The Erotica of Ayn Rand


Recommended Posts

How many Objectivists appreciate the extent to which many people associate her novels with eroticism? Here is an excerpt from an article in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand:

“…A comparison of the much-reviled scene in The Fountainhead to the standard fare of contemporary romance novels, which sell many millions of copies each year and are read almost exclusively by women, indicates that Rand clearly sensed the pulse of the often-unexpressed, secret desires inside the hearts of millions of modern women. These romance novels, which are usually considered to be delightfully sensual and exciting, typically tell the story of a heroine who, being ravished by the right kind of attractive rogue, falls madly in love with him...The irony is that, while Rand denounced writings that offered sensual titillation to the masses, her own novels contained many of these very same elements.” (Robert Sheaffer, “Rereading Rand on Gender in the Light of Paglia”)

The reference to Paglia is, of course, the renegade feminist Camille Paglia, who states in her essay, “Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art”:

“Sex is a far darker power than feminism has admitted...Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges.”

I doubt if Ayn Rand would ever have accepted any suggestion that her novels contained erotica. In fact, the most courageous among us would have been unlikely to dare to ask her that question, at least not when she was within striking distance. Recall what she had to say about Mickey Spillane’s The Erection Set:

Years ago, I liked the early novels of Mickey Spillane, but he has been disintegrating for years and has now descended to the fully modern. I would like to say ‘Rest in peace,’ but no peace can be found in four letter words and pornography. (The Objectivist Calendar, April, 1977)

The website washingtoncitypaper.com recently published an article by Amanda Hess which discussed the influence of Rand’s writings on sex on young women:

It’s not unusual for readers to turn to Rand at a formative time in their lives...It’s also when they’re trying to figure out sex. Rand’s influence on young people can’t be overstated—her fans have described her books as “life-changing,” “my Bible,” and “hot.” “I know that your sexual inclinations can be kind of stamped into you when you’re going through puberty,” says Kate [a student at Georgetown University]. “So it’s a little disconcerting that at 12, 13 years old, I was stamping myself with this complete and total interest in submission, when I didn’t have any experience with sex at all,” she says. “It’s an interesting seed to plant in a teenager’s mind that that’s how sex operates.”

Hess goes on to speculate that Rand’s view of sex may be an important element of what some Rand admirers are looking for at the Atlasphere, the Objectivist dating website:

Despite all having an interest in novels that lean heavy on the rape fantasy, Atlasphere users rarely spell out their sexual inclinations on the site. Not one of the Atlasphere’s dating profiles includes the word “rape.” Only nine Atlasphere users have clicked a box signaling an interest in “erotica.”

Zader [Joshua Zader, creator of the Atlasphere] says sexual cues used on the site can sometimes be discreet. “People who are into dominance and submission tend to have their own vernacular,” says Zader. “Some will say, ‘I’m a sub, and if you don’t know what that means, you don’t need to contact me,’” he says. “Some people are more explicit about it and some might not come right out and say it.” Not that every Randian is into the rough stuff. Zader says the Objectivist reaction to Ayn Rand’s sex scenes falls about like this: “I’d say a third of them, it turns them on; a third are neutral; and a third are really bothered by it.” For the most part, the Atlasphere isn’t about sex—it’s about rational self-interest. “What it signals most is that you want a relationship with someone who has similar values,” he says.

Here’s another relevant excerpt from Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand:

Rand’s views on sexual intercourse—in which psychologically healthy sex entails male domination and female submission—follow a similar pattern (regarding the innate psychology of the sexes). The sex scenes in Rand’s novels all involve dominance and submission, often in conjunction with a certain violence and brutality found within them. In the first moments of a meeting between Leo and Kira in We the Living, ‘his arms crushed her with the violence of hatred, as if he wanted to grind their coats into shreds against each other.’ In the ‘rape’ scene from The Fountainhead, it is precisely because Roark’s actions are ‘an act of scorn…not love, but defilement,’ that Dominique does, for the first time, ‘lie still and submit.’ In the first love scene between Dagny Taggart and John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny ‘felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers.’(Diana Mertz Brickell, “Sex and Gender Through An Egoist Lens: Masculinity an Femininity in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand”

Well, of course, fans of Rand’s novels understand that she made use of the concepts of dominance and submission as a way to underscore the male and female sex roles. She was simply portraying passionate sex. The founder of Objectivism would never endorse anything as sexually “deviant” as sado-masochism. Right?

Wrong.

“Like most women, and to a greater degree than most, [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…”[Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 231]

Most critics seem to take a fairly dim view of Rand’s somewhat savage erotica, but there are some exceptions. Here is an excerpt from an article by B. O’Hare at braincrave.com:

...There are other reasons to read The Fountainhead, not the least of which is the sex. (Atlas Shrugged will also whet your sexual appetite.) Granted, most don't associate Ayn Rand with eroticism. However, one of the reasons Ayn Rand is so successful at effectively communicating her philosophy, which later came to be known as Objectivism, is because she mixes philosophical proselytizing with drama. And, after all, what's drama without sex?

Of course, neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged compare to the eroticism and violent sexual images found in books such as Pauline Reage's The Story of O or Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. But The Fountainhead attacks a sexual topic most wouldn't (sic) consider very controversial: rape.

Was it rape or wasn't it? The answer boils down to whether or not Dominique Francon gave her consent to Howard Roark.

I think Dominique did consent to the sex, wanted it, and even encouraged it through her actions… For example, Ayn Rand writes, "She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help." (p. 216). She goes on: "He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him - and she would have remained cold, untouched by the things done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Later, when Dominique wants to take a bath, she writes: "She turned the light on in the bathroom. She saw herself in a tall mirror. She saw the purple bruises left on her body by his mouth. She heard a moan muffled in her throat, not very loud. It was not the sight, but the sudden flash of knowledge. She knew she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied."

In fact, after Roark leaves, Ayn Rand writes (p. 219): "She could accept, thought Dominique, and come to forget in time everything that had happened to her, save one memory: that she had found pleasure in the thing which had happened, that he had known it, and more: that he had known it before he came to her and that he would not have come but for that knowledge. She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion - she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted and she hated him for it." When Dominique is reading a letter from Alvah Scarret: "She read it and smiled. She thought, if they knew... those people... the old life and that awed reverence before her person. I've been raped... I've been raped by some red-headed hoodlum from a stone quarry... I, Dominique Francon... Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms."

