New not so "Soft" Drink

[Charles R. Anderson]

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.

X-ray, it is clear that our perspectives on life are so different that we cannot find any way to even usefully discuss matters of sex and human caring. It is as though a life-long Capitalist were to undertake an economics discussion with a life-long Marxist.

However, you are right that I somehow left out the word "not" in my First point. Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes my mind moves faster than my fingers can type and I had little time.

While is true that Rand had a fascination with men dominating women, I do not at all see that as her only acceptable kind of sex. It is not my primary mode of loving and I see no fundamental conflict between my more tender style and Objectivist principles. I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels. Rand does have a strong sense of the dramatic, but no one lives every moment of their lives in that mode. That would be too unsettling a roller coaster ride. Mind you, roller coasters have their moments, but not so many as tender love.

Galt holds Dagny prisoner in Galt's Gulch while she heals, knowing she wants an excuse to stay, and because he has no obligation to return her to the outer world until he is ready to do so. He does not chain her up and she is free to move around Galt's Gulch and presumably could walk out if she were so inclined.

Apparently we do not share a common idea of what caring or revenge are. Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire. But, with Galt's motor and their various abilities, if they actually wanted revenge, do you not think they could have made very effective active war against the weak and crumbling likes of President Thompson's regime? Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others. I do not know what caring is for you, but I would find it very uncaring if it violates that principle. Given that others honor that principle, I see many instances in which Rand's heroes demonstrate caring and I am puzzled by the inability many have to see that. What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea. The important thing is that she developed many wonderful ideas and we have been greatly benefited by her life's work.

Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action? Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you.

What I am puzzled by here is this: Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you love or not? If not, why are you so interested in spending your time discussing her work?

[Xray]

X-ray, it is clear that our perspectives on life are so different that we cannot find any way to even usefully discuss matters of sex and human caring. It is as though a life-long Capitalist were to undertake an economics discussion with a life-long Marxist.

However, you are right that I somehow left out the word "not" in my First point. Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes my mind moves faster than my fingers can type and I had little time.

While is true that Rand had a fascination with men dominating women, I do not at all see that as her only acceptable kind of sex. It is not my primary mode of loving and I see no fundamental conflict between my more tender style and Objectivist principles. I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels. Rand does have a strong sense of the dramatic, but no one lives every moment of their lives in that mode. That would be too unsettling a roller coaster ride. Mind you, roller coasters have their moments, but not so many as tender love.

Galt holds Dagny prisoner in Galt's Gulch while she heals, knowing she wants an excuse to stay, and because he has no obligation to return her to the outer world until he is ready to do so. He does not chain her up and she is free to move around Galt's Gulch and presumably could walk out if she were so inclined.

Apparently we do not share a common idea of what caring or revenge are. Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire. But, with Galt's motor and their various abilities, if they actually wanted revenge, do you not think they could have made very effective active war against the weak and crumbling likes of President Thompson's regime? Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others. I do not know what caring is for you, but I would find it very uncaring if it violates that principle. Given that others honor that principle, I see many instances in which Rand's heroes demonstrate caring and I am puzzled by the inability many have to see that. What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea. The important thing is that she developed many wonderful ideas and we have been greatly benefited by her life's work.

Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action? Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you.

What I am puzzled by here is this: Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you love or not? If not, why are you so interested in spending your time discussing her work?

Charles,

Rand's work does contain some truths I value highly. Her "Check you premises" is one of the best advices one can give. But this of course also involves checking her own.

I also agree with her rejection of the fallacy which holds any 'moral code' allegedly being founded in transcendence ("God's will is ...").

I actually heard the name Ayn Rand mentioned for the first time during a discussion on atheism a few years ago. I'm from Europe and have the impression that Rand is not that well known here.

I don't know about the USA, but in recent years, a veritable atheist movement has swept over Europe, with publications by Dawkins heading the bestseller lists. Atheists suddenly showed up in TV discussions, debating with theists, etc.

What struck me about some of them was that they seemed no less fanatic than some of the theists, and that they had merely changed god's name to "Man".

I'm interested epistemology as well as in ethics, but have no doubt that without her novels, Rand's non-fiction would never have gotten off the ground. Yet, when mentally incorporated with the novels, by followers, ITOE is heralded as "great thinking."

I have read somewhere that N. Branden had read The Fountainhead 40 (!) times before meeting Ayn Rand. If this is true, then imo it allows the inference that the book played a Bible-like role for NB.

Being enamored with the heroes in the novels, the desire to regard what they say as truth coupled with the desire to emulate to gain in sense of self-value - imo all this creats a mindset where the follower feels obliged to accept Rand's "brilliant thinking" in all areas of life.

Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire.

I don't see Roark dynamiting the building as an act of simply retiring. It is an act of violence he feels entitled to commit.

What would the world look like if we all took revenge in a similar violent way because we feel other have not done what they promised us they would do?

As for Galt & Co, they do not simply retire either, but their purpose is to bring about the destruction of the world. They seem remarkably unempathetic to the consequences of their acts leaving thousands of workers unemployed and reduced to destitution because the "destroyers", saw to it that those mines and mills were ruined.

Danneskjöld's sinking of ships is also an act of violence.

Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others.

Rearden has no scruples telling his wife that he would beat her up if she even mentioned Dagny's name.

Not only does he cheat on Lilian with Dagny, he also also threatens to use force.

I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels.

I'm not cherry-picking since the dramatic scenes stand out in such bold relief that they have a clear message.

What also irritated me was the "mocking smile" the heroes/heroines often have on their face before and during the sexual encouters.

What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea.

Demanding too much acceptance is putting it mildly. In her book, B. Branden convincingly describes many situations where Rand flew off the handle merely because others disagreed with her. Not to mention the "ugly tangle of deceit and emotional savagery and pain" (BB) following the disastrous "arragement".

Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action?

Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you.

Imo it is not so much life's fundamtenal lesson but an expression of your personal values, which I suppose quite a few other people share (including myself in that case).

