls, that one encounter or "high" would last for quite a while and it would be few and far between. Sex with his wife was also this way. But as the addiction has progressed, he said that the period of "high" in between each sexual encounter is getting shorter, meaning he is in pursuit of it more often, anything to keep his life functioning, anything to give him that false sense of sel-esteem, and that life is worth living.

Well, it has gotten to the point that he can barely function without some type of encounter be it at work, before bed, morning, etc. It has taken over his life. The last time we spoke it's gotten to the point where he is having a different partner almost every day. If he can't find it which is not often due to where he lives, he searches for porn sites, and so on. He has even boasted which I found to be disgusting and told him so that this wasn't something to be proud of that he had 5 different sexual encounters over a 2 day period. It's a vicious cycle. Nothing matters, health, job, family, friends, etc., all have gone to the back burner in pursuit of his sexual addiction.

Your example very much reminded me of him when it comes to sex. Sex is good but it depends on the individual and what the individual is using it for. I would like to write more but I gotta go.

Angie