Ayn Rand put the rape on a pedestal, esteeming the ownership and associated "surrender" with high self-esteem. Dominique wanted the sex, she wanted the sex violent, and she wanted the sexual fantasy exactly the way Roark delivered it.

Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you'll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you've felt "owned" and/or you "surrendered?" If not, maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it? Granted, it's not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart. But, then again, I'm not looking for those with either.

On a lighter note, I can’t resist the urge to quote my favorite of the The 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex, by Jason Roth:

“To say 'F*ck me harder' one must first know how to say the 'me'."

The next time you meet someone and discover that they absolutely love the novels of Ayn Rand, you might think twice before assuming that the person knows a damn thing about Objectivism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if Ayn Rand would ever have accepted any suggestion that her novels contained erotica.

I think in the Playboy interview she said something like: "I want people to enjoy the sex" (in the novels). I’m sure she said that somewhere.

LOL! Thanks, Dennis, that was a great post with a wonderful ending.

I second that. Kudos for the happy ending!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many Objectivists appreciate the extent to which many people associate her novels with eroticism? Here is an excerpt from an article in Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand:

“…A comparison of the much-reviled scene in The Fountainhead to the standard fare of contemporary romance novels, which sell many millions of copies each year and are read almost exclusively by women, indicates that Rand clearly sensed the pulse of the often-unexpressed, secret desires inside the hearts of millions of modern women. These romance novels, which are usually considered to be delightfully sensual and exciting, typically tell the story of a heroine who, being ravished by the right kind of attractive rogue, falls madly in love with him...The irony is that, while Rand denounced writings that offered sensual titillation to the masses, her own novels contained many of these very same elements.” (Robert Sheaffer, “Rereading Rand on Gender in the Light of Paglia”)

The reference to Paglia is, of course, the renegade feminist Camille Paglia, who states in her essay, “Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art”:

“Sex is a far darker power than feminism has admitted...Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges.”

I doubt if Ayn Rand would ever have accepted any suggestion that her novels contained erotica. In fact, the most courageous among us would have been unlikely to dare to ask her that question, at least not when she was within striking distance. Recall what she had to say about Mickey Spillane’s The Erection Set:

Years ago, I liked the early novels of Mickey Spillane, but he has been disintegrating for years and has now descended to the fully modern. I would like to say ‘Rest in peace,’ but no peace can be found in four letter words and pornography. (The Objectivist Calendar, April, 1977)

The website washingtoncitypaper.com recently published an article by Amanda Hess which discussed the influence of Rand’s writings on sex on young women:

It’s not unusual for readers to turn to Rand at a formative time in their lives...It’s also when they’re trying to figure out sex. Rand’s influence on young people can’t be overstated—her fans have described her books as “life-changing,” “my Bible,” and “hot.” “I know that your sexual inclinations can be kind of stamped into you when you’re going through puberty,” says Kate [a student at Georgetown University]. “So it’s a little disconcerting that at 12, 13 years old, I was stamping myself with this complete and total interest in submission, when I didn’t have any experience with sex at all,” she says. “It’s an interesting seed to plant in a teenager’s mind that that’s how sex operates.”

Hess goes on to speculate that Rand’s view of sex may be an important element of what some Rand admirers are looking for at the Atlasphere, the Objectivist dating website:

Despite all having an interest in novels that lean heavy on the rape fantasy, Atlasphere users rarely spell out their sexual inclinations on the site. Not one of the Atlasphere’s dating profiles includes the word “rape.” Only nine Atlasphere users have clicked a box signaling an interest in “erotica.”

Zader [Joshua Zader, creator of the Atlasphere] says sexual cues used on the site can sometimes be discreet. “People who are into dominance and submission tend to have their own vernacular,” says Zader. “Some will say, ‘I’m a sub, and if you don’t know what that means, you don’t need to contact me,’” he says. “Some people are more explicit about it and some might not come right out and say it.” Not that every Randian is into the rough stuff. Zader says the Objectivist reaction to Ayn Rand’s sex scenes falls about like this: “I’d say a third of them, it turns them on; a third are neutral; and a third are really bothered by it.” For the most part, the Atlasphere isn’t about sex—it’s about rational self-interest. “What it signals most is that you want a relationship with someone who has similar values,” he says.

Here’s another relevant excerpt from Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand:

Rand’s views on sexual intercourse—in which psychologically healthy sex entails male domination and female submission—follow a similar pattern (regarding the innate psychology of the sexes). The sex scenes in Rand’s novels all involve dominance and submission, often in conjunction with a certain violence and brutality found within them. In the first moments of a meeting between Leo and Kira in We the Living, ‘his arms crushed her with the violence of hatred, as if he wanted to grind their coats into shreds against each other.’ In the ‘rape’ scene from The Fountainhead, it is precisely because Roark’s actions are ‘an act of scorn…not love, but defilement,’ that Dominique does, for the first time, ‘lie still and submit.’ In the first love scene between Dagny Taggart and John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny ‘felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers.’(Diana Mertz Brickell, “Sex and Gender Through An Egoist Lens: Masculinity an Femininity in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand”

Well, of course, fans of Rand’s novels understand that she made use of the concepts of dominance and submission as a way to underscore the male and female sex roles. She was simply portraying passionate sex. The founder of Objectivism would never endorse anything as sexually “deviant” as sado-masochism. Right?

Wrong.

“Like most women, and to a greater degree than most, [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…”[Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 231]

Most critics seem to take a fairly dim view of Rand’s somewhat savage erotica, but there are some exceptions. Here is an excerpt from an article by B. O’Hare at braincrave.com:

...There are other reasons to read The Fountainhead, not the least of which is the sex. (Atlas Shrugged will also whet your sexual appetite.) Granted, most don't associate Ayn Rand with eroticism. However, one of the reasons Ayn Rand is so successful at effectively communicating her philosophy, which later came to be known as Objectivism, is because she mixes philosophical proselytizing with drama. And, after all, what's drama without sex?

Of course, neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged compare to the eroticism and violent sexual images found in books such as Pauline Reage's The Story of O or Marquis De Sade's 120 Days of Sodom. But The Fountainhead attacks a sexual topic most wouldn't (sic) consider very controversial: rape.

Was it rape or wasn't it? The answer boils down to whether or not Dominique Francon gave her consent to Howard Roark.