But I don't think Rands attitude was the same. I always had the impression that feelings of hate were more prevalent in her than feelings of love.

The most disastrous mistake she made was in believing empathy and caring was the same as "altruism". Hence her rejection of what she unnecessarily dreaded as "giving to others".

Imo this can have particularly detrimental consequences when it comes to sexuality.

What you described in post # 52 could at first sight be misinterpreted as altruistic act. But imo "altruism" does not exist. Since the giver derives pleasure from giving, the action serves his/her self-interest. I don't mean this in a negative sense at all. Your wife's pleasure enhances your own - that's how I interpreted it.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just caught up to this thread and skimmed it.

It's funny to see how quips about Viagra and a discussion of sexuality turn into Rand-bashing.

We all have our own wet dreams, I guess...

Michael

(btw - Charles, it is very good to see you stop in. You are a person I like a lot.)

[Alfonso Jones]

What I am puzzled by here is this: Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you love or not? If not, why are you so interested in spending your time discussing her work?

Charles -

Good question you address to Xray (quoted above). I'd settle for Xray addressing "Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you understand?" and then showing actual evidence that she understands that something.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bill,

LOLOLOLOL...

I didn't know you had a funny streak.

Right on...

Michael

[merjet]

I have two questions for Xray different from Bill's:

1. Is food an objective value?

2. Is water an objective value?

I mean no particular food (e.g. bread), nor that it must be the same kind of food for every person, and no time restriction (it can be any time during a person's life).

Brant Gaede sort of asked her these questions several months ago here. She avoided answering for food and water.

The following is Xray's meta-method on OL.

Premise 1 - When Ayn Rand said X (a word/term) she meant this#1.

Premise 2 - In Xray-speak X (same word/term) means this#2.

Premise 3 - (May be unstated.) Xray is right and Rand is wrong.

Conclusion - Attack!

[Xray]

I have two questions for Xray different from Bill's:

1. Is food an objective value?

2. Is water an objective value?

I have two questions for Xray different from Bill's:

1. Is food an objective value?

2. Is water an objective value?

I mean no particular food (e.g. bread), nor that it must be the same kind of food for every person, and no time restriction (it can be any time during a person's life).

Brant Gaede sort of asked her these questions several months ago here. She avoided answering for food and water.

It is always value to whom. Rand herself stated this.

Re food: is it of value to the bulimic spitting it out?

Or to the kid who does not want to interrupt is play because it is lunch time?

Is water of value to the prisoner being waterborded?

Or to you if someone pours a bucket of water over your campfire which you don't want to be put out?

I have answered about the food and water often enough. I did answer Brant's question in the post followong his own. What I said about air applies to food and water too.

Also, I also recall a post by MSK where IIRC he states that water is not a value as such but only when used in certain manner (= depending on the goals a person has).

A few days ago, I commented on the very thread you are currently posting on as well:

"The objective biological fact that the intake of these substances has a specific effect on the body exists independently of choice. Therefore a person cannot ingest quicksilver and choose it not to harm them - for it will.

Biological processes as such exist independently of a valuer; they are not subject to choice and therefore do not constitute value in and of themselves, i.e., do not constitute an "objective value/non-value." (Xray)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4499&st=300

Premise 1 - When Ayn Rand said X (a word/term) she meant this#1.

Premise 2 - In Xray-speak X (same word/term) means this#2.

Premise 3 - (May be unstated.) Xray is right and Rand is wrong.

Conclusion - Attack!

It not about want Rand meant. It is about whether her premises are correct.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I just caught up to this thread and skimmed it.

It's funny to see how quips about Viagra and a discussion of sexuality turn into Rand-bashing.

On another thread, I had asked a very specific question pertaining to the sexual encounter betweeen Dagny and Galt http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=460&p=84262entry84262

I took this question over here too because I wanted to get more opinions and thought the people posting here might be able to answer it. Which turned out to be the case, at least Ch. Anderson's answer convinced me - it was something I had also thought of but had not been completely certain about. (Ch. A.'s answer is quoted in # 100).

Rand's theory of sex is a pivotal issue in her oeuvre. Imo her theory shows a lack of empathy. What do you think?

You wrote:

MSK: I believe Rand is a great inspiration for many things in life, but not in how to manage your love life.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7917&st=0&p=84786entry84786

I agree 100 per cent to the second part of your sentence.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

I did answer Brant's question in the post followong his own. What I said about air applies to food and water too.

No, you did not answer his question in post #86. It does not mention food or water. However, I'll take your second sentence to say that food is a "mere biological necessity for survival" and can never be an objective value to anybody. The same goes for water.

So this is what all of Xray's posturing boils down to. Xray says "objective values" cannot exist "by definition". In contrast, for Rand objective values exist, although she used "rational values" far more. Food and water would naturally be primary ones. But what Rand means by "objective values" is completely irrelevant to Xray.

Xray's meta-method I described here hit the bull's eye.

Xray has also declared that self-interest can be neither rational nor irrational, to wit:

There also exists no "rational" or "irrational", self-intetest, only self-interest which is natural law working 100 per cent of the time.

I assume Xray is self-interested in continuing to live. So if Xray chooses to eat or not eat a nutritious meal, that is neither rational nor irrational in her view. Similarly, if Xray chooses to eat or not eat a lethal amount of arsenic, that is neither rational nor irrational in her view.

How much more subjectivist could a person be?

Edited December 3, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Charles R. Anderson]

X-ray, it is clear that our perspectives on life are so different that we cannot find any way to even usefully discuss matters of sex and human caring. It is as though a life-long Capitalist were to undertake an economics discussion with a life-long Marxist.

However, you are right that I somehow left out the word "not" in my First point. Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes my mind moves faster than my fingers can type and I had little time.

While is true that Rand had a fascination with men dominating women, I do not at all see that as her only acceptable kind of sex. It is not my primary mode of loving and I see no fundamental conflict between my more tender style and Objectivist principles. I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels. Rand does have a strong sense of the dramatic, but no one lives every moment of their lives in that mode. That would be too unsettling a roller coaster ride. Mind you, roller coasters have their moments, but not so many as tender love.

