Sex and OPAR

[Victor Pross]

Angie is an absolute Angle.

Victor,

I can't resist. Would that be a right angle, or acute, obtuse, straight, reflex, congruent, adjacent, complementary or supplementary angle? I am also interested in your considerations of Angie's vertex, slopes, rays and end-points. How many degrees would be interesting, too.

Michael

M,

Damn, you caught that before I did! I corrected my speilling erre...I mean my spelling errer...I mean...oh, shit, you know what I mean.

Anyway, I need to do more thinking in regards to this sex issue. Of course, you make some very good points and, yes, we really are on the same page.

-V

[Rich Engle]

Sex is a physical capacity in the service of a spiritual need. It reflects not man's body alone nor his mind alone, but their integration. As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

Looking at it a little more... The obligatory disclaimer in the last sentence. From that alone, I have to think he just didn't hit the boards for very hard or very long.

The mind? Maybe pre-launch, but I always go for the mutual, disconnect/connect primal monkey thing, if you know what I mean. Spatial shifts, tremors...soul gazing.

Yup, ol' LP is just not my first stop when researching amore'. Yikes.

rde

And if that doesn't work, trust me-- go buy some horny goatweed-- good for both boy and girl.

[Dragonfly]

Thus the joys of haute cuisine with special friends amid crystal and tapestries in a fine restaurant, or of beef stew and a glass of wine with a loving wife in one's own dining room, as against the act, equally nutritious and shielded from the elements though it may be, of chewing a piece of meat in a vacant cave somewhere.

Well, I think I'd prefer chewing a piece of meat in a vacant cave somewhere over sitting amid crystal and tapestries in a fine restaurant. The meat would probably taste better than that "haute cuisine" and there is no distraction by prattling friends and obnoxious waiters.

[Victor Pross]

Michael,

Would you trade in 1000 super-orgasmic, bedpost slamming, earth shaking, and eyes-rolling-in the-back-of-your-head--exorcist style sex—for just one evening of love making with Kat?

-Victor

Edited December 27, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Of course not, but I am in love.

Those two options are not necessarily opposites, either.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Victor,

Of course not, but I am in love.

Those two options are not necessarily opposites, either.

Michael

M,

Well, for Kat’s sake, I hope not.

V

[Rich Engle]

Yeah Victor, that was kind of a setup there... you know that intense love relationships are capable of full-spectrum...

One day you're having cheap beer and eating fried chicken with your hands before hitting the floor, and the next day you're doing Tantric stuff with candles and incense and water fountains and such...

One way or another, food 'n effing remains the king as far as date night goes...

Of course sometimes you prepare fully to do one and then it turns into the other...

Excorcist style, indeed! There's one to consider...I wonder if I can find any Jesuit-wear.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

I misread the question. Of course I would choose Kat. That is what I meant.

(Whew!)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

MSK shows us his manly mastery of the reverse cha-cha:

I misread the question. Of course I would choose Kat. That is what I meant.

Danged right of course!

Not a perfect enough landing for a "10" but close enough for jazz...

Victor, you should be careful when asking men questions like that-- you know how easily we can, well...

r

Trying to stay off tightropes, himself.

[Robert Campbell]

Gee, I'd never have thought that this would be such a popular topic

There are a number of passages in OPAR that I particularly dislike. Michael has quoted one of them, though it's by no means the very worst.

When Peikoff declares that

As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

he brings to mind certain ancient philosophers. But not Aristotle, especially.

It was Plato who thought that the intellect should be the dominant part of the soul.

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.

No wonder Peikovians are endlessly campaigning against rationalism... Their leader has never gotten it out of his system.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

Another funny Peikoff quote: 'Proper human sex...requires men and women of stature, in regard to both moral character and metaphysical outlook.'

So if you are no Objectivist, you can forget about proper sex... :cry:

[Rich Engle]

Leonard throws any chance of fun in the sack under the bus:

'Proper human sex...requires men and women of stature, in regard to both moral character and metaphysical outlook.'

What the h is Proper Human Sex<tm>?

It sounds really weird and boring. Is it like that orthodox thing where they do it through a sheet or whatever?

Fortunately he doesn't create the rules. Although, if he did, there would be no global overpopulation.

Dak! Bad Leonard! BAD Leonard!

[Jonathan]

What did Roark and Dominique know of each other before having sex? Did they know whether or not they embodied each other's values? It's been decades since I've read The Fountainhead, so correct me if I'm wrong, but, up to the time that Roark engraved-invitation-raped Dominique, wouldn't his only impression of her have been that she was a petulant rich girl? Wasn't her only knowledge of him that he was a somewhat arrogant workman in her father's quarry?