I think Dominique did consent to the sex, wanted it, and even encouraged it through her actions… For example, Ayn Rand writes, "She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help." (p. 216). She goes on: "He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him - and she would have remained cold, untouched by the things done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Later, when Dominique wants to take a bath, she writes: "She turned the light on in the bathroom. She saw herself in a tall mirror. She saw the purple bruises left on her body by his mouth. She heard a moan muffled in her throat, not very loud. It was not the sight, but the sudden flash of knowledge. She knew she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied."

In fact, after Roark leaves, Ayn Rand writes (p. 219): "She could accept, thought Dominique, and come to forget in time everything that had happened to her, save one memory: that she had found pleasure in the thing which had happened, that he had known it, and more: that he had known it before he came to her and that he would not have come but for that knowledge. She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion - she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted and she hated him for it." When Dominique is reading a letter from Alvah Scarret: "She read it and smiled. She thought, if they knew... those people... the old life and that awed reverence before her person. I've been raped... I've been raped by some red-headed hoodlum from a stone quarry... I, Dominique Francon... Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms."

Ayn Rand put the rape on a pedestal, esteeming the ownership and associated "surrender" with high self-esteem. Dominique wanted the sex, she wanted the sex violent, and she wanted the sexual fantasy exactly the way Roark delivered it.

Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you'll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you've felt "owned" and/or you "surrendered?" If not, maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it? Granted, it's not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart. But, then again, I'm not looking for those with either.

On a lighter note, I can’t resist the urge to quote my favorite of the The 25 Most Inappropriate Things An Objectivist Can Say During Sex, by Jason Roth:

“To say 'F*ck me harder' one must first know how to say the 'me'."

The next time you meet someone and discover that they absolutely love the novels of Ayn Rand, you might think twice before assuming that the person knows a damn thing about Objectivism.

Great post, Dennis, and most interesting and the ending link...absolutely hilarious. I do like this comment of his though: "Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you'll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you've felt "owned" and/or you "surrendered?" If not, maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it? Granted, it's not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart."

Although I haven't read the Fountainhead and only reading the few pages leading up to the scene, during the scene, and then after the scene, in my opinion, it wouldn't be considered rape because of what she expressed to herself as well as her thoughts, her actions, and behaviors before, during it, and after it as described by Rand. Her thoughts and desires were made very clear to herself and she was very honest with it -- there was no evasion. Now, it would be a different story if how she acted and her thoughts were the opposite. If she went to the police and told them honestly what she was thinking during it, etc., how she felt about him, and so forth, there wouldn't be much of a case. But if she went in and denied and lied about what she was thinking and feeling for him, then it would no doubt be different.

At any rate, great post and most interesting and great laugh at the end!!

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rape Fantasy or Pseudo Rape Fantasy?

Is it really rape we are talking about when we say... Published on June 13, 2008

This post is a response to Why Do Women Have Erotic Rape Fantasies? by Matthew Hutson I recently read Matt Hutson's excellent post, Why Do Women Have Erotic Rape Fantasies? It got me thinking more about rape fantasies, and why I don't think there's any such thing. That's because when we talk about rape fantasies, we don't define our terms.

If you ask most women who have rape fantasies to describe the man who is "raping" them, you'll find he's not exactly what we picture when we think about the average rapist, unless the guy has been spending six hours a day in the prison weight room or reads Shakespeare to Bubba his cellmate.

Look at the buffed out dude on the book cover that was included to illustrate the Why Do Women Have Erotic Rape Fantasies post. We're talking a serious bodice-ripping hunk. I don't think that's the image that emerges when police or emergency room personnel ask victims of rape to describe the man who just raped them.

The fact is, the guy who is doing the "raping" in a lot of women's fantasies of forced sex is someone who she might want to have sex with anyway. Often missing is the terror, violence, confusion, rage and disgust that makes rape RAPE. The woman with the fantasy is in control by virtue of who she has "raping" her or because she's the one scripting the scenario, while control is the last thing that a woman who is being raped has any of.

Even if the woman's rape fantasy involves her being degraded or humiliated by an anonymous agressor or gang of gross guys with missing front teeth, her fantasy doesn't make her fear men in real life like an acutal rape often does. It doesn't make her afraid to go out of doors.

Even if her fantasy is a way of processing something overwhelming from her past, we would never suggest she walk alone at night in dangerous places to get a firsthand opportunity to enjoy her fantasy. And even if the depth psychologists would say that one part of her mind really is being raped, they still can't get around the caveat that another part of her mind remains in control.

Of course, I'm side-stepping what might be the various cultural, religious and perhaps biological reasons for why so many women have sexual fantasies where they are "taken" by a man instead of being the taker. But unless you are a radical feminist, I think you can see that there's a significant difference between that, and the realities of an actual rape.

So, is it really rape we are talking about when we say a woman has rape fantasies? I don't think so. I would suggest that for most women, "Erotic Rape Fantasy" is a contradiction in terms--even for those women whose fantasies of being raped include terror, degradation and unwanted force.

Here is the link http://www.psychologytoday.com/em/998

Edited by Selene
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted, ND and Angie,

Thank you. I’m glad you enjoyed my post.

I doubt if Ayn Rand would ever have accepted any suggestion that her novels contained erotica.

I think in the Playboy interview she said something like: "I want people to enjoy the sex" (in the novels). I’m sure she said that somewhere.

I skimmed over the Playboy interview and didn’t see that comment. If she did make such a comment, I would be interested to know how the question was phrased.

Her reaction would likely have depended on how the question was put to her. If someone had told her that their favorite parts in her novels were the sex scenes, I think she would have reacted with anger, because it would have implied that the person was stimulated by the prurient aspects of ‘physical’ lust. She would have assumed that the person was taking the sexual descriptions out of the wider context of the values of the two people involved. That’s why I think she would have reacted strongly to the word ‘erotica,’ because it does not normally refer to anything beyond the sex itself. She despised any suggestion of the mind-body split.

But if someone had simply said that they thought the sex scenes were very meaningful and dramatic in the context of the story, then yes, she would have appreciated the compliment.

It’s interesting to note, however, that the ‘rape’ scene in The Fountainhead occurred when Dominique knew absolutely nothing about who Roark was. He was just a muscular, red-headed “hoodlum from the stone quarry.” How is that supposed to represent sex as a “response to values”?

Parenthetically, I will venture to say that I think Objectivism’s view of sex—as represented by Francisco d’Anconia’s speech to Rearden:--‘Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life’—is, shall we say, ridiculously simplistic. No doubt values play an important role in sexual choices, but to say that’s the whole story is just foolish in the extreme. I subscribe to Playboy. I am inclined to think that I do not share the same philosophy of life as all the other thousands of men who look at some of Playboy’s pictorials and think about what they wouldn’t give for a night with some of those women.

