100 Voices


Robert Campbell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I've been skipping around 100 Voices.

This is a fascinating book with a lot of great stories and revelations, some of it very affecting. The very best so far for me is what the fellow writers and the creators she championed have to say about her.

Alvin Toffler (the Playboy interviewer of Rand) tells about how Rand, mid-interview, ordered him to go out and read Atlas Shrugged and not come back until he had read it. He did so. McConnell asks whether Rand then quizzed Toffler to make sure that he had read it. Toffler answers simply, "Look, we authors can spot that stuff ten miles away."

Mickey Spillane has a lot to say about his friendship with Rand, how they talked about craft and critics. At one point Spillane mentions how he encountered Rand's "disciples" when visiting her apartment ("You've probably heard about them," he tells McConnell). The Spillane material and the comments from Robert Stack about his strong emotional reaction to Rand's public defense of "The Untouchables," are, as the reviewers say, alone worth the price of the book. Stack gives the impression that no critic had articulated the values of the show, which many reviewers slammed for its violence and black-and-white moral perspective, before Rand's piece came out. Stack framed Rand's article, wrote her an eloquent letter about what her column meant to him, and was able to quote from both decades later.

McConnell (and those who assisted him, for example with Rand's sister in Russia) generally do a fine job. It's the most compelling book-length thing about Rand I've seen since Passion of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was able to find the complete statement by Peter Schwartz and I consider this part very interesting:

"Ultimately, what real difference is there if any of the factual allegations made by Barbara Branden—or anyone else of her ilk—happen to have actually taken place? Ayn Rand’s glorious achievement is her philosophy and her literature. They stand as her testaments, as the only testaments her life requires. If Miss Rand were alive today, she would certainly not deign to reply to Mrs. Branden’s attacks. She would simply point—as Howard Roark did in the Stoddard Temple trial—to the evidence of her work. Her books are what she should be judged by. Read them—or reread them—and then decide for yourself whether or not a philosophy that holds reason as an absolute and that views man as a heroic being is worth living by."
- Peter Schwartz, TIA (August 20, 1986)

I have that "review," but not in front of me. As I recall, somewhere in the same article, Schwartz refers to the Brandens as "lice." The sort of malevolent hatred shown in that epithet is representative of the intellectual quality of most of Schwartz's writing.

Not only (IMO) is most of Schwartz's writing of low intellectual quality, but it's also excruciatingly boring, especially when it's delivered by him in person. He is the ~only~ Objectivist speaker I have ever listened to who put me to sleep not just once, but ~twice~. Nowadays, when I want to excuse myself from a situation, I just think of his name, and it induces a sympathy-evoking yawn and a suggestion that I go home and get some rest. <g>

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although there are many items of value in 100 Voices, in the end the book will satisfy no one.

The ARIan contingent wants a book that will discredit The Passion of Ayn Rand once and for all, casting TheBrandens irretrievably into the outer darkness, and ushering in universal deference to Ms. Rand's moral perfection.

If Jim Valliant's opus didn't do it for them, 100 Voices surely won't. Hence the lack of comment the ARIan blogosphere.

Everyone else would like a book that lets the participants tell their respective stories, without bowdlerizing or slanting to please Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger.

While the gruesome details are going to take time and effort to uncover, there can be no doubt that the interview questions were slanted and the resulting exchanges heavily edited to produce certain intended effects.

For instance, Scott McConnell interviewed Eloise Huggins on five different days in 1996 and 1997, producing 20 pages of edited interview (pp. 429-449).

We learn from the interview that Ms. Huggins went to work for Ayn Rand and Frank O'Connor in 1965. (A note on p. 449 gives her starting date, from Ayn Rand's calendar, as August 2 of that year.)

Consequently, Ms. Huggins must have met Nathaniel and Barbara Branden; indeed, must have seen them from time to time before they were expelled in August and September 1968. Presumably, too, she formed some impression of each of them.

Yet her interview never refers to either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden by name.

Cynthia Peikoff's interview takes up nearly as much space (pp. 544-563), even though Ms. Peikoff was interviewed on one day.