J

[PalePower]

Michael,

When I read your first couple comments about casual sex, I thought you were referring to casual sex already within a non-casual relationship - that's, at least, what I was talking about. I'm not going to say I out-and-out disagree with you; I don't think I do disagree, but neither do I say I heartily concur. In the realm of rational, passionate people with standards, I suppose it's a matter of opinion and individual comfort - whether you, personally, feel alright with casual sex with more-or-less unfamiliar people, or whether that is just Not Cool with you. To say either option is the one and only "moral" way to go is reverting back to Orthodoxy, whether Objectivist or Hedonistic.

I, personally, don't think I would be okay with casual sex outside of a substantial relationship (and by relationship I don't necessarily mean romantic, simply that you intimately know your partner and vice versa) simply because as sex is the MOST INTENSE physical-pleasure experience a person can know, I wouldn't want to share it with anyone with whom I did not have one of the MOST INTENSE mental-pleasure experiences. To say otherwise seems to me to be a blatant mind-body dichotomy, regardless of the "biological" benefits sex can have upon a person. And, almost or perhaps just as important as your own standards, is the consideration a person should have for their future sexual partners - namely, the steady, "ultimate" ones, that fully satisfy you both in body AND mind. Wouldn't you want to reserve something physically "special" for them, who are so mentally/emotional special? (No jokes - you know what kind of "special" I'm talking about! ) And how exactly would it make them feel to know if there was nothing special for them to receive?

Again, I still consider this a matter of opinion and personal comfort - dare I say, subjective?! To use myself as an example, I would not want to have sex with anybody unless they fully met my pre-set mental standards. However, I would not restrict myself from "messing around" with them. I also would not feel insulted or cheated in some way if my future "ultimate" partner had had sex with other people before me, even if they were not his ultimates - but just as long as he consciously valued them, in some ways, above the rank and file. I would, however, have a problem with him if he had participated in indiscriminate casual sex, just to satisfy a physical or emotional itch, even if it was just one time.

However, I have also observed a more positive attitude: "I am out for a good time and you are too. I see things in you that attract me, especially sexually, but I am not promising anything beyond tonight."

I also see nothing wrong with this attitude - of course you can be sexually attracted to someone without their being your "ultimate." However, does that necessarily mean that you must, or even cannot help but, give in to those desires? Can't you mess around and satisfy the sexually attracted part of your relationship, without giving in to the "ultimate" - physically - when it does not exist - mentally?

I'd say I even endorse "messing around" with "non-ultimates" because you can definitely lean too far to the other extreme - saving yourself, EVERY BIT OF IT!, ALWAYS and ONLY to the ONLY one that meets EVERY single standard. I'm still just a teenager and already I have some friends that are becoming aloof, withdrawn, dissatisfied, and almost inescapably sad as a result of this stringent self-alienation. I can't imagine what decades of this self-denial could to do a person's psyche.

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).

Edited December 27, 2006 by ENonemaker

[Ellen Stuttle]

There are a number of passages in OPAR that I particularly dislike. Michael has quoted one of them, though it's by no means the very worst.

I've never gotten past the wretched passages on volition -- which I turned to first upon opening the book -- to find out what other passages I might particularly dislike.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

What did Roark and Dominique know of each other before having sex? Did they know whether or not they embodied each other's values? It's been decades since I've read The Fountainhead, so correct me if I'm wrong, but, up to the time that Roark engraved-invitation-raped Dominique, wouldn't his only impression of her have been that she was a petulant rich girl? Wasn't her only knowledge of him that he was a somewhat arrogant workman in her father's quarry?

J

They each recognized, so the story goes, what the other was, in depth-value ways, upon first seeing each other. Same with Kira on seeing Leo. Same with Ayn Rand on seeing Frank O'Connor. Same, also, though it didn't precisely lead to a sexual relationship (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.

I don't find this recognition at first meeting so very far-fetched. With two of my best female friends, and with Larry, I experienced a sense of "Hello; THIS is an important encounter" upon first meeting them.

A sidetouch which amuses me is that in one of those first meetings, with my friend Regina Hugo, we both explicitly thought of the Howard Roark/Gail Wynand scene. We'd each heard praise of the other before then, on the part of a mutual friend who arranged the meeting. I was working at Lippincott then; Regina and Evan, the mutual friend, came to the offices to collect me on the way to dinner. It was after hours; the front doors to the offices was locked, so I had to go open it upon hearing the buzzer ring. I thought on seeing Regina, "So this is Regina Hugo," and she thought, "So this is Ellen Stuttle." We later congratulated Evan on having been sharp in anticipating the major click of sympatico which occurred.

