Rand on Sex

[George H. Smith]

I know there have been other threads on Ayn Rand's view of sex, but I'm starting another one anyway, because I'm tired of arguing about Kant. (I have a funny story from my Knowledge Products days -- a controversy about how our narrator pronounced "Kant" -- but it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some OL members.)

Without going into details, and for reasons that should be apparent to most OLers, I have the distinct impression that, according to Rand, the man should assume the "dominant" role during sex. I have three questions about this.

First, is this an accurate characterization of Rand's view of sex?

Second, if this is an accurate characterization, what exactly does it mean, in concrete terms?

Third, if this was Rand's view, is it a plausible theory, or is it merely a case of Rand's extrapolating from her personal preferences to make an unwarranted generalization?

I realize that some of the above is not as precise as it could be, but I think it is sufficiently clear to get things started.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

There is a small variation that needs to be included in discussing Rand's view of sex. Not just what she wrote about, but what she did.

I notice that there are no cougars in her literature...

That's always left the orthos dangling a bit understanding-wise...

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I have a funny story from my Knowledge Products days -- a controversy about how our narrator pronounced "Kant" -- but it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some OL members.

Ahem, the spoiler text option? Who was the reader, George Carlin? I’m shocked, shocked!

First, is this an accurate characterization of Rand's view of sex?

I’d say so.

Second, if this is an accurate characterization, what exactly does it mean, in concrete terms?

As in does and don’ts, appropriate and inappropriate positions etc.?

Third, if this was Rand's view, is it a plausible theory, or is it merely a case of Rand's extrapolating from her personal preferences to make an unwarranted generalization?

As opposed to being the result of intensive study of scientific sources like the Kinsey Reports? They were published in between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, but come now. Obviously not.

There was a video of Peter Schwartz doing a lecture on ethics back when I was running a campus club. In the question period he tried to explain the male dominance claim as being self evident from observation of anatomy. I don’t have a copy, but you can take my word for it, it was excruciating.

[George H. Smith]

I have a funny story from my Knowledge Products days -- a controversy about how our narrator pronounced "Kant" -- but it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some OL members.

Ahem, the spoiler text option? Who was the reader, George Carlin? I’m shocked, shocked!

Done.

(Quasi-dirty story about how to pronounce "Kant" -- like this spoiler is actually going to prevent anyone from reading it.)

During my nearly seven years with KP during the 1980s (working as General Editor and chief scriptwriter), I spent around 10 days out of every 2 months in Nashville, where I functioned as the technical adviser during the recording sessions.

One of our scripts mentioned "Kant" a few times. After cassette copies of the "rough edit" of this recording were passed out to the staff, our director, a lovely lady named Pat, played the tape for some friends at a party, some of whom were drunk.

Pat came into the studio (Archer Productions) the next day, horrified and embarrassed. It seems a number of her friends thought that "Kant" sounded like "cunt," and they broke into gales of laughter every time his name was mentioned.

Pat wanted to "correct" the problem, even though I told her there was nothing wrong with how our narrator, Craig, had pronounced "Kant." But Pat insisted, so I decided to go along and see what happened. We spent at least 20 minutes of expensive studio time as Craig did "pickups" that could be inserted into the master tape later on.

Craig, who also thought this entire project was unnecessary, did every conceivable pronunciation of "Kant" imaginable -- at least 25 in all -- that included some extraordinary weird variations on the letter "a," and even some on the letter "o." The problem was that all of us in the studio already had the word "cunt" seared into our minds, so everything he said sounded like someone who wanted to say "cunt" but didn't know how to pronounce it. I was practically rolling on the floor in laughter at one point. Then Nick, the sound engineer and studio owner, made things even worse.

Nick was an excellent mimic who had done a number of radio commercials with the voice of Bullwinkle, so of course he eventually piped in with helpful suggestions -- in Bullwinkle's voice -- about how "Kant" should be pronounced. At that point the studio became a madhouse, but Pat, still concerned, pressed on.