On p. 560, Cynthia Peikoff refers to the period immediately after Ayn Rand's death. Of Ms. Huggins, she says:

She stayed and helped me pack up some of the apartment. We were pretty close and would have long discussions about Ayn and Frank and Leonard and what she'd seen through the years about the Brandens and all those people, what her view of them was. She said, "They were all a bunch of phonies." The one she really liked was Leonard, I think.

So Eloise Huggins didn't provide Scott McConnell with anything negative about TheBrandens that he deemed worth using. (And you'd think that if there was any, he'd have deemed it worth using.)

But Cynthia Peikoff provided Scott McConnell with assurances about what Ms. Huggins really thought of TheBrandens (and of a host of other ex-associates of Ms. Rand, lumped together as "all those people").

Oh, and the Cynthia Peikoff interview was conducted in 2000. Eloise Huggins died in 1997.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I agree with those kinds of objections, or at least that there is often grounds for suspicion. But other interviewees in the book confirm common criticisms and observations about the problems in the circle around Rand. It's also true that there are a lot of missing "voices," those who are persona non grata to the orthodoxy, who would have had more insight and interesting anecdotes to offer about Rand than some of those included can provide. Schwartz and Peikoff are not in the book for other reasons, I suppose.

I'm annoyed by the omissions and some of the apparent steering, and no one should base his understanding of Rand solely on her work and this resource. But a lot of the questioning effectively elicits much of value that is obviously the honest view of the interviewee. There is so much in the book that is new and interesting (to me, anyway) that I cannot agree with the claim that no one would be satisfied with it. It's a great book, fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spitting is the better word--spitting and sputtering.

--Brant

Spitting...

Well that answers the age old question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I see that Neil Parille's posting of his Amazon review has elicited spitting, sputtering, and foaming from the Perigonian remnant.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8134

Two out of the remnant (Craig Ceely and Perigo himself) are going on at length about a book they haven't read. Nothing new there. Perigo calls Facebook "Faecesbook." Nothing new there either.

Chris Cathcart has read the book, but the dude is so far gone now, it no longer matters what he's read.

And Ellen Stuttle has finally been caught out on her pet theory that lays all post-1968 authoritarian behavior in Rand's vicinity at the feet of "Gorgon" Barbara Weiss, who, she pretends, was never Rand's personal secretary. When Cynthia Peikoff, who succeeded her in the post, has described Barbara Weiss in print as Rand's personal secretary, the game is over.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, I see that Neil Parille's posting of his Amazon review has elicited spitting, sputtering, and foaming from the Perigonian remnant.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8134

Two out of the remnant (Craig Ceely and Perigo himself) are going on at length about a book they haven't read. Nothing new there. Perigo calls Facebook "Faecesbook." Nothing new there either.

Chris Cathcart has read the book, but the dude is so far gone now, it no longer matters what he's read.

And Ellen Stuttle has finally been caught out on her pet theory that lays all post-1968 authoritarian behavior in Rand's vicinity at the feet of "Gorgon" Barbara Weiss, who, she pretends, was never Rand's personal secretary. When Cynthia Peikoff, who succeeded her in the post, has described Barbara Weiss in print as Rand's personal secretary, the game is over.

Robert Campbell

"Cynthia describes the [1981 letter from Branden to Rand after their meeting] as including a mention of the exact date of their meeting, so as to have a kind of proof she could use that she did meet Rand, and to garner some sort of legitimacy from that for her book."

?!?!

That Branden mentioned the date of their meeting in a letter to an elderly acquaintance is proof of . . .her diabolical intentions? Jesus, Mary, and Joe Cocker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I commented on that over at SOLO. It's an odd theory although perhaps someone mentioned it to Rand in order to get Rand to break off contact with Barbara.

The chronologies of the two accounts are different. According to Barbara, if was a "few months" after the meeting that she wrote Rand telling her she was writing her biography. Nor does Barbara say that she asked Rand to contribute to it. Nor does she say that she mentioned the biography at their meeting, as Cynthia Peikoff implies. (Unfortunately, the letter was not found in the Archives.)

And I don't think CP's suspicions (or Rand's, if she is reporting them accurately) are plausible. Has Barbara ever said that Rand approved of the project or granted her an interview? Would anyone believe such a thing? And Barbara in fact says that she later called Rand and Rand refused to speak to her and obviously wasn't thrilled about the prospect of Barbara writing her biography.