Ellen

___

Edited December 27, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[CNA]

...I'm glad that [Angie] awoke this insight for me, shaking me from yet another dogmatic slumber.

There is no doubt in my mind. Angie is very good for you Victor. She is a woman who can shake your foundations. With her no holds barred exploration of reality and her authentic personal vision, she will show you things about the world and yourself you would not have noticed on your own. That's synergy. This is one of the great values in a highly conscious romantic relationship. It is also one of the important spiritual elements in great sex. No holds barred sex with someone who sees and values you deeply and authentically is the most intense physical/psychological/philosophical-- in a word, organismic-- experience in life. Rich is right about the power of sex.

Paul

Edit: Victor, I read your post above after I wrote this. It seems we said something in a very similar spirit.

Paul,

What you have said was very sweet and very kind of you. I'm a bit at a loss for words. I'm very appreciative of what you've said. Thank you. Victor has done the same for me. He has exposed me and directed me to areas provoking more thought in me; such as, his providing me with a link to the article above a while ago and our discussing it. Yes, Victor is very correct of my being true to form and countering with something or other. This is one of the reasons I am grateful that I've read very few of Rand's work. I love her dearly. But as you know, it is difficult for her or anyone else to tell someone why they personally do something. We're all individuals and we all have our own reasons as to why we all do what we do. We both know the only way to come to our own conclusions as to why we do what we do is through intensive introspection and extrospection with question after question and answer after answer to come to an accurate conclusion as to who we are and why. So yes, I guess it is a no holds barred exploration of reality and this exploration also includes the area of sex which I am sure Victor is very pleased to hear that. :devil:

Again, it was very sweet of you to say what you did. Thank you.

Angie

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elizabeth,

I am glad to see you thinking seriously about this. Sex is very important and you only have one body and only one first time.

btw - I am not advocating promiscuity. I am merely saying that if you do something with someone on the spur of the moment, you don't have to wallow in guilt. You didn't do anything wrong, but something right instead.

Let me put it in a metaphor to be clearer: food.

The classic attitude is that if you cannot eat caviar, but decide to eat, anything you eat is poison.

I say you can hold out for caviar, but if you decide to eat beans until you can get caviar, it is not poison. It is beans.

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.

Nathaniel Branden has some brilliant works on romantic love allied to sex.

There is another factor in the equation. Nobody is 100% anything all the time. We are constantly shifting in our moods, focuses, etc., and we use principles to keep us consistent. However, there just might be a time where a casual sexual encounter fills a need at that moment, while it would be all wrong any other time.

You are correct that this is very subjective.

Michael

[CNA]

Michael,

Would you trade in 1000 super-orgasmic, bedpost slamming, earth shaking, and eyes-rolling-in the-back-of-your-head--exorcist style sex—for just one evening of love making with Kat?

-Victor

Victor,

I just read the rest of this thread and I'm actually blushing. LOL Oh, my god, you guys. Well, I could make a few comments but would much rather keep "some" of them to myself. I am sure the earth shattering, room destroying, toe curling orgasmic romps have been with Kat !!

In my experience, the greatest sex has always been with the one I love. If both are open, honest, communicative, willing to fully experiment with no inhibitions, you quickly learn and realize that the good ole traditional style way of sex just won't cut it anymore. Aside from loving the person which enhances it tremendously, you learn new orgasmic ways that you never thought possible. Once you learn these new ways with your baby, sex just gets better and better and keeps you closely connected well after the so-called honeymoon period has ended. The 1000 so-called "bedpost slamming, earth shaking, and eyes-rolling-in the-back-of-your-head--exorcist style sex" pales in comparison. All I can say is WOW. I would't trade it for anything in the world and I know you wouldn't either !!

Angie

Edited December 28, 2006 by CNA

[Jonathan]

Ellen:

They each recognized, so the story goes, what the other was, in depth-value ways, upon first seeing each other. Same with Kira on seeing Leo. Same with Ayn Rand on seeing Frank O'Connor. Same, also, though it didn't precisely lead to a sexual relationship (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.

I don't find this recognition at first meeting so very far-fetched.

