CNA

New not so "Soft" Drink

Recommended Posts

While I have never enjoyed the idea of trying to gain dominance over others, including lovers, it is a joy to know you have the power to give them pleasure and satisfaction. That sense of efficacy that comes with seeing and feeling their pleasure is itself very rewarding. If you care about someone enough to want to make love to them, then it is right that you should feel good about the success you have in doing so. As for whether this is an Objectivist viewpoint, I do not lay anyone else's template for "Objectivist love" or "Objectivist sex" over my life. I believe the basic principles of Objectivism are right, but their application to my life is to be worked out by me and need not be consistent with anyone else's template, not even Ayn Rand's. There is no question that my views on sex and love are very different from Rand's in the details and this is a good thing, because I am not her and I believe I am a lot happier than she was!

I am not that familiar with Ayn's view of sex, although have an idea based on Atlas Shrugged and what little I have read here on this site. I have read very little of Ayn's works and honestly I prefer to keep it this way for a number of reasons, although a lot of my views and convictions are that of my own because of what happened to me which you have some understanding of but that they also line up very closely to Ayn's. To my understanding in what I have been told and what I have been able to gather from Atlas, her preferences in sex line up with mine. To what extent that they line up in her view and convictions, I am unsure of. Although a lot of my convictions and beliefs were attained by my own doing when I was very young, after reading Atlas, she did help further define a few areas of my convictions and further putting an identity to it. My views are my own. Whether or not they line up with Ayn's does not matter to me and I really do not care if they do or not. No disrespect to her in the least bit. I live my life based on those convictions that I formed and what happened when I was younger and they are designed based on what makes me happy. What little that I do know of Ayn's views, I do agree that your views on sex and love are different from hers. But some of your views on it do line up with mine.

Imo several sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged show a remarkable amount of violence coupled with lack of empathy and caring.

This is currently being discussed here, quite controversially:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7712&st=440, (posts # 452 and # 454)

This describes the first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt in the tunnel:

AS, p. 957:

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure. (end quote)

A question re the quote from AS: "then she felt when it hit her throat"

What does "it" refer to?

Rand often desribes her heroes as ruthless, etc. Galt is the complete opposite of a caring lover. Not to mention Roark, who even commits a gutter-level sexual assault, not matter how Rand tries to play it down by calling it "rape by engraved invitation" (in which case it would be a sadomasochistic scene).

It is no so much Rand's subjective preferences which are the issue (what turns people on is their own business), but Rand's agenda was to present characters like Galt and Roark to the readers as the ideal man, "the man as man should be" (Roark).

It seems like quite few people many first got acquainted with Rand's work at a fairly young age (in their teens), and therefore might think of the Randian heroes also as sexual role models to emulate.

waffen093.giferotic2.gif

Good grief did I forget to lock the damn gate on this thread!

Thanks for spewing your anti Ayn, gender feminist pap from another thread into an intelligent and open discussion. Would you kindly either speak from personal experience and actually add something positive to this discussion or turn around and huff off to the other threads where most folks do not want to speak with you either.

Thanks.

Adam

I do speak from personal experience. This is implied in my post where I pointed out that very young people (who have not yet encountered a caring lover) might get a totally distorted picture from Rand's unempathetic "heroes".

Ms. Xray:

Take your question begging terms elsewhere . You have not proved that any of Ayn's characters are "unempathetic". Characters that clearly dispute your statements: 1) Hank and the Wet Nurse Tony; 2) Dagny and Cheryl; 3) Roark and the architect he first worked for; shall I continue.

You have made your typical, unsubstantiated, broad brush statements such as: 1) I pointed out that very young people... specifically - how old were they, what specifically did they attest too, etc.; 2) "might get" - totally from your own psycho pathology; 3) "implied in my post" - spit it out Ms. Xray - be honest; 4) are you personally familiar with what we are talking about?

Specifically, do you masturbate? Have you ever had vaginal orgasms...see this is what it means to speak from personal experience.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie, et al:

http://www.brainmapping.org/

I have a feeling that this site might have some info on the imaging. I poked around for a few minutes, seems interesting.

Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overviewG.A Parker*

Sexual conflict is a conflict between the evolutionary interests of individuals of the two sexes. The sexes can have different trait optima but this need not imply conflict if their optima can be attained simultaneously. Conflict requires an interaction between males and females (e.g. mating or parental care), such that the optimal outcomes for each sex cannot be achieved simultaneously. It is important to distinguish between battleground models, which define the parameter space for conflict and resolution models, which seek solutions for how conflicts are resolved. Overt behavioural conflict may or may not be manifest at resolution. Following Fisherian principles, an immediate (i.e. direct) benefit to a male that has a direct cost to his female partner can have an indirect benefit to the female via her male progeny. Female resistance to mating has been claimed to represent concurrence rather than conflict, due to female benefits via sons (males with low mating advantage are screened out by resistance). However, the weight of current evidence (both theoretical and empirical) supports sexual conflict for many cases. I review (i) conflicts over mate quality, encounters between males and females of genetically diverged subpopulations, mating rate and inbreeding, (ii) the special features of postcopulatory sexual conflict and (iii) some general features of importance for conflict resolution.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Take your question begging terms elsewhere . You have not proved that any of Ayn's characters are "unempathetic". Characters that clearly dispute your statements: 1) Hank and the Wet Nurse Tony; 2) Dagny and Cheryl; 3) Roark and the architect he first worked for; shall I continue.

These episodes in no way compensate for the many instances where Hank, Dagny and Roark showed unempathetic behavior.

You have made your typical, unsubstantiated, broad brush statements such as: 1) I pointed out that very young people... specifically - how old were they, what specifically did they attest too, etc.; 2) "might get" - totally from your own psycho pathology; 3) "implied in my post" - spit it out Ms. Xray - be honest; 4) are you personally familiar with what we are talking about?

You certainly have not told me anything new.

Specifically, do you masturbate? Have you ever had vaginal orgasms...see this is what it means to speak from personal experience.

I'm afraid you'll have to satisfy your curiosity about other people's intimate life elsewhere, Mister. I'll borrow from Jeff Riggenbch here and tell you: "Good luck with that". :D

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Take your question begging terms elsewhere . You have not proved that any of Ayn's characters are "unempathetic". Characters that clearly dispute your statements: 1) Hank and the Wet Nurse Tony; 2) Dagny and Cheryl; 3) Roark and the architect he first worked for; shall I continue.

These episodes in no way compensate for the many instances where Hank, Dagny and Roark showed unempathetic behavior.

Exactly. The fact that Hitler could sometimes be nice to some people does not automatically imply that he was a nice man. And the supreme ideal man Galt shows no empathy whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ms. Xray:

Take your question begging terms elsewhere . You have not proved that any of Ayn's characters are "unempathetic". Characters that clearly dispute your statements: 1) Hank and the Wet Nurse Tony; 2) Dagny and Cheryl; 3) Roark and the architect he first worked for; shall I continue.

These episodes in no way compensate for the many instances where Hank, Dagny and Roark showed unempathetic behavior.

You have made your typical, unsubstantiated, broad brush statements such as: 1) I pointed out that very young people... specifically - how old were they, what specifically did they attest too, etc.; 2) "might get" - totally from your own psycho pathology; 3) "implied in my post" - spit it out Ms. Xray - be honest; 4) are you personally familiar with what we are talking about?

You certainly have not told me anything new.

Specifically, do you masturbate? Have you ever had vaginal orgasms...see this is what it means to speak from personal experience.

I'm afraid you'll have to satisfy your curiosity about other people's intimate life elsewhere, Mister. I'll borrow from Jeff Riggenbch here and tell you: "Good luck with that". :D

Thought so...which of course would never be confused with your obsessive concentration on Ayn's sexual kink. Even Dragonfly is trying to save you with:

"A very powerful ejaculation, I suppose (perhaps anatomy wasn't her strong suit)."

I must say you amuse me.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the supreme ideal man Galt shows no empathy whatsoever.

She tried to draw away from him, but it was only a faint movement of her head on the grass she felt under her hair. She tried to rise. A shot of pain across her back threw her down again.

"Don't move, Miss Taggart. You're hurt."

"You know me?" Her voice was impersonal and hard.

"I've known you for many years."

"Have I known you?"