Finally, Craig pronounced "Kant" so that it sounded like "can't" spoken with a New England twang. Pat liked that one because it sounded so far removed from "cunt" that no one could possibly mistake the two. At this point I stopped laughing long enough to tell Pat that we couldn't arbitrarily decide on any pronunciation we liked, based on the reaction of some drunken party goers who probably never even heard the name "Kant" before. I said that if this was really a serious matter for her, I could rewrite the script to read, "...the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose last name should not be confused with a word commonly used to signify female genitalia."

Pat quickly got the point and agreed to drop the matter. The original tape stayed as is. But a good time was had by all.

Ghs

[sbeaulieu]

(Quasi-dirty story about how to pronounce "Kant" -- like this spoiler is actually going to prevent anyone from reading it.)

"Can't" would have been my guess. I'm sure hardships were endured throughout history with other four-letter words....haha!

~ Shane

[George H. Smith]

(Quasi-dirty story about how to pronounce "Kant" -- like this spoiler is actually going to prevent anyone from reading it.)

"Can't" would have been my guess. I'm sure hardships were endured throughout history with other four-letter words....haha!

~ Shane

"Can't" is an acceptable pronunciation in English, though I more often hear "Kant" pronounced to rhyme with "want." The latter is how the KP narrator pronounced it. I'm not sure what would be acceptable to a native speaker of German.

Another awkward moment in KP history occurred during the recording of my script on Machiavelli's The Prince. I quoted a passage by Machiavelli -- solemnly dramatized by an actor in an Italian accent -- that attacked a certain policy as futile by comparing it to sticking one's finger in the hole of a dike.

It took a while to get things back on track after that passage was read.

Ghs

[Dragonfly]

"Can't" is an acceptable pronunciation in English, though I more often hear "Kant" pronounced to rhyme with "want."

I think the British pronunciation of "can't" gives the best approximation, not "want".

Here is the German pronunciation of the word "Kante", which is similar to that of Kant, if you omit the -e at the end and make it a short word.

[George H. Smith]

"Can't" is an acceptable pronunciation in English, though I more often hear "Kant" pronounced to rhyme with "want."

I think the British pronunciation of "can't" gives the best approximation, not "want".

Here is the German pronunciation of the word "Kante", which is similar to that of Kant, if you omit the -e at the end and make it a short word.

Thanks for the link.

To my ears, the German pronunciation (minus the "e") sounds much closer to "want" than it does to "can't."

Ghs

[Xray]

I know there have been other threads on Ayn Rand's view of sex, but I'm starting another one anyway, because I'm tired of arguing about Kant. (I have a funny story from my Knowledge Products days -- a controversy about how our narrator pronounced "Kant" -- but it might offend the delicate sensibilities of some OL members.)

I have never thought about how Kant's name sounds to English-speakers' ears, but the German pronunciation of "Kant" is more or less like the pronunciation of the English four-letter-word.

GHS: Without going into details, and for reasons that should be apparent to most OLers, I have the distinct impression that, according to Rand, the man should assume the "dominant" role during sex. I have three questions about this.

First, is this an accurate characterization of Rand's view of sex?

Imo yes.

GHS. Second, if this is an accurate characterization, what exactly does it mean, in concrete terms?

B. Branden wrote (TPOAR, p. 199):

"[Another shortcoming has been found] in the faint sadomasochistic overtones of its [Atlas Shrugged's] love scenes, the troubling violence of the sexual encounters." (BB)

It is the same with "The Fountainhead", where the sadomasochism is hard to miss either. Rand herself verbatim called the rape scene in TF "rape by engraved invitation", and spoke of Roark "as man should be".

GHS: Third, if this was Rand's view, is it a plausible theory, or is it merely a case of Rand's extrapolating from her personal preferences to make an unwarranted generalization?

Imo the latter. It is classic case of failing to identify one's personal preferences as subjective.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

To my ears, the German pronunciation (minus the "e") sounds much closer to "want" than it does to "can't."