Galt holds Dagny prisoner in Galt's Gulch while she heals, knowing she wants an excuse to stay, and because he has no obligation to return her to the outer world until he is ready to do so. He does not chain her up and she is free to move around Galt's Gulch and presumably could walk out if she were so inclined.

Apparently we do not share a common idea of what caring or revenge are. Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire. But, with Galt's motor and their various abilities, if they actually wanted revenge, do you not think they could have made very effective active war against the weak and crumbling likes of President Thompson's regime? Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others. I do not know what caring is for you, but I would find it very uncaring if it violates that principle. Given that others honor that principle, I see many instances in which Rand's heroes demonstrate caring and I am puzzled by the inability many have to see that. What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea. The important thing is that she developed many wonderful ideas and we have been greatly benefited by her life's work.

Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action? Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you.

What I am puzzled by here is this: Is there something about Ayn Rand's work that you love or not? If not, why are you so interested in spending your time discussing her work?

Charles,

Rand's work does contain some truths I value highly. Her "Check you premises" is one of the best advices one can give. But this of course also involves checking her own.

I also agree with her rejection of the fallacy which holds any 'moral code' allegedly being founded in transcendence ("God's will is ...").

I actually heard the name Ayn Rand mentioned for the first time during a discussion on atheism a few years ago. I'm from Europe and have the impression that Rand is not that well known here.

I don't know about the USA, but in recent years, a veritable atheist movement has swept over Europe, with publications by Dawkins heading the bestseller lists. Atheists suddenly showed up in TV discussions, debating with theists, etc.

What struck me about some of them was that they seemed no less fanatic than some of the theists, and that they had merely changed god's name to "Man".

I'm interested epistemology as well as in ethics, but have no doubt that without her novels, Rand's non-fiction would never have gotten off the ground. Yet, when mentally incorporated with the novels, by followers, ITOE is heralded as "great thinking."

I have read somewhere that N. Branden had read The Fountainhead 40 (!) times before meeting Ayn Rand. If this is true, then imo it allows the inference that the book played a Bible-like role for NB.

Being enamored with the heroes in the novels, the desire to regard what they say as truth coupled with the desire to emulate to gain in sense of self-value - imo all this creats a mindset where the follower feels obliged to accept Rand's "brilliant thinking" in all areas of life.

Rand makes it clear that her heroes are not obliged to suffer and sacrifice for others simply upon their demand and because they are willing to use force to make them do so. So, being benevolent people, they simply retire.

I don't see Roark dynamiting the building as an act of simply retiring. It is an act of violence he feels entitled to commit.

What would the world look like if we all took revenge in a similar violent way because we feel other have not done what they promised us they would do?

As for Galt & Co, they do not simply retire either, but their purpose is to bring about the destruction of the world. They seem remarkably unempathetic to the consequences of their acts leaving thousands of workers unemployed and reduced to destitution because the "destroyers", saw to it that those mines and mills were ruined.

Danneskjöld's sinking of ships is also an act of violence.

Caring is a more involved issue, but it starts with honoring the rights of the sovereign individual to live his own life provided he does not use force against others.

Rearden has no scruples telling his wife that he would beat her up if she even mentioned Dagny's name.

Not only does he cheat on Lilian with Dagny, he also also threatens to use force.

I really do believe you are cherry-picking from dramatic scenes and ignoring the less dramatic in her novels.

I'm not cherry-picking since the dramatic scenes stand out in such bold relief that they have a clear message.

What also irritated me was the "mocking smile" the heroes/heroines often have on their face before and during the sexual encouters.

What is more, there are many instances in Rand's life in which she demonstrated that she cared about many people, though at times she also may have lost it with impatience or by demanding too much acceptance of her every idea.

Demanding too much acceptance is putting it mildly. In her book, B. Branden convincingly describes many situations where Rand flew off the handle merely because others disagreed with her. Not to mention the "ugly tangle of deceit and emotional savagery and pain" (BB) following the disastrous "arragement".

Have you never been angry with someone you love, because you thought them wrong about some particular thing or action?

Well, isn't it one of life's most fundamental lessons that you do not forget that you love them even as you take exception to that particular moment or action? With anyone, it is important to remember the larger context of their life and what they mean to you.

Imo it is not so much life's fundamtenal lesson but an expression of your personal values, which I suppose quite a few other people share (including myself in that case).

But I don't think Rands attitude was the same. I always had the impression that feelings of hate were more prevalent in her than feelings of love.

The most disastrous mistake she made was in believing empathy and caring was the same as "altruism". Hence her rejection of what she unnecessarily dreaded as "giving to others".

Imo this can have particularly detrimental consequences when it comes to sexuality.

What you described in post # 52 could at first sight be misinterpreted as altruistic act. But imo "altruism" does not exist. Since the giver derives pleasure from giving, the action serves his/her self-interest. I don't mean this in a negative sense at all. Your wife's pleasure enhances your own - that's how I interpreted it.

This is the busiest time of the year in my laboratory, so I had not checked back here for awhile. Yes, whether theists or atheists, people can be quite fanatic. I am an atheist and I have pointed out a great many shortcomings of religious beliefs and ethics. My parents and most everyone else in my extended family are believers, yet I love them. I reserve the right to disagree with them and others on many issues, just as I have strong views about the brutality of socialism and its denial of individualism. I suppose you will have to decide to what degree I am a fanatic!

There is no question that there are Objectivists who are fanatic about the philosophy and yet they do not understand some of its most basic tenets, such as the requirement to think for yourself. It would be a very un-Objectivist approach to simply ask "What would Ayn Rand do or think and I will do and think that." I would never have been interested in such a philosophy at the age of 17, or even at the age of 12. The philosophy itself argues against followers, yet there are plenty of followers anyway. There are for any striking philosophy and surprising numbers are cultists. But, this is not a fault of the philosophy. It is a fault of human failing.