"Yes, I think so."

"What is your name?"

"John Galt."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the supreme ideal man Galt shows no empathy whatsoever.

She tried to draw away from him, but it was only a faint movement of her head on the grass she felt under her hair. She tried to rise. A shot of pain across her back threw her down again.

"Don't move, Miss Taggart. You're hurt."

"You know me?" Her voice was impersonal and hard.

"I've known you for many years."

"Have I known you?"

"Yes, I think so."

"What is your name?"

"John Galt."

That's not fair - using actual quotes and facts and thingees like that ...ya know

As Ms. Xray would say:

costumed-smiley-089.gif << see I a teacher and I repeats and repeats da same words costumed-smiley-019.gifyou will believe in my fantasy action-smiley-085.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the supreme ideal man Galt shows no empathy whatsoever.

She tried to draw away from him, but it was only a faint movement of her head on the grass she felt under her hair. She tried to rise. A shot of pain across her back threw her down again.

"Don't move, Miss Taggart. You're hurt."

"You know me?" Her voice was impersonal and hard.

"I've known you for many years."

"Have I known you?"

"Yes, I think so."

"What is your name?"

"John Galt."

You think that is an example of empathy? I think it reveals him as a horny stalker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that is an example of empathy? I think it reveals him as a horny stalker.

I put that in my file folder containing examples of Dragonfly's manner of "thinking." :)

Edited by Merlin Jetton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighing* It seems to me that this thread is NOT about Ayn's views in regards to Sex. What floats her boat may not float someone else's boat. Isn't there another thread where some of these philosophical issues are now being discussed and should be kept over there? Right now, I'm not interested in Galt's/Ayn's empathy issues or the fact that she loved rough sex and that some view it as barbaric or whatever. I really do not care. If I was interested in discussing these issues, I would be on that other thread where ever the hell it is at. Right now, this thread is primarily about anatomical features, biology, techniques, etc., etc., etc., and so forth.

Please you guys, serious hi-jacking going on here. I'm not interested in slamming people. I'm not interested in flame wars or whatever the hell you people call it. Quite frankly, I really don't give a damn and do not care at this point to further my own understanding through other people's inexperience or experience for that matter and Ayn's view of the sexual act and how it should have been. To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Please take it some place else. After this thread and the discussions here are over with or however the layout of this thread goes and the flow of discussions into other areas, then so be it. But up to this point, I am not going to engage in any attempts to bring a debate over of Galt was so damn unempathetic to my needs or whatever or O'ists for that matter are all horrible lovers because they only care about themselves and not little poor me. I'm not interested in this right now. I'm wanting firsthand experience and knowledge, anything that will help further my own understanding from the perspective of the opposite sex or even that of another woman because it gives me further insight. Hell, I may very well even learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the supreme ideal man Galt shows no empathy whatsoever.

She tried to draw away from him, but it was only a faint movement of her head on the grass she felt under her hair. She tried to rise. A shot of pain across her back threw her down again.

"Don't move, Miss Taggart. You're hurt."

"You know me?" Her voice was impersonal and hard.

"I've known you for many years."

"Have I known you?"

"Yes, I think so."

"What is your name?"

"John Galt."

You think that is an example of empathy? I think it reveals him as a horny stalker.

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, lighten up... this is the HUMOR section of OL, not Galt's speech about sex! So who is hijacking the thread?

DF,

If you've been at all privy to all the discussion up to this point, I was originally suggesting that the thread to be broken up into another forum because it did not belong in the Humor thread. But up to this point, that has not happened so the discussions are still continuing on the path that they were continuing on. When I come to this thread, I'm interested in discussing the issues that have been discussed as I noted above in regards to features, funcitons, etc., and not about Ayn's view or her book in regards to her sexual practices and preferences. That's why there are many forums and sections. If I wanted to go over to the other thread where there is obvious hot debate in regards to Ayn's view, I would be over there but I'm not. Instead, you guys have brought it over here.

.