Not to my ears, at least if you use the British pronunciation of "can't" (listen here), the American pronunciation is indeed quite different. In the pronunciation of "want" (here) I hear an "oh" sound in the American and in the British pronunciation, which makes it markedly different from the German pronunciation.

[Dragonfly]

I have never thought about how Kant's name sounds to English-speakers' ears, but the German pronunciation of "Kant" is exactly like the pronunciation of the English four-letter-word.

That is indeed a good approximation, in American and in British English, listen here (that's the first time I hear it spoken in English...).

[George H. Smith]

To my ears, the German pronunciation (minus the "e") sounds much closer to "want" than it does to "can't."

Not to my ears, at least if you use the British pronunciation of "can't...."

Well, okay, but you're assuming that the English know how to speak proper English.

The speaker on my CD-ROM of the American Heritage Dictionary gives exactly the same pronunciation for "Kant' as he does for "cant" (i.e, "monotonous talk filled with platitudes").

Ghs

[Chris Grieb]

(Quasi-dirty story about how to pronounce "Kant" -- like this spoiler is actually going to prevent anyone from reading it.)

"Can't" would have been my guess. I'm sure hardships were endured throughout history with other four-letter words....haha!

~ Shane

"Can't" is an acceptable pronunciation in English, though I more often hear "Kant" pronounced to rhyme with "want." The latter is how the KP narrator pronounced it. I'm not sure what would be acceptable to a native speaker of German.

Another awkward moment in KP history occurred during the recording of my script on Machiavelli's The Prince. I quoted a passage by Machiavelli -- solemnly dramatized by an actor in an Italian accent -- that attacked a certain policy as futile by comparing it to sticking one's finger in the hole of a dike.

It took a while to get things back on track after that passage was read.

Ghs

The dike wasn't Elena Kagan?

[Rich Engle]

Only us RandGeeks would attempt to perform exhumation-based forensic investigations such as these.

I'm wondering what is next...full shave, landing strip... that she thought she had nice legs?

It is the same with "The Fountainhead", where the sadomasochism is hard to miss either. Rand herself verbatim called the rape scene in TF "rape by engraved invitation", and spoke of Roark "as man should be".

A strong woman of strong appetites. Plus, and let's get real about this, Frank probably had developed whiskey-dick at that point. I mean, I can see torquing up the drinking a bit, what with being married to her, and all.

Let's just say it is pretty safe to assume that she elevated "pillow-talk" to yet another unneeded level.

She wanted it. And, she wanted it hard, and nasty. There's nothing wrong with that.

See, but this is defiling the altar. What about "Romantic Realism?" Well, I'm guessing there was a better definition of that going on than anyone other than two people came to know, especially on, what, that one day a week?

I can imagine what it was like post-coitus, where she lit one up and held forth.

Sexual tension is a wicked thing, if you don't know how to handle it.

rde

Edited May 13, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Dennis Hardin]

Without going into details, and for reasons that should be apparent to most OLers, I have the distinct impression that, according to Rand, the man should assume the "dominant" role during sex. I have three questions about this.

...if this was Rand's view, is it a plausible theory, or is it merely a case of Rand's extrapolating from her personal preferences to make an unwarranted generalization?

Ghs

One area where Nathaniel Branden was quick to distance himself from Rand following their schism was regarding her views on masculinity and femininity. He had written articles for The Objectivist in which he basically defended and articulated her position, which was, in essence, to equate masculinity with dominance and femininity with submission. But there was no mention of that in “The Psychology of Romantic Love.” Since parting with Rand, I do not believe he has ever defended any elaborate explanation of either role beyond saying that the essence of masculinity was the emotional perspective that woman was the best idea nature ever had, and vice-versa.

It is my clear impression that, after their break, he took the position that her views on sex were another area where she tended to confuse her personal feelings with objective reality. I agree with him. Whatever limited validity there might be to her perspective, the science of psychology is way too primitive for anyone to be making pronouncements about “healthy” and “proper” male and female roles. No area of human psychology is more stupefying in its complexity than sexual psychology.