I wonder if Cynthia read The Passion of Ayn Rand all that closely.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello, and thanks to those who have remarked favourably on my review of this book at amazon.com. Here are a few extra notes that may be of interest:

1) As far as I know, the full list of interviewees is not publicly accessible yet; however, I have managed to track down voice #101. I am referring to Mr. Tod Foster, who is the source for Jennifer Burns' account of the dismantling of NBI at page 242 of her book: "Nathan appeared, ashen-faced, before his staff and announced his resignation, explaining that he had committed grave moral wrongs and Rand had justifiably severed their relationship. Rumors flew wildly. New Yorkers willing to hear the gossip quickly divined the full story of Nathan and Rand's affair and its aftermath." It is not difficult to see why McConnell left this interview on the cutting room floor.

All of this is consistent with the information on NBI's last days that is supplied in '"The Best of Times, the Worst of Times": Ruminations by Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer about Anne C. Heller’s "Ayn Rand and the World She Made".' Anyone reading this piece, which is available on the Net, can see that the Holzers have a continuing, deep admiration for Ayn Rand. If McConnell had interviewed them, and others like them, he would have produced a far better and more balanced oral history than he did.

2) I note that many people are emphasizing how courtly and polite Rand was to Trotskyites, Liberals and others who clearly did not share her views. The implication seems to be: if she was this nice to such people, surely she would be even nicer to those who shared at least some of her convictions. And this is just a half step away from concluding that people who say otherwise must be lying. This is a plausible but mistaken conclusion - and two quotes from McConnell's book show why:

First, there is the following remark from Richard Cornuelle: "I remember Ayn's belief that people were your adversaries in almost inverse proportion to their proximity to your position. She thought that people - like Taft - who seemed very much on our side but were willing to make exceptions, because of their apparent popularity, were worse than people who were utterly and elementally opposed to what we stood for." In practice, this of course meant that that those closest to her - the innermost Objectivist circle - had to be in complete lockstep with her in all particulars or face excommunication. For example, she split with the Blumenthals because of their musical and artistic preferences.

Even more revealing is the following from Harry Binswanger: 'She once said to me, "If I ever become very polite and calm and mild, that's the time for you to worry, because then I've lost all respect for you. If I'm angry at you, it's because I expect better of you, and I still care about you, I still respect you. But when that's gone, without that, when I'm just bored and polite, that's when you know I've lost all interest in you."' In short, if you think that Randian politesse is a sign of benevolence to all (rather than indifferent contempt), it's time for you to check your premises.

These quotes from Cornuelle and Binswanger are my best proof that the "positive" and "negative" accounts of Rand are not contradictory: rather, they shed light on the different sides of a complex and rather disturbing personality. Clearly Rand could be charming and enthralling. You don't need McConnell to find that out: you can read about it in Burns and Heller, as well as in the memoirs by the Brandens. But the negative accounts - of her intolerance, personal cruelty and emotional volatility - are also true. The key point is: the closer you got to Rand, the more personal autonomy you had to give up (just look up John Hospers' memoirs of her to see how that worked). McConnell's book is vastly comforting reading to many: but it is comforting because it ignores half of the personality of Ayn Rand.

- Gordon Burkowski

Edited by Gordon Burkowski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mr. Burkowski,

Thanks for showing up. Your comments on 100 Voices have been excellent.

Another example is Leonard Peikoff's interview in Objectively Speaking.

Many people were hurt by something she'd say to them in anger, usually a blunt statement about some immoral behavior of theirs which she had seen. I regarded her anger at me . . . as trivial. I was extremely devoted to her and intended to stay until the end, even if she was (in my opinion) too indignent about some error of mine.

Peikoff goes on to say that he became Rand's heir by default, everyone else having left her.

As related evidence, I believe Heller and Burns have said that Rand required her interviewers to sign a statement that they would not mention her critics. We also have her comments in her Marginalia, which convinced me more than anything of the basic correctness of the Branden reports.

It was good to see Burns say that the archvists were unhappy with much of the material published, such as the Journals. It looks like, however, that things are going backwards with 100 Voices, although it is probably more a question of ommissions than changing what was said.

-Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Mr. Burkowski,

Thanks for showing up. Your comments on 100 Voices have been excellent.

Another example is Leonard Peikoff's interview in Objectively Speaking.

Many people were hurt by something she'd say to them in anger, usually a blunt statement about some immoral behavior of theirs which she had seen. I regarded her anger at me . . . as trivial. I was extremely devoted to her and intended to stay until the end, even if she was (in my opinion) too indignent about some error of mine.

Peikoff goes on to say that he became Rand's heir by default, everyone else having left her.

As related evidence, I believe Heller and Burns have said that Rand required her interviewers to sign a statement that they would not mention her critics. We also have her comments in her Marginalia, which convinced me more than anything of the basic correctness of the Branden reports.

It was good to see Burns say that the archvists were unhappy with much of the material published, such as the Journals. It looks like, however, that things are going backwards with 100 Voices, although it is probably more a question of ommissions than changing what was said.

-Neil Parille

am surprised, actually he admitted he 'won' by being 'the last man standing'... of course that only means he was the most sycophantic of them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My mental image of Dagny is a sensually lean and proportionate woman, not a "zaftig" type like Raquel.

Also, never liked her as an actress.

Having never seen Raquel Welch in any movie, I can't comment on her acting skills, but optically speaking, "zaftig" Raquel is diametrically opposed to the image of Dagny Taggart I have in my mind.

What Welch also lacks is an aura of sophistication, of brains, which an actress playing Dagny Taggart would need to project. Lauren Bacall for example had a good deal of that.

I had never encountered the word "zaftig" before. Had to look it up. Yup, it definitely fits. B)

The first time I came across the word "zaftig" was about 25 years ago, when reading a Cosmopitolitan article about blondes, brunettes and redheads, together with styling tips, and among the things it said about brunettes was "Brunettes can be a wee bit heavy and still look zaftig". "Zaftig" is of Yiddish origin, from German "saftig" = 'juicy'

I can't think of anyone having read AS imagining Dagny as "zaftig" though, and am very surprised Ayn Rand thought Welch would fit the role.

I think of Dagny as a willowy, fairly tall, sophisticated type whose sexuality is not as flashily displayed as it is with e. g. Raquel Welch.

Some pictures of the actress Gene Tierney come pretty close to my mental image of Dagny:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000074/

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mvozus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gene_tierney.jpg&imgrefurl=http://mvozus.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/tcm-are-featuring-gene-tierney-films-all-day-tomorrow/&h=507&w=405&sz=39&tbnid=FBnqK-QaKvAx2M:&tbnh=131&tbnw=105&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgene%2Btierney&zoom=1&q=gene+tierney&usg=__jvyvUrhs4mEYgwGG6DP_QRQo4Z8=&sa=X&ei=5kooTbKHEsfLswba4KS1Ag&ved=0CDgQ9QEwBg

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1lDkgkbkQmA/S8CA4MEUDuI/AAAAAAAAA-8/Bq2PBF_97gs/s1600/Gene%2BTierney.jpg&imgrefurl=http://classicmovieman.blogspot.com/2010/10/laura-starring-gene-tierney-and-dana.html&h=480&w=360&sz=34&tbnid=2A2AS3g-H4Q-_M:&tbnh=129&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgene%2Btierney&zoom=1&q=gene+tierney&usg=__W0uPnDdINAh-y4b03fGRRD8jLH8=&sa=X&ei=rkooTcGRJYrIswbustnMAg&ved=0CDwQ9QEwCA

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never get used to the American males obsession with breasts.

Where do you get the idea that non-American males might be less obsessed with breasts? :)

Women too are often pretty obsessed with breasts, both with their own and with their female rivals'.

This picture showing Sophia Loren critically sizing up - literally ;)) - Jayne Mansfield's 'equipment' says it all.

http://s123.photobucket.com/albums/o292/jax328/female-celebs/?action=view&current=loren_mansfield.jpg&currenttag=boobs&call=1

They are not where the action resides.

Well, female breasts are an erogenous zone, after all.

When we look our closest non-human relatives, the chimpanzees, the females don't have much developed breasts, they merely seem to be slightly enlarged during nursing.

There exist theories that the larger human female breasts as a sexual attractor and erogenous zone developed in the course of Evolution when copulation was no longer exclusively performed a tergo, but males and females also performed the sexual act facing each other.