Edited by CNA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighing* It seems to me that this thread is NOT about Ayn's views in regards to Sex. What floats her boat may not float someone else's boat. Isn't there another thread where some of these philosophical issues are now being discussed and should be kept over there? Right now, I'm not interested in Galt's/Ayn's empathy issues or the fact that she loved rough sex and that some view it as barbaric or whatever. I really do not care. If I was interested in discussing these issues, I would be on that other thread where ever the hell it is at. Right now, this thread is primarily about anatomical features, biology, techniques, etc., etc., etc., and so forth.

Please you guys, serious hi-jacking going on here. I'm not interested in slamming people. I'm not interested in flame wars or whatever the hell you people call it. Quite frankly, I really don't give a damn and do not care at this point to further my own understanding through other people's inexperience or experience for that matter and Ayn's view of the sexual act and how it should have been. To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Please take it some place else. After this thread and the discussions here are over with or however the layout of this thread goes and the flow of discussions into other areas, then so be it. But up to this point, I am not going to engage in any attempts to bring a debate over of Galt was so damn unempathetic to my needs or whatever or O'ists for that matter are all horrible lovers because they only care about themselves and not little poor me. I'm not interested in this right now. I'm wanting firsthand experience and knowledge, anything that will help further my own understanding from the perspective of the opposite sex or even that of another woman because it gives me further insight. Hell, I may very well even learn something.

To claim that this thread is being 'hijacked' is as absurd as if one complained that this original "Humor - OL LOLOLOL" hread was 'hijacked' because it led to a discussion about "anatomical features, biology, techniques, etc., etc., etc., and so forth".

I asked a question about the sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt here because I thought the people currently posting on this thread might know what it is about.

Don't let yourself be disturbed by a parallel discussion going on here in which you may not be interested. If you browse around OL, you'll see that parallel discussions occur in many threads.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Can't agree with that logic.

For example, when people tell you that they could not work as a baker, butcher or whatever, surely you would not tell them they are "damn hypocrites" because they never practiced it?

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sighing* It seems to me that this thread is NOT about Ayn's views in regards to Sex. What floats her boat may not float someone else's boat. Isn't there another thread where some of these philosophical issues are now being discussed and should be kept over there? Right now, I'm not interested in Galt's/Ayn's empathy issues or the fact that she loved rough sex and that some view it as barbaric or whatever. I really do not care. If I was interested in discussing these issues, I would be on that other thread where ever the hell it is at. Right now, this thread is primarily about anatomical features, biology, techniques, etc., etc., etc., and so forth.

Please you guys, serious hi-jacking going on here. I'm not interested in slamming people. I'm not interested in flame wars or whatever the hell you people call it. Quite frankly, I really don't give a damn and do not care at this point to further my own understanding through other people's inexperience or experience for that matter and Ayn's view of the sexual act and how it should have been. To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Please take it some place else. After this thread and the discussions here are over with or however the layout of this thread goes and the flow of discussions into other areas, then so be it. But up to this point, I am not going to engage in any attempts to bring a debate over of Galt was so damn unempathetic to my needs or whatever or O'ists for that matter are all horrible lovers because they only care about themselves and not little poor me. I'm not interested in this right now. I'm wanting firsthand experience and knowledge, anything that will help further my own understanding from the perspective of the opposite sex or even that of another woman because it gives me further insight. Hell, I may very well even learn something.

To claim that this thread is being 'hijacked' is as absurd as if one complained that this original "Humor - OL LOLOLOL" hread was 'hijacked' because it led to a discussion about "anatomical features, biology, techniques, etc., etc., etc., and so forth".

I asked a question about the sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt here because I thought the people currently posting on this thread might know what it is about.

Don't let yourself be disturbed by a parallel discussion going on here in which you may not be interested. Those parallel discussions occur in many threads.

Just as I stated above to DF and hi jacking. You did bring interest in some of your comments that you made. One in particular was that you also found it absurd about the structures in the brain being completely turned off in regards to emotions. I do understand and have read that it is in regards to alertness and anxiety but then state MANY areas are shut down. That's a huge variance there between only 2 areas and that then being considered MANY.

As for the other postings, I have yet to go through them. I'm sure that if someone, many up to this point, went over and started up with subjects entirely unrelated to what was being discussed and then attempting to continue these conversations and having to weed through post after post after post about subjects not related to what was originally being discussed is a pain in the ass. Quite honestly, time I really do not have in having to sift through each post trying to find what was being originally discussed. I don't ever remember empathy being a primary aspect of the original posts but more along the lines of anatomical features, brain mapping, imaging studies, etc.