Atlas Shrugged is a great novel. It is dramatization of some major ethical and political issues with some fascinating heroic characters. I get a great joy from reading the sections on the heroes myself, though I have a busy life and I have never read the novel 40 times. Indeed, it has now been decades since the last time I read it from start to finish. But one of the key things that many people miss about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead is that they are very unique novels and there is no proper way to judge them except in their own terms. They are criticized for not developing moral shades of gray in the characters with the same wealth of effort that some novels do which focus on only that. But this criticism is off base given Rand's purpose. I also do not believe it is a central theme of either novel to prescribe effective sexual behavior for the maintenance of a marriage or even a long-term relationship. Rearden and Lillian had a failed marriage from the beginning. Rearden and Dagny have a relationship which Dagny never looks upon as more than a loving affair. Rand liked dramatic events and dramatic characters. I enjoy these characters, but I was already much of what I wanted to be at 17 and I was hardly looking to radically reinvent myself as a Randian hero. I loved them, but I love me more. I never believed that Objectivism required me or anyone to copy Rand's heroes. They were dramatic representations of some points she wanted to make. I took them as such. For me, I am my own hero and I find other heroes in history and occasionally in life about me. A novel is not the real world, though it may try to be. Rand did not actually try to make her novels real. She dealt with real issues, but still her novel worlds were not real. I accepted that and ran with it. It is a good thing to be able to deal with complex issues both in the concretes and the abstracts. Now this is difficult for many people to do. But Rand as a novelist is actually very abstract, and in some ways very concrete. But there is a very complex interweave of the two and I think few people can sort them out.

Our individual sexualities are very capable of great complexity and are extremely differentiated. There is no significant likelihood that any author I might like will have a sexuality that matches mine. Rand's is clearly very different than mine, but that does not make me despise it. In fact, it is interesting, just not quite shared. It is not vanilla. Scratch that, I love vanilla ice cream! Rand's sexuality is not for everyone. Fine. Mine is not either. I do not wish to impose my sexuality on anyone else. It would not work for many, because they are not me. We must not forget the individuality of man or woman. This should be obvious to an Objectivist, but it is not to many who think of themselves as Objectivists.

Sorry, but I am not a great fan of monogamy. The idea that jealousy is a virtue that goes with it makes no sense to me. I do not have a problem with Rand and Branden as lovers. I do think Rand should have been prepared to graciously leave Branden when the time came, as it was bound to given the age difference. There was childishness on all sides in this affair. But, it does not diminish the magnitude of Rand's work for me. I am very grateful for all she did, including ITOE. I am perfectly capable of loving multiple sisters, multiple daughters, and even multiple lovers. You may derisively call it cheating. I may call it a failure to be able to love more than one, should one be blessed with knowing more than one deserving of love. Applied to Rearden, he had no love in his marriage. He should have left her, and a sub-theme of the novel was the story of his coming to understand why he was not morally bound to his wife and why he should leave her. He eventually does. It was a great moment when he finally figures this out. Meanwhile, he and Dagny need each other and they are good for each other. Now, I have never hit a woman in my life and I despise nothing more than a man who does. Except, if a women did something as despicable as Lillian did when Rearden told her to desist or he would hit her, I fully understand that urge at least. It was a moment when he should have simply left her.

The mines and mills were failing everywhere. The last mills and mines not failed were those of our retiring heroes. If, in some cases, they walked away and destroyed what they owned and had built, what right have you to object? Are you seriously maintaining that they were obliged to continue working for everyone else's benefit when no one else cared about them? Are you seriously saying they were obliged to be slaves to their employees and to the rapacious government? I have employees in my laboratory. Are you saying I am not allowed to stop working when I decide to stop working? When I do stop managing my lab, it may not survive. So I must work until I die? I may do that, but it will not be because I am obliged to do so purely for the sake of my employees. All of whom I do like a lot and enjoy working with, but still I have the exercise of my choice! When the strikers say they are going to destroy the world, they are really just walking away. They are not going to John Smith's diner and attacking it with axes.

Ragnar is sinking ships, but he rescues the crews. The ships are being used to loot the productive. This is simply the equivalent of taking guns from thieves. Again, I suspect you are not judging this act fully in the context of the world of Atlas Shrugged, but are doing so in terms of a famine aid ship today. Aid ships today should all be carrying supplies given voluntarily, not supplies bought with tax money. Roark blowing up Cortlandt is again a dramatic event. He expects to go to jail and he is willing to go to jail, if need be. But, he is fed up. Perhaps he is not really justified in blowing up Cortlandt because of the labor and money put into it, but the theft of his plan that made it possible equally should not have occurred. You accept the theft, but that is just as bad as blowing the building up. For the purposes of the novel, the building is sacrificed. It is a novel, not a blueprint for making your every life decision.

It was never my purpose to live with Ayn Rand or to work my way into her inner circle of friends. I would not have gotten very far, since I am too short for her image of heroes! I also have a beard, which means I am hiding a character flaw! Ha!!! Look, Rand had her eccentricities. She was a genius and I am happy to give her those eccentricities. I am not obliged to duplicate them. Heck, I have my own wonderfully cultivated eccentricities and I am fond of them. Besides, if you had left your family in Russia after seeing your father's business taken from him, come to America not knowing English, worked in Hollywood, lived through the Great Roosevelt Depression, then WWII, and finally published two large novels in your new language after years of struggle, are you sure you would not have a few eccentricities? Maybe some impatience and frustration? Maybe some deep worries about the destruction brought on by socialism? Maybe a very determined mission in life? Put everything together and she was remarkable and wonderful, but maybe a real roller coaster ride emotionally if you were close to her. Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and Einstein would not have been easy to live with either. Rand was a human being, not a substitute for God. Let her be for heaven's sake. Have you no milk of human kindness?