In addition, seeing a female with well-developed breasts may have suggested to the male that she was fertile and healthy enough to adequately nurse his possible offspring.

The reason Miss Rand thought the terrifically juicy Raquel Welch might fit the role of Dagny Taggart was for the same sort of reason she thought the awkwardly stiff Gary Cooper fit the role of Howard Roark,

I can't understand why Rand chose a type like Cary Cooper for the role of Howard Roark. Cooper was much too old, and also, no redhead like Roark. While it is not necessary that an actor precisely has to match the description of the character in the book, if certain physical traits are stressed several times by the author of the novel (like Roark having red hair) and the actor playing the character in the film has no physical resemblance at all to the book character, this does bother me.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you get the idea that non-American males might be less obsessed with breasts? :)

Women too are often pretty obsessed with breasts, both with their own and with their female rivals'.

This picture showing Sophia Loren critically sizing up - literally ;)) - Jayne Mansfield's 'equipment' says it all.

http://s123.photobuc...ag=boobs&call=1

I looked up Jayne Mansfield in Wikipedia. You have misinterpreted the photograph.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never get used to the American males obsession with breasts.

Where do you get the idea that non-American males might be less obsessed with breasts? :)

Women too are often pretty obsessed with breasts, both with their own and with their female rivals'.

This picture showing Sophia Loren critically sizing up - literally ;)) - Jayne Mansfield's 'equipment' says it all.

http://s123.photobuc...ag=boobs&call=1

They are not where the action resides.

Well, female breasts are an erogenous zone, after all.

When we look our closest non-human relatives, the chimpanzees, the females don't have much developed breasts, they merely seem to be slightly enlarged during nursing.

There exist theories that the larger human female breasts as a sexual attractor and erogenous zone developed in the course of Evolution when copulation was no longer exclusively performed a tergo, but males and females also performed the sexual act facing each other.

In addition, seeing a female with well-developed breasts may have suggested to the male that she was fertile and healthy enough to adequately nurse his possible offspring.

The reason Miss Rand thought the terrifically juicy Raquel Welch might fit the role of Dagny Taggart was for the same sort of reason she thought the awkwardly stiff Gary Cooper fit the role of Howard Roark,

I can't understand why Rand chose a type like Cary Cooper for the role of Howard Roark. Cooper was much too old, and also, no redhead like Roark. While it is not necessary that an actor precisely has to match the description of the character in the book, if certain physical traits are stressed several times by the author of the novel (like Roark having red hair) and the actor playing the character in the film has no physical resemblance at all to the book character, this does bother me.

Ms. Xray:

"Some authors from the U.S. say that the female breast is the American fetish-object of choice,[7] and that breast fetishism is predominantly found in the U.S.[8][9][10] The critic Molly Haskell, a feminist from the U.S., goes as far as to say that: "The mammary fixation is the most infantile, and the most American, of the sex fetishes".[11] "

However, this woman's research is extensive and enlightening. She is from Ontario. This is just a small excerpt from the long article that I link to at the end.

"The same way we discover that many things aren’t biologically-based. By learning about other cultures. And the breast fetish does not exist in all cultures.

Men and women both resist the claim until they’re reminded of tribal societies. We’ve all seen pictures from National Geographic. And we all know that in tribal cultures women’s breasts are no big deal.

By the mid-1980s, topless beaches and overexposure to nudity in advertising had a similar effect in Europe. Topless women were plastered all over billboards, magazine and television advertisements because both men and women looked. But by the mid-eighties, no one paid much attention anymore. It was all so blasé. European men studying in the U.S. asked why American men were so obsessed with nudity. What’s the big deal, they wondered."

She also explores the key sexual aspects of Ayn's scenes in the Fountainhead and Atlas. I do not remember if she references Ayn, but this section of the article addresses the "rape-fantasy", which she argues is, at best, a semantically challenged use of words:

"After our discussion of the alley encounter, we talked about erotic — as opposed to aversive ­— fantasies of rape. According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving “the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will,” between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. She stressed the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real. “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she went on. “They’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words.Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender."