If Ayn Rand had been a man, Francisco would never have given that speech.

An interesting anecdote:

In 1964, within months of my initial discovery of Ayn Rand, I went to my first NBI lecture in New York City. It happened to be lecture #16 in “The Basic Principles of Objectivism” course: The Psychology of Sex. After the lecture, Nathaniel Branden took questions while he waited for Ayn Rand to arrive. She was late for some reason, and I remember that he told the audience he would answer some of the questions because he knew what Miss Rand would say. One of the questions was about Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer character. The questioner wanted to know why Mike Hammer was always nailing these beautiful women despite the fact that, in many cases, the women were villains.

Branden said: “That’s easy. Mike was fooled.”

NB, I love you, man, but based on my own experience, a beautiful woman does not need to lift a finger to fool most men, including me. The smaller head will fool the larger one every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, Dennis, and most interesting and the ending link...absolutely hilarious. I do like this comment of his though: "Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you'll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you've felt "owned" and/or you "surrendered?" If not, maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it? Granted, it's not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart."

Although I haven't read the Fountainhead and only reading the few pages leading up to the scene, during the scene, and then after the scene, in my opinion, it wouldn't be considered rape because of what she expressed to herself as well as her thoughts, her actions, and behaviors before, during it, and after it as described by Rand. Her thoughts and desires were made very clear to herself and she was very honest with it -- there was no evasion. Now, it would be a different story if how she acted and her thoughts were the opposite. If she went to the police and told them honestly what she was thinking during it, etc., how she felt about him, and so forth, there wouldn't be much of a case. But if she went in and denied and lied about what she was thinking and feeling for him, then it would no doubt be different.

At any rate, great post and most interesting and great laugh at the end!!

Angie

Hi Angie,

Thank you very much. As you may have guessed, our e-mail discussions inspired this post. You have given me a great deal of insight into female sexual psychology, and for that I will be forever grateful. To find such wonderful candor and feminine wisdom in a woman of your enchanting beauty is thrilling, to say the least.

Dennis

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, Dennis, and most interesting and the ending link...absolutely hilarious. I do like this comment of his though: "Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you'll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you've felt "owned" and/or you "surrendered?" If not, maybe you shouldn't knock it until you've tried it? Granted, it's not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart."

Although I haven't read the Fountainhead and only reading the few pages leading up to the scene, during the scene, and then after the scene, in my opinion, it wouldn't be considered rape because of what she expressed to herself as well as her thoughts, her actions, and behaviors before, during it, and after it as described by Rand. Her thoughts and desires were made very clear to herself and she was very honest with it -- there was no evasion. Now, it would be a different story if how she acted and her thoughts were the opposite. If she went to the police and told them honestly what she was thinking during it, etc., how she felt about him, and so forth, there wouldn't be much of a case. But if she went in and denied and lied about what she was thinking and feeling for him, then it would no doubt be different.

At any rate, great post and most interesting and great laugh at the end!!

Angie

Hi Angie,

Thank you very much. As you may have guessed, our e-mail discussions inspired this post. You have given me a great deal of insight into female sexual psychology, and for that I will be forever grateful. To find such wonderful candor and feminine wisdom in a woman of your enchanting beauty is thrilling, to say the least.

Dennis

You are most welcome and I figured our discussions inspired your post. I'm always very open, honest, I think easy to talk with, and don't mind talking about anything, especially if it furthers understanding not only for myself but others as well as there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings in what I've seen. Obviously, one of the downfalls of not having firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and those who attempt to draw conclusions with it. But given it's such a touchy subject if you will and being still so taboo even in today's society and my being a female and talking about it....anyway.

It is so true that there is a certain vernacular -- as Zader has indicated -- used for those that practice it. Some terms not so readily familiar even for those that do research into it except to those that are into that lifestyle. To my understanding and a few past dealings here on OL, Selene also has knowledge regarding it which is refreshing. I think the biggest issue is that of honesty with yourself, self-awareness, knowing yourself well enough and your limits and there being no evasion regarding it in such matters. For me, it is who I am and won't deny/evade it and will explore all aspects of myself, knowing myself well and understanding why I do what I do, inclusive of that of my own sexuality. As you know I believe, this is an aspect we all should delve into deeper as to the whats and whys and what makes us individuals and uniquely ourselves. What works for one person won't always work for another for whatever reasons.

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

AMEN

err

AWOMEN

also!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angie,

Thank you very much. As you may have guessed, our e-mail discussions inspired this post. You have given me a great deal of insight into female sexual psychology, and for that I will be forever grateful. To find such wonderful candor and feminine wisdom in a woman of your enchanting beauty is thrilling, to say the least.

Dennis

You are most welcome and I figured our discussions inspired your post. I'm always very open, honest, I think easy to talk with, and don't mind talking about anything, especially if it furthers understanding not only for myself but others as well as there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings in what I've seen. Obviously, one of the downfalls of not having firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and those who attempt to draw conclusions with it. But given it's such a touchy subject if you will and being still so taboo even in today's society and my being a female and talking about it....anyway.

It is so true that there is a certain vernacular -- as Zader has indicated -- used for those that practice it. Some terms not so readily familiar even for those that do research into it except to those that are into that lifestyle. To my understanding and a few past dealings here on OL, Selene also has knowledge regarding it which is refreshing. I think the biggest issue is that of honesty with yourself, self-awareness, knowing yourself well enough and your limits and there being no evasion regarding it in such matters. For me, it is who I am and won't deny/evade it and will explore all aspects of myself, knowing myself well and understanding why I do what I do, inclusive of that of my own sexuality. As you know I believe, this is an aspect we all should delve into deeper as to the whats and whys and what makes us individuals and uniquely ourselves. What works for one person won't always work for another for whatever reasons.

Angie

DELVE DEEP OR DIE TRYING...

Do you love ravenous monsters?

I am so bad...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angie,

Thank you very much. As you may have guessed, our e-mail discussions inspired this post. You have given me a great deal of insight into female sexual psychology, and for that I will be forever grateful. To find such wonderful candor and feminine wisdom in a woman of your enchanting beauty is thrilling, to say the least.