Rand did not believe that empathy and caring are the same as altruism. That statement is simply wrong. She did believe that many acts that others view as empathic and caring were in fact altruism. There are those, for instance, who believe that the magnitude of the empathy and caring is shown in direct proportion to the sacrifice one makes for others. But Rand clearly cared about others in her private life. She certainly had empathy for the much empathy-neglected able and hardworking people that most people seem so much to like kicking in the shins. Did she care less than I think she should have in some cases? Yes. But, she also worked and thought decades to give us the results of what I think was her great work. I appreciate that. She provided a strong and rational individualistic ethics and a great defense of Capitalism. Capitalism saves and enriches billions of lives, yet it is under constant attack by those who pretend caring and empathy, but always deliver pain, depression, and starvation. Not to mention high unemployment rates! Rand cared about protecting so many people from the destruction of their lives that she made a lifetime unremitting effort to develop her ideas and to present them in a memorably dramatic way. As a result, her work is still read many decades later, when most author's works are forgotten or considered only in the history of the time of publication. The people who read her novels still frequently feel uplifted and supported in their lives. They still experience rare moments of joy. This should be appreciated.

[Alfonso Jones]

Charles -

Good post. In reflecting on your own point of view, I suspect that you have captured the essence of why so many admire Ayn Rand.

Bill P

[Charles R. Anderson]

I just caught up to this thread and skimmed it.

It's funny to see how quips about Viagra and a discussion of sexuality turn into Rand-bashing.

We all have our own wet dreams, I guess...

Michael

(btw - Charles, it is very good to see you stop in. You are a person I like a lot.)

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the welcome back.

The way people see caring and empathy can be dramatically differently. For many, it can only even exist in the context of altruism. It is about social interaction, so it must be about socialism. Individualism is all about me, so there is no room for others.

The reality is more complex. There is no real respect for others and no real caring for them, if the individual does not respect and care for himself. He can only do this if he chooses his own values and manages his life in accordance with those values. But socialism will not allow him to do this. Capitalism, the free market with very limited government, will. Capitalism gives the individual a wealth of ways to pursue his values with people who happen to share but few of his values, while socialism allows him only those values which almost everyone holds in common. Of those held in common values, little is produced under socialism because their is no individual motivation. Capitalism allows people with many different values to live in harmony. Socialism puts everyone at one another's throats. Yet, socialism is the defined pathway for the empathic and caring! Go figure.

I know some people who in my day to day encounters with them are very caring and empathic on a personal basis. But, put them in abstract situations or give them a political vote, and they become moral monsters. They think themselves empathic and caring because of the very acts that make them monsters. I care about my fellow man, so I will choose their values for them and I will make them live their lives in accordance with my chosen values. This is their mantra for caring. Yet the same person who works with me, would never ever tell me that I must adopt her values. No, in that personal context, she would understand that to be wrong and presumptuous. But, politically, it is perfectly OK, no, morally required or one is not caring! Go figure the disconnect.

I am constantly reminded that I can only introspect my own mind.

[CNA]

This is the busiest time of the year in my laboratory, so I had not checked back here for awhile. Yes, whether theists or atheists, people can be quite fanatic. I am an atheist and I have pointed out a great many shortcomings of religious beliefs and ethics. My parents and most everyone else in my extended family are believers, yet I love them. I reserve the right to disagree with them and others on many issues, just as I have strong views about the brutality of socialism and its denial of individualism. I suppose you will have to decide to what degree I am a fanatic!

There is no question that there are Objectivists who are fanatic about the philosophy and yet they do not understand some of its most basic tenets, such as the requirement to think for yourself. It would be a very un-Objectivist approach to simply ask "What would Ayn Rand do or think and I will do and think that." I would never have been interested in such a philosophy at the age of 17, or even at the age of 12. The philosophy itself argues against followers, yet there are plenty of followers anyway. There are for any striking philosophy and surprising numbers are cultists. But, this is not a fault of the philosophy. It is a fault of human failing.

Atlas Shrugged is a great novel. It is dramatization of some major ethical and political issues with some fascinating heroic characters. I get a great joy from reading the sections on the heroes myself, though I have a busy life and I have never read the novel 40 times. Indeed, it has now been decades since the last time I read it from start to finish. But one of the key things that many people miss about Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead is that they are very unique novels and there is no proper way to judge them except in their own terms. They are criticized for not developing moral shades of gray in the characters with the same wealth of effort that some novels do which focus on only that. But this criticism is off base given Rand's purpose. I also do not believe it is a central theme of either novel to prescribe effective sexual behavior for the maintenance of a marriage or even a long-term relationship. Rearden and Lillian had a failed marriage from the beginning. Rearden and Dagny have a relationship which Dagny never looks upon as more than a loving affair. Rand liked dramatic events and dramatic characters. I enjoy these characters, but I was already much of what I wanted to be at 17 and I was hardly looking to radically reinvent myself as a Randian hero. I loved them, but I love me more. I never believed that Objectivism required me or anyone to copy Rand's heroes. They were dramatic representations of some points she wanted to make. I took them as such. For me, I am my own hero and I find other heroes in history and occasionally in life about me. A novel is not the real world, though it may try to be. Rand did not actually try to make her novels real. She dealt with real issues, but still her novel worlds were not real. I accepted that and ran with it. It is a good thing to be able to deal with complex issues both in the concretes and the abstracts. Now this is difficult for many people to do. But Rand as a novelist is actually very abstract, and in some ways very concrete. But there is a very complex interweave of the two and I think few people can sort them out.

Our individual sexualities are very capable of great complexity and are extremely differentiated. There is no significant likelihood that any author I might like will have a sexuality that matches mine. Rand's is clearly very different than mine, but that does not make me despise it. In fact, it is interesting, just not quite shared. It is not vanilla. Scratch that, I love vanilla ice cream! Rand's sexuality is not for everyone. Fine. Mine is not either. I do not wish to impose my sexuality on anyone else. It would not work for many, because they are not me. We must not forget the individuality of man or woman. This should be obvious to an Objectivist, but it is not to many who think of themselves as Objectivists.