Additionally, she has done some excellent research where both the males and females, heterosexual, homosexual, etc. are genitally connected to a tracking mechanism, which for the males, measures swelling of the penis and for the females measures, via an internal laser, the moisture of the vaginal walls.

She coordinated this date with the voluntary entering of data by the subjects through a keyboard at their fingertips.

It is well worth reading the entire eleven page article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?scp=1&sq=bonobos%20sex%20study%20blood%20flow&st=cse Titled "What do women want?"

http://broadblogs.com/2010/11/29/women-learn-the-breast-fetish-too/ <<<<A broad blogs broadly on issues women faceAdam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well worth reading the entire eleven page article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?scp=1&sq=bonobos%20sex%20study%20blood%20flow&st=cse Titled "What do women want?"

Thanks for the link to the article containing important research in that field.

Ms. Xray:

"Some authors from the U.S. say that the female breast is the American fetish-object of choice,[7] and that breast fetishism is predominantly found in the U.S.[8][9][10] The critic Molly Haskell, a feminist from the U.S., goes as far as to say that: "The mammary fixation is the most infantile, and the most American, of the sex fetishes".[11] "

However, this woman's research is extensive and enlightening. She is from Ontario. This is just a small excerpt from the long article that I link to at the end.

"The same way we discover that many things aren’t biologically-based. By learning about other cultures. And the breast fetish does not exist in all cultures.

It looks like the fixation on breasts as a sexual signal is as old as mankind though.

Here is a picture of the so-called "Venus of Willendorf":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

Men and women both resist the claim until they’re reminded of tribal societies. We’ve all seen pictures from National Geographic. And we all know that in tribal cultures women’s breasts are no big deal.

They may be no big deal because all womens' breasts use to be exposed in tribal cultures (at least in those living in tropical climate), but to conclude that the breasts of the young, nubile women in those tribes are no sexual attractor for the men might be a non-sequitur. After all, a young woman's developed breasts are among the signs that the female has entered the stage of biological reproduction.

By the mid-1980s, topless beaches and overexposure to nudity in advertising had a similar effect in Europe. Topless women were plastered all over billboards, magazine and television advertisements because both men and women looked. But by the mid-eighties, no one paid much attention anymore. It was all so blasé. European men studying in the U.S. asked why American men were so obsessed with nudity. What’s the big deal, they wondered."

I was surprised to learn that going topless on public beaches is very unusual in the USA. Is there a law that forbids it or that allows it only on special beaches?

Another thing which I read somewhere was that in the US, even at the doctor's office, before being examined, people have to wear some kind of of white coat to cover their body.

Maybe all that has something to do with the influence Puritan culture has had in the USA?

She also explores the key sexual aspects of Ayn's scenes in the Fountainhead and Atlas. I do not remember if she references Ayn, but this section of the article addresses the "rape-fantasy", which she argues is, at best, a semantically challenged use of words:

"After our discussion of the alley encounter, we talked about erotic — as opposed to aversive ­— fantasies of rape. According to an analysis of relevant studies published last year in The Journal of Sex Research, an analysis that defines rape as involving “the use of physical force, threat of force, or incapacitation through, for example, sleep or intoxication, to coerce a woman into sexual activity against her will,” between one-third and more than one-half of women have entertained such fantasies, often during intercourse, with at least 1 in 10 women fantasizing about sexual assault at least once per month in a pleasurable way.

Rand less problems with terminology than the researcher, for she called the scene in TF "rape by engraved invitation"; and from the way the scene is described, with the heroine fighting "like an animal", the elements of rape are indeed clearly there imo.

Now one could argue that Dominique's resistance was merely an "acted" part of the whole scenario, but this does not take into account that Roark obviously did not care one bit whether her resistance was genuine or not. Roark enforced a sexual encounter via sexual assault, and imo that is what makes it a rape scene.

The appeal is, above all, paradoxical, Meana pointed out: rape means having no control, while fantasy is a domain manipulated by the self. She stressed the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real. “I hate the term ‘rape fantasies,’ ” she went on. “They’re really fantasies of submission.” She spoke about the thrill of being wanted so much that the aggressor is willing to overpower, to take. “But ‘aggression,’ ‘dominance,’ I have to find better words.Submission’ isn’t even a good word” — it didn’t reflect the woman’s imagining of an ultimately willing surrender."