And yes, many threads take on different paths of discussion as the flow continues but again, that's what all the different forums or subforums or whatever are for.

Edited by CNA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Can't agree with that logic.

For example, when people tell you that they could not work as a baker, butcher or whatever, surely you would not tell them they are "damn hypocrites" because they never practiced it?

Please don't take it out of context. Saying that bondage and D/s is wrong when you've perhaps never experienced it yourself, it becomes very difficult to support that side and saying that it is wrong to practice it. Years later you finally do dabble into it, not saying that you have or you haven't, and you realize that you actually like it...this is what I am talking about. Again, context is everything. It's difficult to use a baker or butcher, etc., in regards to sexual acts and experiencing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I should apologize.

I was enjoying this discussion with you and Charles. I basically was fundamentally annoyed at her rudeness and repetitive statements.

I should have not engaged.

Mea culpa!

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I should apologize.

I was enjoying this discussion with you and Charles. I basically was fundamentally annoyed at her rudeness and repetitive statements.

I should have not engaged.

Mea culpa!

Adam

Obviously there is a very hot debate going on in other parts of the site and was brought over here. I don't know Xray and I haven't read a lot of her posts so I am unaware as to any contentious issues but it's obvious you guys don't mesh.

The brain mapping link you provided, OMG, I am very interested in going through and will be going through hopefully soon. Have a lot going on today. Aside from philosophy, psychology, etc., medicine is a huge passion of mine. Sounds strange enough or not but quite intrigued and looking forward with anticipation to start going through that brain mapping link not only how it relates to this thread but also for my own consumption on other unrelated topics.

It seems there's been a lot of postings up to this point and will go through them hopefully soon because I saw a few that definitely raised an eyebrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I should apologize.

I was enjoying this discussion with you and Charles. I basically was fundamentally annoyed at her rudeness and repetitive statements.

I should have not engaged.

Mea culpa!

Adam

Obviously there is a very hot debate going on in other parts of the site and was brought over here. I don't know Xray and I haven't read a lot of her posts so I am unaware as to any contentious issues but it's obvious you guys don't mesh.

The brain mapping link you provided, OMG, I am very interested in going through and will be going through hopefully soon. Have a lot going on today. Aside from philosophy, psychology, etc., medicine is a huge passion of mine. Sounds strange enough or not but quite intrigued and looking forward with anticipation to start going through that brain mapping link not only how it relates to this thread but also for my own consumption on other unrelated topics.

It seems there's been a lot of postings up to this point and will go through them hopefully soon because I saw a few that definitely raised an eyebrow.

Angie:

I have been poking around in that site for about 8-9 months, but the imaging angle that you have brought up is important and I thought both of you would find it worthwhile.

I am looking for a few other files and spots that this conversation between Charles, you and I has triggered for a couple of articles/studies that I have come across. The particular female ejaculation area is a fact as far as my personal experiences over the last decade or so. I have, obviously, been extremely interested in the science for years.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A brain scanning study showed that many areas of women's brains were deactivated during orgasm, including those involved in emotion. The effect was less striking in men, but that may be because male orgasms are so short they are hard to detect in a brain scan.

Damn, that must mean I'm comatose perhaps during it. LMAO This just struck me as too far out there to even put much validity into it. That MANY areas are deactivated during orgasm....interesting.

I'll have to read each link provided. But as for the study that a lot of women report not being able to reach the big O doesn't surprise me at all. Hell, if it is pounded into you day in and day out and you are taught as you are growing up that women are not to enjoy sex and if that women have many partners that must mean you're a slut, etc., etc., etc., they wonder why women aren't responsive to sex or have problems reaching the big O, let alone that they aren't familiar enough with their own bodies. Let alone that, the responses I get when I ask a woman, do you masturbate and their first response to me is NO. I just have to laugh at this response of no. They're not being honest with me nor with themselves. It's truly unfortunate.

I would not be at all surprised if appreciable numbers of women do not masturbate or at least do it very rarely. This is unfortunate, especially for those who do not have vagina orgasms, which some of Adams references indicate may be for genetic reasons.