Sorry, but I am not a great fan of monogamy. The idea that jealousy is a virtue that goes with it makes no sense to me. I do not have a problem with Rand and Branden as lovers. I do think Rand should have been prepared to graciously leave Branden when the time came, as it was bound to given the age difference. There was childishness on all sides in this affair. But, it does not diminish the magnitude of Rand's work for me. I am very grateful for all she did, including ITOE. I am perfectly capable of loving multiple sisters, multiple daughters, and even multiple lovers. You may derisively call it cheating. I may call it a failure to be able to love more than one, should one be blessed with knowing more than one deserving of love. Applied to Rearden, he had no love in his marriage. He should have left her, and a sub-theme of the novel was the story of his coming to understand why he was not morally bound to his wife and why he should leave her. He eventually does. It was a great moment when he finally figures this out. Meanwhile, he and Dagny need each other and they are good for each other. Now, I have never hit a woman in my life and I despise nothing more than a man who does. Except, if a women did something as despicable as Lillian did when Rearden told her to desist or he would hit her, I fully understand that urge at least. It was a moment when he should have simply left her.

The mines and mills were failing everywhere. The last mills and mines not failed were those of our retiring heroes. If, in some cases, they walked away and destroyed what they owned and had built, what right have you to object? Are you seriously maintaining that they were obliged to continue working for everyone else's benefit when no one else cared about them? Are you seriously saying they were obliged to be slaves to their employees and to the rapacious government? I have employees in my laboratory. Are you saying I am not allowed to stop working when I decide to stop working? When I do stop managing my lab, it may not survive. So I must work until I die? I may do that, but it will not be because I am obliged to do so purely for the sake of my employees. All of whom I do like a lot and enjoy working with, but still I have the exercise of my choice! When the strikers say they are going to destroy the world, they are really just walking away. They are not going to John Smith's diner and attacking it with axes.

Ragnar is sinking ships, but he rescues the crews. The ships are being used to loot the productive. This is simply the equivalent of taking guns from thieves. Again, I suspect you are not judging this act fully in the context of the world of Atlas Shrugged, but are doing so in terms of a famine aid ship today. Aid ships today should all be carrying supplies given voluntarily, not supplies bought with tax money. Roark blowing up Cortlandt is again a dramatic event. He expects to go to jail and he is willing to go to jail, if need be. But, he is fed up. Perhaps he is not really justified in blowing up Cortlandt because of the labor and money put into it, but the theft of his plan that made it possible equally should not have occurred. You accept the theft, but that is just as bad as blowing the building up. For the purposes of the novel, the building is sacrificed. It is a novel, not a blueprint for making your every life decision.

It was never my purpose to live with Ayn Rand or to work my way into her inner circle of friends. I would not have gotten very far, since I am too short for her image of heroes! I also have a beard, which means I am hiding a character flaw! Ha!!! Look, Rand had her eccentricities. She was a genius and I am happy to give her those eccentricities. I am not obliged to duplicate them. Heck, I have my own wonderfully cultivated eccentricities and I am fond of them. Besides, if you had left your family in Russia after seeing your father's business taken from him, come to America not knowing English, worked in Hollywood, lived through the Great Roosevelt Depression, then WWII, and finally published two large novels in your new language after years of struggle, are you sure you would not have a few eccentricities? Maybe some impatience and frustration? Maybe some deep worries about the destruction brought on by socialism? Maybe a very determined mission in life? Put everything together and she was remarkable and wonderful, but maybe a real roller coaster ride emotionally if you were close to her. Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and Einstein would not have been easy to live with either. Rand was a human being, not a substitute for God. Let her be for heaven's sake. Have you no milk of human kindness?

Rand did not believe that empathy and caring are the same as altruism. That statement is simply wrong. She did believe that many acts that others view as empathic and caring were in fact altruism. There are those, for instance, who believe that the magnitude of the empathy and caring is shown in direct proportion to the sacrifice one makes for others. But Rand clearly cared about others in her private life. She certainly had empathy for the much empathy-neglected able and hardworking people that most people seem so much to like kicking in the shins. Did she care less than I think she should have in some cases? Yes. But, she also worked and thought decades to give us the results of what I think was her great work. I appreciate that. She provided a strong and rational individualistic ethics and a great defense of Capitalism. Capitalism saves and enriches billions of lives, yet it is under constant attack by those who pretend caring and empathy, but always deliver pain, depression, and starvation. Not to mention high unemployment rates! Rand cared about protecting so many people from the destruction of their lives that she made a lifetime unremitting effort to develop her ideas and to present them in a memorably dramatic way. As a result, her work is still read many decades later, when most author's works are forgotten or considered only in the history of the time of publication. The people who read her novels still frequently feel uplifted and supported in their lives. They still experience rare moments of joy. This should be appreciated.

Absolutely wonderful post, Charles.

It is not vanilla. Scratch that, I love vanilla ice cream! Rand's sexuality is not for everyone.

Hehehehe...this floored me, not that of Rand's sexuality but that of Vanilla. ;) OMG !!! I'm floored that you got that in there. Honestly, I'll never forget this. When I saw the beginnings of your post in my email, I had to come over and read. Well done. *sighing* Gotta go though. Always busy for both me and you.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Charles -

Good post. In reflecting on your own point of view, I suspect that you have captured the essence of why so many admire Ayn Rand.

Bill P

Thank you, Bill. It is amazing how differently so many people view her novels. There are many who criticize, but who yet find her work fascinating. There are many who dislike her drama, yet that is all they can talk about. Then there are many who came away with a great sense of joy. Or like me, who loved every moment with her heroes, save a few where I wanted to kick Hank Rearden for being so slow! And, I was in love with Dagny then and still am.

But then, what do I know? The first book I ever read that I enjoyed was when I read a biography of John Paul Jones in the 4th grade. I was hooked on heroes from then on. And I was an early romantic. Ayn Rand was perfect for me when I discovered her in my senior year of high school.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Absolutely wonderful post, Charles.