Whatever Meana chooses to call those fantasies, as long as the individual does not act them out, they remain what they are: imagined scenes.

Meana clearly stresses "the vast difference between the pleasures of the imagined and the terrors of the real", and I think Rand had difficulty in grasping precisely this important difference. This for example led her to present her fictional hero Roak "as man should be".

In Ayn Rand's case, while she had of course complete control over how her fictional characters behaved becausee they were creations of her imagination, from the moment she tried to act out her imagined scenes in reality, she was beginning to lose control over it all.

We have words by Nathaniel Branden which seem to indicate the contrary:

From Anne Heller's book, picture section between p. 320/321:

A recently discovered 1961 portrait by Frank. "Her eyes might say, 'Come to bed and dominate me,'" wrote Nathaniel Brandon when he saw the portrait in 2007. "But of course, if you obey her, who is the master of whom?"

But when you take a closer look - Who was the master of whom? Imo it was more a relationship of mutual dependence, with each party having their specific motive for engaging in the affair.

As the affair progressed, Rand completely lost control over NB who had fallen in love with a younger woman.

Where do you get the idea that non-American males might be less obsessed with breasts? :)

Women too are often pretty obsessed with breasts, both with their own and with their female rivals'.

This picture showing Sophia Loren critically sizing up - literally ;)) - Jayne Mansfield's 'equipment' says it all.

http://s123.photobuc...ag=boobs&call=1

I looked up Jayne Mansfield in Wikipedia. You have misinterpreted the photograph.

I had also read what it says in the Wikipedia article. Epistemologically speaking, - how's that, Jayne Mansfield mentioned in connection with epistemology? :) - there can be no "misinterpretation" of this picture, only interpretations which may vary. For we don't know what exactly were Sophia's thoughts as she gave Jayne's cleavage that disapproving look.

I still lean toward my intrepretation, knowing how competitive women are when it comes to looks. I feel pretty 'save' here saying that, with scarcely any women here (and of those who are here, no feminists as far as I can see) who might jump on me for making such remarks about my own gender. But in case there are objections, no problem on my part.

To get back to the picture: it is of course also possible that Sophia Loren was disgusted at Jayne's breasts bulging out of her dress to the point of the nipple being partially exposed.

She could also have been both envious of Jayne larger equipment and disgusted at the peroxide blonde bombshell's brazen display of "too much".

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ms. Xray:

To take your important points in order:

The Puritanical/Calvinist influence in America is directly related to this American "breast fetish or fixation." Obviously, a woman's breast are sexual markers as old as we have been in existence.

In the US, the fixation is very high. Marketing is based around the images. There is a plethora of literature about it. Your surprise about our beaches is indicative of the difference between Europe and the US on this issue.

Nude/topless beaches in the US are few in number and the localities tend to hide them or only allow them by permit. For example, there are only a few in the Metropolitan NY City area which encompasses about fifteen (15) million people. Jones Beach has one, but it is a small trek to get to it.

  • Rock Lodge Club[70] is a family-oriented nudist club on 60 ha (145 acres) of privately-owned land in the Highlands forests of New Jersey, about 65 km (40 miles) from Manhattan, New York.
  • Gunnison Beach in Sandy Hook, New Jersey, a part of the National Park Service's multi-state Gateway National Recreation Area, is a clothing-optional beach by custom and is the largest such beach in the Northeastern United States (there are several other public beaches on Sandy Hook where nudity is not tolerated). In 1999, New Jersey passed a law a bill that prohibits all types of nudism on state or municipal beaches, making Gunnison Beach the only legal nude beach in the state, since it is on federal land not subject to state or municipal regulations.[71] Gunnison Beach offers dramatic views of lower Manhattan and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and is officially recognized as clothing-optional with permanent park signs and full lifeguard and police protection. It is the largest clothing-optional beach on the Atlantic coast of the US, and draws more than 5,000 visitors per day on most sunny summer weekends.
  • Sunset Beach on the west, bay side of Cape May. This is not a sanctioned nudist area (see previous), but nudity is commonplace here nevertheless.
  • Sky Farm Club[72] is a private cooperative in central New Jersey. Situated on 35 acres (14.2 ha) in Somerset County, Sky Farm has promoted family nudism since 1932.
  • Goodland Country Club[73] is a nudist club in Hackettstown.