NB give a talk in the 1970s in which he was asked about Rand’s views on sex. On that occasion, as I recall, he summarized her view as follows: “As a woman, I see my sexual role as that of a hero-worshipper--and if you don’t, you’re in trouble!” As a psychologist, he knew very well just how ridiculous her position was and is.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Dennis Hardin

[Robert Campbell]

Third, if this was Rand's view, is it a plausible theory, or is it merely a case of Rand's extrapolating from her personal preferences to make an unwarranted generalization?

George,

Rand answered several Ford Hall Forum questions concerning her views of Man, Woman, and male dominance during sex.

I've posted some of her answers on The Rewrite Squad.

Her explanations were marked by expressions of impatience, sometimes by appeals to the (alleged) self-evidence of her conclusions.

Kind of what you'd expect if she was generalizing without adequate warrant.

Xray,

A paper about her novel that Rand wrote in 1940 to promote it to publishers included this statement, according to Harriman:

Like most women, [Dominique] is a masochist and she wishes for the happiness of suffering at Roark's hands. Sexually, Roark has a great deal of the sadist, and he finds pleasure in breaking her will and her defiance. (p. 231)

Robert Campbell

[Rich Engle]

I agree with Dennis (hi, Dennis!).

I know what he's talking about NB saying because I've heard it or read it somewhere, for real. I think it might have come up when I was helping him take old tapes and restore them to what they are now. You could ask NB, but I think he (prudently) remains quiet (plus he is probably busy enjoying his life--who knows, I only guess). I just can't remember where that came up, but when you intimated it, I remembered it.

On the other hand, I guess it would be rough to go too hard on her about the basic dominant/submissive issue. I prefer to think of it as an underdeveloped topic, on her part, for various reasons. The general openness (and work done) regarding sexuality kind of outstrips this stuff.

But, I can see where she was coming from, at least I think so. It is sort of a "be all you can be" thing. A man should embrace his manhood, his full capabilities all-around, mind/body/spirit, same thing for a woman. It creates a base-point. There was a certain amount of storming/norming (a lot, actually) that went on in this regard over the past several decades. A lot of it went to extremes, both ends. I get the impression that she wanted a man, or a woman to first embrace their native, er...nature. But after that, it's game-on, you know? The gender thing causes the cannon to flare immediately upon mention. A lot of frustration and pissed-off-ed-ness. In the end, those arguments (gender-based) end up talking the same problems.

So I see the purity of it, what she was saying.

But like anything else, chapter and verse thinkers make it dogma. Creed versus covenant. Psychotic episodes like that couple that got married Rand-style, what, where did they end up...the vows were horrible, and I'm guessing the honeymoon was worse. Bad attitudes, man.

rde

Every Time I Go To Bed It Is Some Kind Of Adventure--hopefully not involving tomahawks.

[Neil Parille]

Didn't Rand say that "the eseence of feminity is hero worship" (looking up to a man)? This is quite a problem for those who say opposition to homosexuality isn't part of Objectivism. Lesbianism, at least, is quite immoral then.

-NP

[Rich Engle]

Lesbianism, at least, is quite immoral then.

Hey, hey--HEY!!

Don't be destroying my dreams. Geez. It's bad enough I have to wait another 3 days for Netflix to send me "Caligula." I so miss the Anneka and Lori scene, I do, I do.

rde

Perish The Thought

[George H. Smith]

Lesbianism, at least, is quite immoral then.

Hey, hey--HEY!!

Don't be destroying my dreams. Geez. It's bad enough I have to wait another 3 days for Netflix to send me "Caligula." I so miss the Anneka and Lori scene, I do, I do.

rde

Perish The Thought

You should purchase the 3-disc "Imperial Edition." Among other things, it contains lengthy interviews with many of the principal actors. Sir John Gielgud praises the movie and wasn't bothered in the least by the pornographic "inserts." (The hard-core parts of the orgy scene were filmed separately, without the knowledge of the major actors.)