Dennis

You are most welcome and I figured our discussions inspired your post. I'm always very open, honest, I think easy to talk with, and don't mind talking about anything, especially if it furthers understanding not only for myself but others as well as there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings in what I've seen. Obviously, one of the downfalls of not having firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and those who attempt to draw conclusions with it. But given it's such a touchy subject if you will and being still so taboo even in today's society and my being a female and talking about it....anyway.

It is so true that there is a certain vernacular -- as Zader has indicated -- used for those that practice it. Some terms not so readily familiar even for those that do research into it except to those that are into that lifestyle. To my understanding and a few past dealings here on OL, Selene also has knowledge regarding it which is refreshing. I think the biggest issue is that of honesty with yourself, self-awareness, knowing yourself well enough and your limits and there being no evasion regarding it in such matters. For me, it is who I am and won't deny/evade it and will explore all aspects of myself, knowing myself well and understanding why I do what I do, inclusive of that of my own sexuality. As you know I believe, this is an aspect we all should delve into deeper as to the whats and whys and what makes us individuals and uniquely ourselves. What works for one person won't always work for another for whatever reasons.

Angie

DELVE DEEP OR DIE TRYING...

Do you love ravenous monsters?

I am so bad...

LMAO....well, now, that's interesting.

I have a quick question regarding the Fountainhead in regards to something you said which is: "It’s interesting to note, however, that the ‘rape’ scene in The Fountainhead occurred when Dominique knew absolutely nothing about who Roark was. He was just a muscular, red-headed “hoodlum from the stone quarry.” How is that supposed to represent sex as a “response to values”?

Since I have not read the Fountainhead, I'm sure you and/or any others may be able to answer this question or adding further insight into the book for me. You mention how is it supposed to be in response to values in regards to your quote above?? I'll be coming from two different angles on this one, one from Roark's perspective and one coming from Dominique's limited perspective it seems, although she is oblivious it seems at this point what his values are as well as "some" of her own but the act of the so-called rape scene helped her identify and define a part of her own sexuality and what she ultimately preferred with sex and thought was right in the male/female sexual roles and ultimately fulfilling sex in how she's always wanted it but so many men in her experience were lacking in this regard with rough sex in her experience but he delivered it in how she wanted it the most which left its indelible mark in her mind. Would make her that much more curious about him. Given her past experiences with men and sex, this is the one act that she will never forget, how it made her feel, her thoughts, her identification -- made her realize how pleasurable it was for her, how passionate sex was for her in this manner. This act alone is what defined it for her in regards to sex and the male/female roles but Dominique's entire philosophical system has yet been defined by her up to this point but she is working on it.

Later on when she realizes who Roark is and what he stood for and that they have the same values, etc., it adds that much more to their relationship obviously and her wanting him that much more....his ultimately becoming her ideal man. As you know, the values and all the ins and outs of it (pardon the pun) can't be handed to a person on a silver platter; they have to come to it on their own...they have to define it on their own and their own journey to attain it and keep it. Although it seems that not all of her values have been defined yet by her, this one aspect has now been defined concretely based on her firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and the similarities and the differences between conventional sex and that of BDSM.

Coming from Roark's perspective, he already knows her values and what she stands for -- wants her that much more because of it. His identification of his own values have already been achieved obviously and he knows what to look for in his ideal woman. Although he may not know her personally, actions and his observations of her actions speak louder than words. Based on this, his already knowing and also observing her, Roark already knows what she stands for -- she is his ideal. It's now a matter of time for her to identify the remainder and realize it on her own, although I am sure he does help her along at some point. But as you know, it's up to the individual and their own fight and struggle. The values aren't identified and defined overnight if you will. Each value is slowly defined as they go along in their day to day life and their own personal struggle/journey. She will eventually get there but it's going to take some time.

Although I have not read the Fountainhead, I am basing this on how I know the system if you will to work and how it happens. So what I said up above may not be entirely correct in how they know each other, etc. I do know though for me and my own personal journey in identifying my values as a kid and teenager and all that happened and this is what I am basing this off of. I do know very clearly the differences between more conventional sex and that of BDSM and the huge differences between the two and ultimately which I prefer the most -- which has brought more passion and a closer bond and connection with that of my partner. Just wanted throw a bit out there and building off the question.

There's a few other areas I would like to comment on but can't right now. Been a very busy weekend. I hope everyone is enjoying the long holiday weekend!!!

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Angie,

Thank you very much. As you may have guessed, our e-mail discussions inspired this post. You have given me a great deal of insight into female sexual psychology, and for that I will be forever grateful. To find such wonderful candor and feminine wisdom in a woman of your enchanting beauty is thrilling, to say the least.

Dennis

You are most welcome and I figured our discussions inspired your post. I'm always very open, honest, I think easy to talk with, and don't mind talking about anything, especially if it furthers understanding not only for myself but others as well as there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings in what I've seen. Obviously, one of the downfalls of not having firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and those who attempt to draw conclusions with it. But given it's such a touchy subject if you will and being still so taboo even in today's society and my being a female and talking about it....anyway.

It is so true that there is a certain vernacular -- as Zader has indicated -- used for those that practice it. Some terms not so readily familiar even for those that do research into it except to those that are into that lifestyle. To my understanding and a few past dealings here on OL, Selene also has knowledge regarding it which is refreshing. I think the biggest issue is that of honesty with yourself, self-awareness, knowing yourself well enough and your limits and there being no evasion regarding it in such matters. For me, it is who I am and won't deny/evade it and will explore all aspects of myself, knowing myself well and understanding why I do what I do, inclusive of that of my own sexuality. As you know I believe, this is an aspect we all should delve into deeper as to the whats and whys and what makes us individuals and uniquely ourselves. What works for one person won't always work for another for whatever reasons.

Angie

DELVE DEEP OR DIE TRYING...

Do you love ravenous monsters?

I am so bad...

LMAO....well, now, that's interesting.

I have a quick question regarding the Fountainhead in regards to something you said which is: "It's interesting to note, however, that the 'rape' scene in The Fountainhead occurred when Dominique knew absolutely nothing about who Roark was. He was just a muscular, red-headed "hoodlum from the stone quarry." How is that supposed to represent sex as a "response to values"?