As for the brain shutting down, sometimes I don't have the energy to use it for a while after cumming. Perhaps my mind has shut down completely also. For sure, I often cannot stand up without feeling dizzy and off-balance, so even very fundamental parts of my brain appear to be shutting down.

The reason why I said what I did is after their telling me no and the more I talk to them about it and get them more comfortable with me and expressing my own experiences, being very open in regards to my own sexual practices, they ultimately admit that they do. So that high percentage of women that claim they don't I definitely have a problem with and that these -- not all -- but many most likely are not being honest. Given the state of our society and how women are to view sex and how men are to view women and sex, admitting something that they think may be wrong and that they are to be condemned for it or judged in a negative light by it, of course they won't admit to it.

As for the imaging studies, I just find this to be extremely intriguing and would be interested to see more studies in this regard. I know during it I am completely oblivious to what is going on around me. What I find to be interesting is what they qualify as MANY...given the complexity of our bodies and the numerous systems, what do they mean by MANY and what areas do they see as shutting down. It's just way too vague for me. I remember a long while back when I had imaging done of my brain, specifically the pituitary gland because they suspected a brain tumor, both of the doctors that were looking at the real time images were amazed at the amount of activity going on and that it was unusual and something that they only saw in about 10 percent of the population. I found that imaging study referenced above to be far reaching. Given if I can remember correctly that it was only a PET scan which has its limitations, I would be interested to see more studies done in this regard. Given the complexity of our bodies and the numerous systems and the areas of the brain that is used to keep these systems functioning properly, even at the lowest rung of "survival" without completely shutting down, is significant.

As for my state and my being able to function afterwards, etc., is not quite as extreme as yours. But do have to admit that during it, all that matters at that time is what I am experiencing. I am totally oblivious to my surroundings, very relaxed. I find it hard to believe that the area that controls emotions is completely shut down in women. Having an orgasm, I am happy as hell that I got my BIG O. The emotion claim and that area of the brain, that's far reaching for me. Given they have barely understood the brain and its structures and again the complexities of it and how each area specifically functions with another and their integration, it's difficult for me to take the study as definitive proof. I would be very interested to know what the studies would show in 100 years from now or hell 50 years in any major advancements of further study into the brain and their finally being able to understand the complexities of it.

While I expect some women really do not masturbate, just as they say, I am equally sure that many women will simply not share that information. There are a great many things that people do think about sexually or that they practice, which they are ashamed to admit to or which the childishness of social opinion on many matters of sex, simply makes it more costly than it is worth to share the information. Ask a number of men if they have ever thought about or had sex with another man and the positive response will be much below the number necessary to support the sex industries based on a positive response to that question.

A mental state and activity after having sex is quite variable. I do not know of any cases in which my emotional response is cut off, but after being at the limits of arousal for a long time, I am very aware that some areas of brain activity have surely escaped my focus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I have never enjoyed the idea of trying to gain dominance over others, including lovers, it is a joy to know you have the power to give them pleasure and satisfaction. That sense of efficacy that comes with seeing and feeling their pleasure is itself very rewarding. If you care about someone enough to want to make love to them, then it is right that you should feel good about the success you have in doing so. As for whether this is an Objectivist viewpoint, I do not lay anyone else's template for "Objectivist love" or "Objectivist sex" over my life. I believe the basic principles of Objectivism are right, but their application to my life is to be worked out by me and need not be consistent with anyone else's template, not even Ayn Rand's. There is no question that my views on sex and love are very different from Rand's in the details and this is a good thing, because I am not her and I believe I am a lot happier than she was!

I am not that familiar with Ayn's view of sex, although have an idea based on Atlas Shrugged and what little I have read here on this site. I have read very little of Ayn's works and honestly I prefer to keep it this way for a number of reasons, although a lot of my views and convictions are that of my own because of what happened to me which you have some understanding of but that they also line up very closely to Ayn's. To my understanding in what I have been told and what I have been able to gather from Atlas, her preferences in sex line up with mine. To what extent that they line up in her view and convictions, I am unsure of. Although a lot of my convictions and beliefs were attained by my own doing when I was very young, after reading Atlas, she did help further define a few areas of my convictions and further putting an identity to it. My views are my own. Whether or not they line up with Ayn's does not matter to me and I really do not care if they do or not. No disrespect to her in the least bit. I live my life based on those convictions that I formed and what happened when I was younger and they are designed based on what makes me happy. What little that I do know of Ayn's views, I do agree that your views on sex and love are different from hers. But some of your views on it do line up with mine.