A similar attitude, as I recall, is also expressed by Helen Mirren, who tells a funny story about how shocked she was while watching a rough cut in which there was a close-up of a certain part of her anatomy.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/Caligula-Three-Disc-Imperial-Malcolm-McDowell/dp/B000TEUSJU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1273846646&sr=1-1

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A paper about her novel that Rand wrote in 1940 to promote it to publishers included this statement, according to Harriman:

Like most women, [Dominique] is a masochist and she wishes for the happiness of suffering at Roark's hands. Sexually, Roark has a great deal of the sadist, and he finds pleasure in breaking her will and her defiance. (p. 231)

Robert Campbell

Interesting comment, especially the qualification about "most women." My carefully considered philosophical response to Rand's comment is, "Hubba, hubba!"

The passage you quoted inspired me to search Rand's Journals (on my CD-ROM) for mentions of sex. Here is one of the more interesting hits, which I will post without comment for now:

The Journals of Ayn Rand, May 19, 1949

The evil man is not the one who mistakenly believes that bad things are good and acts accordingly; this is only an error of knowledge, not a sin, not a moral flaw. The evil man is the one who loves evil for being evil. (The poor fool who indulges in sex while semi-believing that it is evil according to his church morality, is not wholly bad because he does not really believe that sex is evil. But this does destroy his self-respect and creates all kinds of miserable conflicts for him. The evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer.)

Ghs

[tjohnson]

The passage you quoted inspired me to search Rand's Journals (on my CD-ROM) for mentions of sex. Here is one of the more interesting hits, which I will post without comment for now:

The Journals of Ayn Rand, May 19, 1949

The evil man is not the one who mistakenly believes that bad things are good and acts accordingly; this is only an error of knowledge, not a sin, not a moral flaw. The evil man is the one who loves evil for being evil. (The poor fool who indulges in sex while semi-believing that it is evil according to his church morality, is not wholly bad because he does not really believe that sex is evil. But this does destroy his self-respect and creates all kinds of miserable conflicts for him. The evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer.)

Ghs

What would be a real life example of an "evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer"?

[Xray]

What would be a real life example of an "evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer"?

Several clergy members in various denominations might fit the profile. ;)

It is my clear impression that, after their break, he [N. Branden] took the position that her views on sex were another area where she tended to confuse her personal feelings with objective reality.

Imo Rand confused her personal feelings with objective reality in several areas of her philosophy.

Since she saw herself as the creator of a philosophy of rationality, people often think that she must have been a rational person. But is there sufficient evidence to support this assumption? Imo, no.

On the contrary, Rand, in vital areas of her life, frequently behaved and made decisions which were extremely irrational, with disastrous consequences.

What aggravated the issue was that she believed her behavior and decisions were rational.

Example: she wanted to (and did) have the sexual encounters with her lover in the bedroom she shared with her husband.

She thought it was a rational decision since she wanted to avoid being seen with NB in public, so this bedroom seemed to be the safest place.

But her rationality in that was no further developed than that of a child's who reasons that he will pinch his playmate's matchbox car when the other child is not looking.

Almost like the child whose rationality is not developed enough to be aware of the possible consequences of the action performed, Rand did not think it through. She was irrational in disregarding how this situation would humiliate Frank and cause emotional hardship to both him and NB's wife.

She tried to "counsel" BB who suffered from the situation; again, Rand was totally irrational in not seeing the - so obvious - reason of the emotional pain BB and Frank were going through.

From what I have read in BB's book of Rand's and NB's theory of "emotionalism" - this theory sounds irrational too.

Rand was also irrational in assuming a lover 25 years her junior would stay with her. Interestingly, at the beginning of the affair, she was more realistic, saying since she was so much older than NB, she did not want to last the affair long ("perhaps a year or so, that's all." - B. Branden, TPOAR, p. 259).