Since I have not read the Fountainhead, I'm sure you and/or any others may be able to answer this question or adding further insight into the book for me. You mention how is it supposed to be in response to values in regards to your quote above?? I'll be coming from two different angles on this one, one from Roark's perspective and one coming from Dominique's limited perspective it seems, although she is oblivious it seems at this point what his values are as well as "some" of her own but the act of the so-called rape scene helped her identify and define a part of her own sexuality and what she ultimately preferred with sex and thought was right in the male/female sexual roles and ultimately fulfilling sex in how she's always wanted it but so many men in her experience were lacking in this regard with rough sex in her experience but he delivered it in how she wanted it the most which left its indelible mark in her mind. Would make her that much more curious about him. Given her past experiences with men and sex, this is the one act that she will never forget, how it made her feel, her thoughts, her identification -- made her realize how pleasurable it was for her, how passionate sex was for her in this manner. This act alone is what defined it for her in regards to sex and the male/female roles but Dominique's entire philosophical system has yet been defined by her up to this point but she is working on it.

Later on when she realizes who Roark is and what he stood for and that they have the same values, etc., it adds that much more to their relationship obviously and her wanting him that much more....his ultimately becoming her ideal man. As you know, the values and all the ins and outs of it (pardon the pun) can't be handed to a person on a silver platter; they have to come to it on their own...they have to define it on their own and their own journey to attain it and keep it. Although it seems that not all of her values have been defined yet by her, this one aspect has now been defined concretely based on her firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and the similarities and the differences between conventional sex and that of BDSM.

Coming from Roark's perspective, he already knows her values and what she stands for -- wants her that much more because of it. His identification of his own values have already been achieved obviously and he knows what to look for in his ideal woman. Although he may not know her personally, actions and his observations of her actions speak louder than words. Based on this, his already knowing and also observing her, Roark already knows what she stands for -- she is his ideal. It's now a matter of time for her to identify the remainder and realize it on her own, although I am sure he does help her along at some point. But as you know, it's up to the individual and their own fight and struggle. The values aren't identified and defined overnight if you will. Each value is slowly defined as they go along in their day to day life and their own personal struggle/journey. She will eventually get there but it's going to take some time.

Although I have not read the Fountainhead, I am basing this on how I know the system if you will to work and how it happens. So what I said up above may not be entirely correct in how they know each other, etc. I do know though for me and my own personal journey in identifying my values as a kid and teenager and all that happened and this is what I am basing this off of. I do know very clearly the differences between more conventional sex and that of BDSM and the huge differences between the two and ultimately which I prefer the most -- which has brought more passion and a closer bond and connection with that of my partner. Just wanted throw a bit out there and building off the question.

There's a few other areas I would like to comment on but can't right now. Been a very busy weekend. I hope everyone is enjoying the long holiday weekend!!!

Angie

Roark held himself with pride, and had a look of purposeful intelligence, and looked at Dominique with an attitude of ownership.

Rape fantasies have two aspects. The rapist is viewed as physically attractive and hypermasculine. And his desire for the "victim" is so overwhelming that he cannot control himself. Being desired is itself a turn-on, and desired that much even moreso.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted and Angie:

One aspect that has been shared with me by submissives is the total possession by the Dom, with TPE[total power exchange] within a safe, trusting environment and complete non-judgmental acceptance of the submission is super erotic.

The erotic possession is unequaled. Kinda like Eagles mating in a free fall power dive to the Earth.

Truly amazing.

Adam

Post Script:

Remember, Ayn referred to Dominique as "...herself on a bad day!" That has always stuck with me as a key to unlock certain deeper parts of her psyche.

Amazing woman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted:

Roark held himself with pride, and had a look of purposeful intelligence, and looked at Dominique with an attitude of ownership.

Most definitely. The attitude of ownership and possession is an aspect that is heavily used in D/s such as master and slave and other aspects of BDSM. This would be a given as this is what Rand I believe is portraying in many of her descriptions of the sexual acts in her books.

Rape fantasies have two aspects. The rapist is viewed as physically attractive and hypermasculine. And his desire for the "victim" is so overwhelming that he cannot control himself. Being desired is itself a turn-on, and desired that much even moreso.

This one is interesting because is it really considered sex in the way of a woman wanting to be taken forcefully with a man she would consent to anyway and sleep with him because it's something she wants to experience based on her "fantasy." If you have a fantasy, it's something that you want to experience so you will consent to it and in this respect, consent is implied. By definition, rape is non-consensual sex that consists of D/s aspects and S/M aspects as well as in some cases B/D. To me, it seems that what she is ultimately looking for is someone that she is attracted to physically and desires and who is going to take her and dominate her with a degree of force that is acceptable to her, to take control of her and make her submit which is a huge aspect of "rape" and that of BDSM. But to call it a rape fantasy just doesn't make sense as is highlighted in one of Adam's posts. It should be more like she is very much wanting very rough sex and of course the D/s aspects and the S/M aspects of it involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie:

Correct. There is much argument amongst folks in D/s, etc. as to the "rape" "fantasy".

The rule of thumb is that there are no "safe words" in the "rape" scene, but the Dom should be so aware, I would declare hyper aware of every pulse, breath and skin color change of the submissive to be almost one with the submissive.

It is certainly not a game and should not be engaged in except by a couple who is almost blended with each other.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam:

One aspect that has been shared with me by submissives is the total possession by the Dom, with TPE[total power exchange] within a safe, trusting environment and complete non-judgmental acceptance of the submission is super erotic.

Yes, most definitely in this aspect but the key element is being rational and knowing your values as well as his, self-awareness, and knowing your limits, especially of where exactly you place the supreme value and that being her/your own life and whether or not she will allow complete submission in something such as a B/D scene. Communication and trust in your partner, most definitely in a safe, trusting environment as you know where safewords are used if necessary and what you also are aware of as RACK (Risk awareness consensual kink) for those that aren't familiar. This type of lifestyle no doubt is a thinking man's pleasure and requires a lot more thought than conventional sex. As you know, there are people out there that have absolutely no clue what they are doing, non-thinking, and seriously putting themselves in grave danger.

The erotic possession is unequaled.

Very true!!

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie:

Correct. There is much argument amongst folks in D/s, etc. as to the "rape" "fantasy".

The rule of thumb is that there are no "safe words" in the "rape" scene, but the Dom should be so aware, I would declare hyper aware of every pulse, breath and skin color change of the submissive to be almost one with the submissive.

It is certainly not a game and should not be engaged in except by a couple who is almost blended with each other.