I agree - I don't find the recognition far-fetched either, but I also think that such recognitions are probably pretty common in situations which might be looked upon with disapproval by people consulting Objectivism's official rule book on virtuous sexual behavior. A gal in a night club likes a guy's studly swagger. He likes her impertinence. Each thinks the other is confident, gorgeous, and deserving of special attention. After knowing each other for all of 5 seconds they believe that they embody each other's values and they know they're destined for bed later that night. If they'd get the chance, they'd probably discover that they really do embody a lot of each other's values, at least as much as Ayn and Frank, Kira and Leo, and Roark and Dominique did. (Of course, to discover that they do, they'd have to have much, much more than a one-night stand: she might have to go off and marry other guys, for example, to try to break him because he's too good for this world, and he'd have to endure it to show that he can take it.)

With two of my best female friends, and with Larry, I experienced a sense of "Hello; THIS is an important encounter" upon first meeting them.

Same with my wife and I, as well as my best friend.

A sidetouch which amuses me is that in one of those first meetings, with my friend Regina Hugo, we both explicitly thought of the Howard Roark/Gail Wynand scene. We'd each heard praise of the other before then, on the part of a mutual friend who arranged the meeting. I was working at Lippincott then; Regina and Evan, the mutual friend, came to the offices to collect me on the way to dinner. It was after hours; the front doors to the offices was locked, so I had to go open it upon hearing the buzzer ring. I thought on seeing Regina, "So this is Regina Hugo," and she thought, "So this is Ellen Stuttle." We later congratulated Evan on having been sharp in anticipating the major click of sympatico which occurred.

Is your friendship with Regina more like two of a kind, or more like two complementary parts forming a larger whole? My best friend, in many ways, is my opposite.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Is your friendship with Regina more like two of a kind, or more like two complementary parts forming a larger whole? My best friend, in many ways, is my opposite.

J

Eesh, how to answer that... I immediately want to resort to the language of astrological symbolism, a symbolism both Regina and I are interested in as a psychological symbolism (no literal causation belief entailed; the symbolism developed as a psychological projection, a kind of vast reading of human characteristics into the firmament). The relationship is the right combination of septiles (smooth, easy jibes of characteristics) with squares (tense, but in this case exciting, clashes of characteristics) and inconjuncts (characteristics that neither quite jibe nor clash but lead to heightened awareness through ambiguity) -- all in transformative house-and-planet configurations. Our actual charts are as described, interestingly. Very often (maybe in 95% of cases) charts and the people whose charts they supposedly are either don't match at all or only vaguely match. Regina's and mine are among the small percent of cases where the match is a good one. Which answer might tell you nothing except that: it's multi-faceted complex, the similarities and differences.

Btw, I haven't been in touch with Regina for about the last six or so years. We've several times not been in touch for several years at a stretch, with the particulars of our lives going in non-overlapping paths. And then, when again we make contact, it's as if we'd picked up the thread with no interruption.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

(Of course, to discover that they do, they'd have to have much, much more than a one-night stand: she might have to go off and marry other guys, for example, to try to break him because he's too good for this world, and he'd have to endure it to show that he can take it.)

Right, J. (Laughing; love your way of putting these things.)

E-

___

[CNA]

Angie I discussed this very subject once, and she said something that had a great deal of profundity. She talked about the sexual experience as being the most intense form of physical pleasure that a human being can experience. My critical antenna became alert. I objected, trotting out the classic Peiokoffian line of the “mind being a ruling factor” bla, bla, bla--and Angie, true to form, countered, in essence, with “Why are you favoring one over the other? Both are equally important.” Ding! This got me thinking.

Angie's argument can be summed up as this: Why put the physical pleasure—pure physical pleasure—on a lower rung than the emotional element—or alternately—why put the emotional element on a higher rung than the physical rung? Upon reflection, I said, “Wow, that sounds like total integration to me.” So I’m glad that she awoke this insight for me, shaking me from yet another dogmatic slumber.

I'm ecstatic to hear that I've been able to awaken you and have gotten you to think. Ah, it is so glorious !! I absolutely love it !! It is something I value highly as I know you do as well. Honey, you've done the same for me !! I've done a very good job of it on my own for the past 17 years but you've sparked it even more. There are not many out there that are able to do this with me but you've accomplished it. Thank you.

Angie

[PalePower]

They each recognized, so the story goes, what the other was, in depth-value ways, upon first seeing each other. Same with Kira on seeing Leo. Same with Ayn Rand on seeing Frank O'Connor. Same, also, though it didn't precisely lead to a sexual relationship (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.

I don't find this recognition at first meeting so very far-fetched. With two of my best female friends, and with Larry, I experienced a sense of "Hello; THIS is an important encounter" upon first meeting them.

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.

Edited December 28, 2006 by ENonemaker

[Victor Pross]

Elizabeth,

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.

-Victor

Edited December 28, 2006 by Victor Pross