Imo several sex scenes in Atlas Shrugged show a remarkable amount of violence coupled with lack of empathy and caring.

This is currently being discussed here, quite controversially:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=440, (posts # 452 and # 454)

This describes the first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt in the tunnel:

AS, p. 957:

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure. (end quote)

A question re the quote from AS: "then she felt when it hit her throat"

What does "it" refer to?

Rand often desribes her heroes as ruthless, etc. Galt is the complete opposite of a caring lover. Not to mention Roark, who even commits a gutter-level sexual assault, not matter how Rand tries to play it down by calling it "rape by engraved invitation" (in which case it would be a sadomasochistic scene).

It is no so much Rand's subjective preferences which are the issue (what turns people on is their own business), but Rand's agenda was to present characters like Galt and Roark to the readers as the ideal man, "the man as man should be" (Roark).

It seems like quite few people many first got acquainted with Rand's work at a fairly young age (in their teens), and therefore might think of the Randian heroes also as sexual role models to emulate.

First, I will simply make it clear that while I do allow Ayn Rand to set my sexual goals and appetites, I in no way am condemning her for hers. I see them as her choices and they are perfectly fine when she is exercising them with a consenting adult.

Second, I think Galt and Roark are consistently very caring lovers who are providing exactly the love that Dagny and Dominique want. That it is not what you want, is perfectly fine. I do not believe that every woman should necessarily wish to be dominated.

Third, the "it" in "then she felt when it hit her throat" seems likely to be the emotion she is feeling rising up in her. I do not at all see it as a weapon or his strangling her or whatever you might be suggesting.

Fourth, Galt and Roark are presented as thinking men who think for themselves, as Dagny also is and Dominique partly is. These men are presented as examples of heroes. They are good men. But, so are Francisco, Dr. Henderson, Hank Rearden, and Midas Mulligan. They are not all alike. A main characteristic of each is that he thinks for himself and he acts on his thoughts. There is little reason to believe they all have the same sexual appetites and needs. Indeed, the relationship between Ragnar and his wife seems different. Also, a fair reading of Dagny's stay in Galt's Gulch reveals a very great tenderness on Galt's part for Dagny. It seems clear that rough sex was hardly likely to be the daily form of sex in their on-going relationship.

I believe Ayn Rand was seeking a thinking reader. I do not think she was trying to program her readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To my understanding and the way I live my life, if you haven't experienced it and practiced it, firsthand knowledge, you're a damn hypocrite for even attempting to support one or the other side and saying this is right or this is wrong.

Can't agree with that logic.

For example, when people tell you that they could not work as a baker, butcher or whatever, surely you would not tell them they are "damn hypocrites" because they never practiced it?

Please don't take it out of context. Saying that bondage and D/s is wrong when you've perhaps never experienced it yourself, it becomes very difficult to support that side and saying that it is wrong to practice it. Years later you finally do dabble into it, not saying that you have or you haven't, and you realize that you actually like it...this is what I am talking about. Again, context is everything. It's difficult to use a baker or butcher, etc., in regards to sexual acts and experiencing it.

You have misunderstood me. What sexually turns people on is their own business. But I don't share the opinion that I must have tried out everything myself to come to the conclusion that certain practices are not up my steet.

As for Rand, she presented the sadomasochistic sex scenes in her novels as sex "ought to" be and that is the problem. She was unable to recognize her fantasies as subjective, but presented them as objective values.

Her heroes/heroines were presented as man/woman should be, which involves their sexuality as well.

John Galt is an unempatheitc "horny stalker" (like DF wrote).

I personally see Galt as a disgusting example of a lover. I'm hesitant to even use the word "lover".

One could argue of course that it is "only" a work of fiction but Rand had an agenda: these heroes were presented as role models for the reader to emulate.