It is not vanilla. Scratch that, I love vanilla ice cream! Rand's sexuality is not for everyone.

Hehehehe...this floored me, not that of Rand's sexuality but that of Vanilla. ;) OMG !!! I'm floored that you got that in there. Honestly, I'll never forget this. When I saw the beginnings of your post in my email, I had to come over and read. Well done. *sighing* Gotta go though. Always busy for both me and you.

I feel a bit like Happy after Snow White has patted him on the head and given him a radiant smile! I'll share my vanilla ice cream with you some day dear.

I hope your case is moving along well.

[Selene]

Charles, Angie and Bill:

As someone who was smitten early on by novels that made sense to me and that involved heroic conduct. Madam Curie. The men at the Alamo. One early mentor Mark Wohfeld who was a survivor of the Bataan Death March. My father who jumped in front of an onrushing train to prevent it from running over a person who had passed out and fallen onto the subway tracks.

Charles's statement that he was already what he was when he read Ayn totally escapes Ms. Xray's gestalt.

Same here. As I closed Atlas, I said, "...but of course."

Yes, the vanilla made me chuckle more so now that I fully understand the non-vanilla.

"It was never my purpose to live with Ayn Rand or to work my way into her inner circle of friends. I would not have gotten very far, since I am too short for her image of heroes!

I also have a beard, which means I am hiding a character flaw! Ha!!!

Look, Rand had her eccentricities. She was a genius and I am happy to give her those eccentricities. I am not obliged to duplicate them. Heck, I have my own wonderfully cultivated eccentricities and I am fond of them. Besides, if you had left your family in Russia after seeing your father's business taken from him, come to America not knowing English, worked in Hollywood, lived through the Great Roosevelt Depression, then WWII, and finally published two large novels in your new language after years of struggle, are you sure you would not have a few eccentricities? Maybe some impatience and frustration? Maybe some deep worries about the destruction brought on by socialism? Maybe a very determined mission in life?

Put everything together and she was remarkable and wonderful, but maybe a real roller coaster ride emotionally if you were close to her. Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and Einstein would not have been easy to live with either. Rand was a human being, not a substitute for God.

Let her be for heaven's sake. Have you no milk of human kindness?"

After that devastatingly direct declaration...I thought of the following just substitute the target of Welch from McCarthy to Ms. Xray and it works well:

Now McCarthy happened to be right and he happened to be a remarkable man, but he was a severe alcoholic and it helped bring him down.

Welch the ACLU attorney was a great showman and he nailed this one and broke McCarthy's back.

Adam

Edited December 6, 2009 by Selene

[CNA]

Absolutely wonderful post, Charles.

It is not vanilla. Scratch that, I love vanilla ice cream! Rand's sexuality is not for everyone.

Hehehehe...this floored me, not that of Rand's sexuality but that of Vanilla. ;) OMG !!! I'm floored that you got that in there. Honestly, I'll never forget this. When I saw the beginnings of your post in my email, I had to come over and read. Well done. *sighing* Gotta go though. Always busy for both me and you.

I feel a bit like Happy after Snow White has patted him on the head and given him a radiant smile! I'll share my vanilla ice cream with you some day dear.

I hope your case is moving along well.

It's almost like an inside joke kinda sorta now...only for those that actually got and understood that statement you made.

Case is the case. It's stalled once again but still a mad dash because of so much having to be done. Time is running out. I'm tired and wanting it done and over with. It all starts back up this Monday. Then Tues is an attempt at mediation which we're not settling but is being done on our side to show good faith and showing how this district has shown bad faith all along, tactics, etc. In order to do mediation and wanting to settle, both parties have to be acting in good faith. Well, this is not the case as they don't want to act in good faith because they know if they do it it is going against their goal and what they are trying to achieve which is undermining our case against them on the OAH level. This aspect will hopefully be over with in the next 4 or 5 weeks but I'll see.

[CNA]

Adam wrote:

Yes, the vanilla made me chuckle more so now that I fully understand the non-vanilla.

I also have to smile and chuckle A lot to it but always the strange terms used and how they equate it to that. Maybe one day, not sure if soon, can discuss this even more and gaining further understanding. But will say, how I understand Rand, she wouldn't be extreme, same as me more than likely but then again she may very well have been??!! If it floats your boat but I can't imagine Rand of all people would make such a choice as that but may very well could have.

Edited December 6, 2009 by CNA

[Selene]

Adam wrote:

Yes, the vanilla made me chuckle more so now that I fully understand the non-vanilla.

I also have to smile and chuckle A lot to it but always the strange terms used and how they equate it to that. Maybe one day, not sure if soon, can discuss this even more and gaining further understanding. But will say, how I understand Rand, she wouldn't be extreme, same as me more than likely but then again she may very well have been??!! If it floats your boat but I can't imagine Rand of all people would make such a choice as that but may very well could have.

To be continued:

What surprised me about the particular D/s aspects of this non-V "life style" was several fold.

First, the plethora of male and female submissives in relation to the total population.

Second, "real" versus "wanna be internet Dom or submissive" who developed the knowledge and skill to actualize the behavior.

Dommes and Doms are in very short supply.

Finally, the amount of high powered men and women in the "real" world who craved the act of surrendering or transferring power to a completely trustworthy person to achieve a state of pleasure or fulfill a fantasy.

Good luck with the mock mediation. As a professional mediator that Tuesday dog and pony show flat out angers me, but I understand the "stratics and tatergies" as Pete Seeger, old marxist folk singer, explained at a concert one time.

Adam

[CNA]

Adam wrote:

Yes, the vanilla made me chuckle more so now that I fully understand the non-vanilla.

I also have to smile and chuckle A lot to it but always the strange terms used and how they equate it to that. Maybe one day, not sure if soon, can discuss this even more and gaining further understanding. But will say, how I understand Rand, she wouldn't be extreme, same as me more than likely but then again she may very well have been??!! If it floats your boat but I can't imagine Rand of all people would make such a choice as that but may very well could have.