It lasted far longer than that, all her prior reasoning was forgotten, and when it ended, emotion overrode rationality again. This was perfectly explainable, but doesn't all this cast doubt on the psychological foundation of Objectivist "rationality"? For human individuals just don't seem to operate that way.

D. Hardin: NB give a talk in the 1970s in which he was asked about Rand’s views on sex. On that occasion, as I recall, he summarized her view as follows: “As a woman, I see my sexual role as that of a hero-worshipper--and if you don’t, you’re in trouble!” As a psychologist, he knew very well just how ridiculous her position was and is.

It looks like after the break, NB began to free himself from Rand's dogmatism.

Xray,

A paper about her novel that Rand wrote in 1940 to promote it to publishers included this statement, according to Harriman:

Like most women, [Dominique] is a masochist and she wishes for the happiness of suffering at Roark's hands. Sexually, Roark has a great deal of the sadist, and he finds pleasure in breaking her will and her defiance. (p. 231)

Thanks for providing this source, Robert.

Rich Engle: A strong woman of strong appetites. Plus, and let's get real about this, Frank probably had developed whiskey-dick at that point. I mean, I can see torquing up the drinking a bit, what with being married to her, and all.

That Frank suffered from alcohol-related impotence is a mere speculation. Even if this was the case, while it would explain Rand taking a lover, it does not explain how she got the idea that her personal sexual preferences qualified as role models for male-female sexual relationships.

Rich Engle: She wanted it. And, she wanted it hard, and nasty. There's nothing wrong with that.

What sexually turns people on is their own business, as long as adult parties are involved who are capable of realizing what they are doing in mutual consent. That's not the point.

The point with Rand is that her Objectivist theory of sex contains mostly generalizations from her own sexual preferences.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

The passage you quoted inspired me to search Rand's Journals (on my CD-ROM) for mentions of sex. Here is one of the more interesting hits, which I will post without comment for now:

The Journals of Ayn Rand, May 19, 1949

The evil man is not the one who mistakenly believes that bad things are good and acts accordingly; this is only an error of knowledge, not a sin, not a moral flaw. The evil man is the one who loves evil for being evil. (The poor fool who indulges in sex while semi-believing that it is evil according to his church morality, is not wholly bad because he does not really believe that sex is evil. But this does destroy his self-respect and creates all kinds of miserable conflicts for him. The evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer.)

Ghs

What would be a real life example of an "evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer"?

You will need to ask someone who agrees with Rand's statement. From my earliest days of reading Rand, I have never been impressed by her views on sex.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Imo Rand confused her personal feelings with objective reality in several areas of her philosophy.

Since she saw herself as the creator of a philosophy of rationality, people often think that she must have been a rational person. But is there sufficient evidence to support this assumption? Imo, no.

On the contrary, Rand, in vital areas of her life, frequently behaved and made decisions which were extremely irrational, with disastrous consequences. [Yada, yada, yada....]

Making observations like this on OL is like carrying coals to Newcastle. And you just carried a truckload of coals.

In your own way, you are a member of the cult of personality that has always surrounded Rand, both when she was living and after she was dead. The only difference is that your obsession with her personal life focuses on the negative rather than on the positive aspects.

It is a safe bet that if we had our personal lives subjected to the same kind of microscopic examination that Rand has been subjected to, we wouldn't come out looking like paragons of rationality either.

If Rand didn't have balls of steel and a dogmatic personality, it is unlikely that she would have been able to succeed in the hostile culture in which she landed after arriving in America. Sexism against serious female thinkers was common. The political environment was extremely hostile to her advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism. She worked outside of, and against, the intellectual establishment. She worked her butt off to write difficult novels and persisted until they were published. Etc, etc.

A softer, more gentle person, or a person less sure of herself, would probably never have overcome these and other obstacles. She would have given up long before. So let's give Rand credit where credit is due. She had many qualities that were truly heroic.

Ghs