There are people who have read Rand's novels countless times. Young Nathaniel Branden had read The Fountainhead forty times before meeting Rand for the first time. Can there be any doubt that TF was a bible for him?

Is it a wonder then that his initial theory of sex was very odd, mostly emulating Rand's own (clearly evidenced in his essay "The psycholgoy of Pleasure")?

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I will simply make it clear that while I do allow Ayn Rand to set my sexual goals and appetites, I in no way am condemning her for hers. I see them as her choices and they are perfectly fine when she is exercising them with a consenting adult.

Did you mean to write "while I do not allow Ayn Rand to set my sexual goals and appetites"?

But Rand did not see them as her subjective choices only. If it were only that, but thought they ought to be everyone else's too. Her theory of sex contains a catalog which faithful followers probably tried to follow religiously (just as several of them took up smoking) because she was an ideological guru.

With regard to sexuality, Rand's heroes are clearly different from other fictional characters, like e. g. Nabokov's Humbert Humbert whose sexual preference is directed at a twelve-year-old (Lolita).

But as opposed to Rand, Nabokov does not present his character as role model, on the contrary. Humber Humbert as an older man fighting his own fear of decay by becoming obsessed with the budding sexuality of a young girl is something entirely different.

Second, I think Galt and Roark are consistently very caring lovers who are providing exactly the love that Dagny and Dominique want.

The domination/rape scene in The Fountainhead was plain sexual assault, and in that differed from a prearranged sex game.

I really have problems with the word "caring" here.

Third, the "it" in "then she felt when it hit her throat" seems likely to be the emotion she is feeling rising up in her. I do not at all see it as a weapon or his strangling her or whatever you might be suggesting.

I didn't think of any weapon or strangling, since there is no evidence of that. I just could not visualize the scene from the description, that's why I asked what it could mean.

On another thread, it has been suggested it was "a very powerful ejaculation", but for it to "hit the throat", the throat is a bit far away (unless oral activity was involved, but frankly, I don't think Rand would have been that explicit. I can image she'd feel it would taint the image of her heroine if she had her do that. After all, Rand was no Henry Miller).

What you suggest has been in the back of my mind too, and considering the whole scenario ("single shock of pleasure clearly indicates an orgasm), I'm inclined to interpret that what "hit her throat" was the sudden deep breathing as part of it.

Fourth, Galt and Roark are presented as thinking men who think for themselves, as Dagny also is and Dominique partly is. These men are presented as examples of heroes. They are good men.

I see them as mostly unempathetic, bordering on the psychopathic. Roark is totally uninterested in what others feel, Galt has traits of a tyrant; his following the heroine for 12 years is just plain stalking imo.

Aside from being obsessed with Dagny, Galt has lived strangely sexless in all those years.

So despite their intelligence and creativity, those heroes remain very artificial, cold cardbaord-cutouts mostly incapable of showing emotion, except hate.

If one compares them to the many great portrayals of characters in famous works of literature, one will see how limited Rand was in her capacity here.

But, so are Francisco, Dr. Henderson, Hank Rearden, and Midas Mulligan. They are not all alike.

The sexual encounters betwen Dagny/Rearden/Galt often show the same pattern.

A main characteristic of each is that he thinks for himself and he acts on his thoughts. There is little reason to believe they all have the same sexual appetites and needs.

They mostly seem to have no sexual appetite at all, except for the heroine Dagny (D'Anconia, Rearden, Galt).

Indeed, the relationship between Ragnar and his wife seems different. Also, a fair reading of Dagny's stay in Galt's Gulch reveals a very great tenderness on Galt's part for Dagny. It seems clear that rough sex was hardly likely to be the daily form of sex in their on-going relationship.

Galt holds Dagny more or less captive. He is the king of the valley, the ruler.

He reproaches her with having broken the rules of the valley by intruding in it, but how could she have broke any rules when she couldn't know that the valley even existed when her plane crashed there?

I believe Ayn Rand was seeking a thinking reader. I do not think she was trying to program her readers.

I too don't see her as progamming the reader. Her magnum opus AS is a black and white superhero/heroine vs. enemies revenge fantasy, where those standing in the way of the auhor's subjective values finally get what they deserve.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...