To be continued:

What surprised me about the particular D/s aspects of this non-V "life style" was several fold.

First, the plethora of male and female submissives in relation to the total population.

Second, "real" versus "wanna be internet Dom or submissive" who developed the knowledge and skill to actualize the behavior.

Dommes and Doms are in very short supply.

Finally, the amount of high powered men and women in the "real" world who craved the act of surrendering or transferring power to a completely trustworthy person to achieve a state of pleasure or fulfill a fantasy.

Good luck with the mock mediation. As a professional mediator that Tuesday dog and pony show flat out angers me, but I understand the "stratics and tatergies" as Pete Seeger, old marxist folk singer, explained at a concert one time.

Adam

Yes. It's interesting but a great majority of sexual encounters to slight to the more extreme carry aspects of D/s in it. They just haven't identified it as such or they wouldn't consider it D/s because it doesn't fit into their own definition of it. I think, not all, but a lot of people when they think of BDSM, SM, D/s, they automatically think the more extreme aspects of it such as a woman fully bound or a man being very dominant, etc. But yes, to be continued eventually.

I apologize if my earlier statement of the mediation greatly upset you. It's not easy to summarize it briefly here. But this district lied to the OAH and to the judge when they filed. We have given the OAH and the ALJ proof that they knew full well within 2 months of coming into the school that he had other disabilities but they did nothing and this is documented in their school files. They have numerous incidents documented in his file but claim only 2 have occurred. They continue to file papers, etc., that are again filled with misrepresentations of fact, law, etc., anything to get the upperhand. Their tactics have been despicable and parasitic. They have no intention of working with us. I had the intention of working with them but once they attempted a SARB on us in retaliation for putting him into the hospital and sicking the police department on us for his going into the hospital which is absolutley absurd and the meeting was called off as soon as the hospital contacted the school. And then when we filed our PHC statement showing even more evidence of wrongdoing, they then reported us to the DA for criminal prosecution on a moot SARB referral that was ultimately dismissed in May of this year. After all this has happened, I have no intention of working with them at all. But the OAH got on our butts both the district and my side for not attending a mediation. The first one they cancelled. I'm not happy at all at how this district has dealt with the issues up to this point and they have no intention of acting in good faith. Anyway, enough of this aspect.

To be continued on the previous topic but just not sure when.

Edited December 6, 2009 by CNA

[Selene]

Folks:

Close down the thread the "g" spot does not exist!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973971.ece

Really poor study from what I have been able to determine.

Adam

[anonrobt]

Folks:

Close down the thread the "g" spot does not exist!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6973971.ece

Really poor study from what I have been able to determine.

Adam

If it truly doesn't exist, then whatever I've been stimulating in my relationships of pleasuring is a terrific substitute!

[Selene]

Folks:

Close down the thread the "g" spot does not exist!

http://www.timesonli...icle6973971.ece

Really poor study from what I have been able to determine.

Adam

If it truly doesn't exist, then whatever I've been stimulating in my relationships of pleasuring is a terrific substitute!

My gut "feeling" is that this study was influenced by an attempt to not engender guilt in women who have allegedly had difficulties with this "spot" and this is meant to assuage a sense of incompleteness or "failure".

Adam

I know it exists

[CNA]

Folks:

Close down the thread the "g" spot does not exist!

http://www.timesonli...icle6973971.ece

Really poor study from what I have been able to determine.

Adam

If it truly doesn't exist, then whatever I've been stimulating in my relationships of pleasuring is a terrific substitute!

My gut "feeling" is that this study was influenced by an attempt to not engender guilt in women who have allegedly had difficulties with this "spot" and this is meant to assuage a sense of incompleteness or "failure".

Adam

I know it exists

I read the link a bit earlier. It raises some interesting questions, one being that of your lover and their experience, the other of the nerve endings that supply that region not being as well developed in some women but can be further developed, or the possibility that ALL women do have it but in some the sensation they are experiencing when pressure is first applied is that they have the urge to urinate and this is what they believe is occurring rather than the source of great pleasure if stimulation is continued.

If you apply pressure only on it, you do have the sensation of having to use the restroom and they perhaps may even recoil from it because of their fear of urinating. If they feel this sensation and become uptight about it during intercourse and possibly adjusting the angle of their hips in order to inhibit the possibility, it'll make it even harder for them to reach the big O. In reality, they should bear down more in an attempt to send more blood supply to the area and/or adjusting the angle of her hips for more direct stimulation or he should adjust himself where his pelvis is more below hers so when he thrusts the angle he enters is more aiming towards her belly button or the ceiling if you will and there is more direct stimulation to the area as he thrusts in and out and voila, WOW, FIREWORKS AND THE EVER ELUSIVE BIG O!!!

Have her sit on a couch with her hips very close to the edge and he's on his knees in front of her or have her hips right at the edge of the bed and have him position himself that way and being more at an upward angle when he enters or use a pillow to raise her hips more OR hell, go out and buy some sex furniture http://www.therightposition.com/ OR buy one of these http://www.ikea.com/PIAimages/22108_PE107021_S4.jpg which works wonders, angled just right. Have her lay on her back with her hips right at the edge on the side that is raised highest and have her lean all the way back which has its advantages as well. She's at the right height if he is kneeling on his knees. It doubles as a footstool but no one ever has to know why you truly bought it. LOL

As you say, Adam: "I know it exists." And oh, my, so do I. LOL

Angie

GAWD, so many people don't know how to screw

Edited January 10, 2010 by CNA

[Selene]

No pun intended Angie, but it is a pleasure to know you! lol

Actually, my friend makes beautiful beds from scratch with either a swing type device or a device that can elevate one of the individuals which can permit all sorts of openness and alleviate some of the morphological issues people are told they are supposed to have.

Geez, more people, spend more time creating walls to satisfaction either intellectual, sexual etc.

Go figure.

Glad you agree.

Adam