Adam

This is an area that should be re-worked and where exactly values are being placed rather than solely in the hand's of your partner as he cannot fully judge what is too much for her, although he may know her extremely well and their being in sync. Her/his ultimate supreme value is their own life and you, her, or I should not submit it entirely to the point you cannot act in accordance of self-preservation and are entirely dependent on another. This scenario and putting your life entirely in the hands of another who cannot fully judge psychological freakout points and pushing them beyond their limits, too much S/M...wow and is as irrational as you can get. Any woman that puts herself into that scenario or man as well does not carry their own life as the supreme value. This type of scenario where safewords and communication is nonexistent or is forbidden is a potential death sentence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie:

Totally agree.

I have worked with the leadership - female - of some D/s groups to increase caution and awareness.

For example, being in a bonded or restrained position and the Domme or Dom has a seizure. Deadly.

Lots of work needs to be done in this area. I would love to see "dead man's" devices used that are similar to what a train brakeman has.

The most unfortunate aspect is in too many jurisdictions, 911 calls are out of the question.

Your suggestions are well received and I will pass them along.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie:

Totally agree.

I have worked with the leadership - female - of some D/s groups to increase caution and awareness.

For example, being in a bonded or restrained position and the Domme or Dom has a seizure. Deadly.

Yes. Or that of your partner having their own health issue and worst case scenario there is nothing you can do other than scream and hope someone comes to your aid. Or if someone with ill-will walks in, there is not much the restrained person can do and to act in self-preservation or an earthquake, etc. They should be able to get out of the situation on their own freewill, easily or with a bit of work of their own.

Lots of work needs to be done in this area. I would love to see "dead man's" devices used that are similar to what a train brakeman has.

I don't practice the more "extreme" aspects of it as is done with some people, although there are a few that are used but are more symbolic of the D/s relationship than what the actual end result is designed for if you will. I don't participate in the BDSM community and actively pursue them, although do on ocassion read the forums geared towards it. For me, when I find a person I am interested in, it's introduced into the relationship as I get to know them better, knowing their values, and so forth. But if I can find another O'ist who does share the same values, even better for me and potentially him as well if he's willing and comfortable with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DELVE DEEP OR DIE TRYING...

Do you love ravenous monsters?

I am so bad...

LMAO....well, now, that's interesting.

I have a quick question regarding the Fountainhead in regards to something you said which is: "It’s interesting to note, however, that the ‘rape’ scene in The Fountainhead occurred when Dominique knew absolutely nothing about who Roark was. He was just a muscular, red-headed “hoodlum from the stone quarry.” How is that supposed to represent sex as a “response to values”?

Since I have not read the Fountainhead, I'm sure you and/or any others may be able to answer this question or adding further insight into the book for me. You mention how is it supposed to be in response to values in regards to your quote above?? I'll be coming from two different angles on this one, one from Roark's perspective and one coming from Dominique's limited perspective it seems, although she is oblivious it seems at this point what his values are as well as "some" of her own but the act of the so-called rape scene helped her identify and define a part of her own sexuality and what she ultimately preferred with sex and thought was right in the male/female sexual roles and ultimately fulfilling sex in how she's always wanted it but so many men in her experience were lacking in this regard with rough sex in her experience but he delivered it in how she wanted it the most which left its indelible mark in her mind. Would make her that much more curious about him. Given her past experiences with men and sex, this is the one act that she will never forget, how it made her feel, her thoughts, her identification -- made her realize how pleasurable it was for her, how passionate sex was for her in this manner. This act alone is what defined it for her in regards to sex and the male/female roles but Dominique's entire philosophical system has yet been defined by her up to this point but she is working on it.

Later on when she realizes who Roark is and what he stood for and that they have the same values, etc., it adds that much more to their relationship obviously and her wanting him that much more....his ultimately becoming her ideal man. As you know, the values and all the ins and outs of it (pardon the pun) can't be handed to a person on a silver platter; they have to come to it on their own...they have to define it on their own and their own journey to attain it and keep it. Although it seems that not all of her values have been defined yet by her, this one aspect has now been defined concretely based on her firsthand knowledge, experience, and understanding and the similarities and the differences between conventional sex and that of BDSM.

Coming from Roark's perspective, he already knows her values and what she stands for -- wants her that much more because of it. His identification of his own values have already been achieved obviously and he knows what to look for in his ideal woman. Although he may not know her personally, actions and his observations of her actions speak louder than words. Based on this, his already knowing and also observing her, Roark already knows what she stands for -- she is his ideal. It's now a matter of time for her to identify the remainder and realize it on her own, although I am sure he does help her along at some point. But as you know, it's up to the individual and their own fight and struggle. The values aren't identified and defined overnight if you will. Each value is slowly defined as they go along in their day to day life and their own personal struggle/journey. She will eventually get there but it's going to take some time.

Although I have not read the Fountainhead, I am basing this on how I know the system if you will to work and how it happens. So what I said up above may not be entirely correct in how they know each other, etc. I do know though for me and my own personal journey in identifying my values as a kid and teenager and all that happened and this is what I am basing this off of. I do know very clearly the differences between more conventional sex and that of BDSM and the huge differences between the two and ultimately which I prefer the most -- which has brought more passion and a closer bond and connection with that of my partner. Just wanted throw a bit out there and building off the question.

There's a few other areas I would like to comment on but can't right now. Been a very busy weekend. I hope everyone is enjoying the long holiday weekend!!!

Angie

Hi Angie,

To begin with, Ayn Rand did not consider what Roark did to Dominique as “rape.” She stated this in a Q&A session following an NBI lecture on sex (the same lecture I referred to in an earlier post). Ayn Rand felt that Dominique had given Roark permission to do everything he did. It was Dominique who wanted to think of their sexual episode as rape.

The story sequence is as follows. Dominique sees Roark working at the quarry and obviously likes what she sees. She deliberately scratches her marble fireplace and requests that he come to her home to replace it. Roark takes one look at the fireplace and knows what she’s up to. Because the scratch is relatively minor, he takes a hammer and smashes it, then turns to her and says: “Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.” She clearly expects him to be the one to set the new marble, but Roark sends a co-worker instead, knowing how she she will react. So obviously, you can see there is a great deal of nonverbal communication going on here, long before the alleged ‘rape.’ Dominique rides her horse to the quarry and finds Roark walking along the road. She stops and angrily asks why he didn’t come to replace the marble. Roark plays dumb, telling her that he didn’t think it would matter who did the job. Dominique then slashes Roark across the face with her horsewhip and rides off.

Ayn Rand felt that Dominique’s act of slashing Roark in the face was her advance consent to whatever he cared to do with her. So what happened between them on the night that he broke into her bedroom was really not “rape.” But again, Dominique enjoyed thinking of it that way.