I will get to your other points in a subsequent post.

To be cont'd.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

As to the "rape fantasy," your statement is that they are, apparently, "OK," as long as they are not acted out. Yet, the "rape fantasy" is acted out in the D/s community. It is choreographed and proceeds with no safe words.

So of the rape fantasy scenes are elaborate and take place over days. Some involve incorporation with interrogation scenes and abduction scenarios. The human beings ability to develop elaborate sexual games, scenes, etc. is surely not a surprise to you.

As long as they are safe, sane and consensual, the state should not get involved wouldn't you agree?

At any rate, Ayn's "rape by invitation" scenes were, by definition, fantasy by the fact that they were in a novel and not acted out. I can remember being seventeen or so and watching Ayn on stage at NBI from about fifty (50) feet away and thinking how much of a "little girl" she was in terms of her sexuality. I did not have the words to describe her as a submissive then, but I was sure I was right. I still love her statement...show me what a man finds sexually attractive in bed and I will tell you his philosophy of life.

You raise an excellent point which I know I have raised here on OL as to the picture in Heller's book which implies "Come to bed and dominate me..."

In the D/s community this is called "topping from the bottom" and is a constant form of tension between submissives and dominants.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the "rape fantasy," your statement is that they are, apparently, "OK," as long as they are not acted out.

I wasn't making making a moral value judgement; but as soon as fantasies are acted out with another party involved, there's a dynamic involved where the individual has less control over the situation.

Yet, the "rape fantasy" is acted out in the D/s community. It is choreographed and proceeds with no safe words.

So of the rape fantasy scenes are elaborate and take place over days. Some involve incorporation with interrogation scenes and abduction scenarios. The human beings ability to develop elaborate sexual games, scenes, etc. is surely not a surprise to you.

Of course not.

As long as they are safe, sane and consensual, the state should not get involved wouldn't you agree?

But even with mutual consent and safety precautions, there remains a risk of boundaries being transgressed which can have consequences not taken into account.

We currently have a nasty case here in Germany, where a well-known TV weatherman (Jörg Kachelmann) has has been arrested for allegedly raping his long-time girlfriend.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100322-26043.html

The criminal proceedings have shed quite a light on Kachelmann's sex-life and his preferences.

It turned out that Kachelmann is a very promiscuous womanizer, who had been entertaining relationships with several women at the same time, none of whom knew of each other. And with the one who later accused him of rape, it was revealed that he also used to engage in S/M sex games.

What at first looked like a clear case of rape, became, in the course of the investigation, an intricate jungle of contradictory stuff, so that for the investigators, finding out the truth looks more and more like finding the needle in the haystack.

Did the girlfriend falsely accuse Kachelmann of rape becauses she had found out about his many other women?

Or had a consensual sex game spun of control at some point?

Or was it a real rape right from the beginning?

Despite the most elaborate safety arrangements, people have no guaranteed control over the the other person in that they can be absolutely certain how they will react.

Also, there is of course no control over the other person's thoughts; one partner may find revolting what the other prefers and even turn out despising the other, or himself/herself for engaging in practices merely because the other wants it.

At any rate, Ayn's "rape by invitation" scenes were, by definition, fantasy by the fact that they were in a novel and not acted out.

I can remember being seventeen or so and watching Ayn on stage at NBI from about fifty (50) feet away and thinking how much of a "little girl" she was in terms of her sexuality. I did not have the words to describe her as a submissive then, but I was sure I was right.

It looks like Rand tried to recreate the scenes in her novels in her affair with NB.

From BB's book, p. 272:

"Nathaniel would acknowledge that their romance was no truly lived in reality. Rather, it was theater - no, not theater, it was a scene from a novel by Ayn Rand, full of sexual dominance and surrender and the uncontrollable passion of two noble souls." (BB)

While Ayn Rand had complete control over how her characters behaved because they were creations of her imagination, trying to act out her fictional love scenes with NB did not result in the "great and exalted romance" (BB) she dreamed of.

Nathaniel was no John Galt. Ayn was no Dagny Taggart. All she could do was to use play acting as a surrogate.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now