You can surmise that, prior to the rape, almost all of the communiction between Roark and Dominique was nonverbal. She clearly projected a strong attraction to him, while he acted aloof and oblivious. She responded to his physical strength and his self-confidence in the way he spoke and carried himself. He, on the other hand, obviously found her extremely beautiful and sexually desirable. Her defiant manner was also undoubtedly a source of her appeal to him. I don’t think there is any way to read more into their mutual attraction beyond that kind of visceral sexual chemistry. He knew she was the rich daughter of a famous architect, but he did not know anything about her character or values. She is not in any sense, at that point, his “ideal woman.”

The sex becomes violent because she resists him at first, even to the point of hitting and scratching him. That was Roark’s cue to use his superior physical strength to force her to submit, knowing this was what she wanted. The sexual intercourse which ensued was obviously very rough and aggressive, and Roark clearly relished making her do exactly what he wanted, making her acquiesce to his every whim, using his physical prowess to take her to the limits of what a woman can endure. That’s the BDSM aspect, although obviously he simply used his own body without the need for any ‘accessories.’ His body was a tool for mercilessly violating, ravaging and tormenting her, subjugating her totally, driving her into a state of helpless, anguished bliss. (Sorry. I got a little carried away there...)

As you say, the sensual violence of their sexual interaction is what defines his importance to her initially—“,this is the one act that she will never forget, how it made her feel, her thoughts, her identification -- made her realize how pleasurable it was for her, how passionate sex was for her in this manner.” This is all she knows of him, but, consistent with your description of BDSM, their “unconventional” sex clearly bonds her to him in a very powerful way. The next day, despite some difficulty walking :rolleyes: , she goes to the quarry to try to find him, but he has gone.

It is not until they meet again later in the novel that their values really begin to come into play. As you guessed, their gradual discovery of mutually shared values strengthens their relationship as the story progresses.

I hope this helps to clarify your questions.

Dennis

Edited by Dennis Hardin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Hi Angie,

To begin with, Ayn Rand did not consider what Roark did to Dominique as “rape.” She stated this in a Q&A session following an NBI lecture on sex (the same lecture I referred to in an earlier post). Ayn Rand felt that Dominique had given Roark permission to do everything he did. It was Dominique who wanted to think of their sexual episode as rape.

Well, that's interesting that Rand in the Q & A session says that she didn't consider it "rape." But states at some point that it was "Rape by engraved invitation," or some such deal. Interesting....

The story sequence is as follows. Dominique sees Roark working at the quarry and obviously likes what she sees. She deliberately scratches her marble fireplace and requests that he come to her home to replace it. Roark takes one look at the fireplace and knows what she’s up to. Because the scratch is relatively minor, he takes a hammer and smashes it, then turns to her and says: “Now it’s broken and has to be replaced.” She clearly expects him to be the one to set the new marble, but Roark sends a co-worker instead, knowing how she she will react. So obviously, you can see there is a great deal of nonverbal communication going on here, long before the alleged ‘rape.’ Dominique rides her horse to the quarry and finds Roark walking along the road. She stops and angrily asks why he didn’t come to replace the marble. Roark plays dumb, telling her that he didn’t think it would matter who did the job. Dominique then slashes Roark across the face with her horsewhip and rides off.

Ayn Rand felt that Dominique’s act of slashing Roark in the face was her advance consent to whatever he cared to do with her. So what happened between them on the night that he broke into her bedroom was really not “rape.” But again, Dominique enjoyed thinking of it that way.

You can surmise that, prior to the rape, almost all of the communiction between Roark and Dominique was nonverbal. She clearly projected a strong attraction to him, while he acted aloof and oblivious. She responded to his physical strength and his self-confidence in the way he spoke and carried himself. He, on the other hand, obviously found her extremely beautiful and sexually desirable. Her defiant manner was also undoubtedly a source of her appeal to him. I don’t think there is any way to read more into their mutual attraction beyond that kind of visceral sexual chemistry. He knew she was the rich daughter of a famous architect, but he did not know anything about her character or values. She is not in any sense, at that point, his “ideal woman.”

Very interesting and an eyebrow raiser. I will be reading the Fountainhead very soon and the reason being is I want to know all the events leading up to this scene and any interactions and more details, behaviors, observations, etc., displayed by both. But I do see where they both are coming from in reading body language and can gauge a person's self-esteem and self-confidence by this which gives insight of their values and where they place themselves by how they speak and carry themselves as this is a huge attractant for myself and many other women I know, not all though, when it comes to men. There is more to it obviously and not so superficial if you will. I know hard to convey it all in just a few paragraphs. I know my impressions at the screening wherein this was touched on a bit is slightly different in what I saw and heard and curious for further clarification and verification.

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie and Dennis:

Out of curiosity, did either of you see the movie?

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie and Dennis:

Out of curiosity, did either of you see the movie?

Adam

I haven't seen the movie. I would watch it but more interested in reading the book as the book will reveal a lot more than an adaptation to film would. I do enjoy watching movies but books are always so much better and enjoy reading rather than watching a film where they've had to leave out or have left out crucial pieces that they didn't think was important but may be important to the observer if you will. Also, how one person interprets/percieves it may be quite different than another's perception. In reading it, I may understand it entirely different or I may pick up things that another reader may not have picked up on or has overlooked for whatever reason. I'm not saying this is the case with Dennis and his missing pieces or overlooking something. It's just the way we all are; ie, their overlooking crucial pieces that builds on and up to the rest, they've misunderstood what they've read or they're concentrating on one area because it appeals to them the most or what rings true for them and puts a piece of the puzzle for them together, their potential emotional attachments, etc., etc.

Similar to the so-called rape scene, I'm not basing my opinions on what I've read from others' perspectives. I'm basing it on what I read in the book and these pages being posted on websites. I would much rather hear it from the horse's mouth, although there does seem to be many many opinions that are similar to that of Dennis' that I've read which gives consistency. But again, there may be many aspects well before the scene that highlights certain areas that others may overlook because they don't think it is connected when in reality it may be connected and building up to it.

Angie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Angie:

Understood.

I would suggest that you see the movie after you read the book though.

I thought Patricia and Cooper handled that scene well especially Patricia Neal's incredible eyes!

I am a big eye contact person.

Just this morning I was meeting a client in Elisabeth and as I was walking to meet him, as I usually do, I make eye contact with every stranger I pass.

More than 70% of them react with a smile or nod and some with an actual good morning!

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now